Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Abomination:
Tactical civility is far more likely to create a positive outcome than calling people pro-rape/nazi/racism and any other social ill under the sun. Civility might convince some people, the other will cause others to dig their heels in.

Quite frankly, civility is meaningless. It is only good for maybe nudging a close friend in one direction after a conversation, which sure, isn't nothing. However, in terms of effecting the kind of mass political change we need in this country, it is neigh uesless.

And quite frankly, call me crazy, but I don't think some racist redneck in rural Appalachia will vote against a politician that promises a program that will hugely benefit him (like, say, universal healthcare) just because some random teen in a new york suburb called him racist on facebook. Somehow, I don't think most people are that dedicated to their hate.

Shadowstar38:
"You people" as in the one's responding to me. Saelune. Undead. Breatfastman. Some other forth guy from the last page. Not the left as a whole. The people who decided to turn this from a general conversation about civility to wanting to educate me about the evils of the United States government as if I don't watch the news. Yeah. Trump and the Republicans do fucked up shit? What else is new? Didn't dispute it. Didn't defend it. Didn't say we shouldn't condemn it.

Holding the general populace to the same standards as the people who are in charge is ridiculous though. The American political system is absolutely fucked. Everybody knows this, but at the same time they want to act like the right answer at the voting booth is a clear cut choice and shame people for not towing the line. I have to assume they've never interacted with Conservative's in real life. Otherwise we'd be treating them like human beings and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

And yes. I gave up on civil discourse around the time someone insinuated I didn't care about child rape. That's a really stupid thing to accuse someone of over a small disagreement.

Alright, I can appreciate this. Thank you for taking the time out to respond to me, I know you're beset around here.

Personally, I've discussed this in several threads over the years of Trump being in office. I don't particularly think Republicans are bad. In fact, I always want opposition (not violent, of course) to my thoughts to force me to think about them. To be better with how I go about things. I believe in checks and balances.

I think Fiscal Republicans or even Moderate Republicans NEED to make their own subsect. Like the Progressives from the Corporate Democrats. There are conversations to be had. But the current main political parties on both sides are becoming cartoon caricatures of what they once stood by. I could no longer stand the Corporate being toothless while they let opportunity and chance whiz by them because they didn't want to seem uncooth or malicious.

And it will be the first step of having a multi-tiered voting party. Over night, instead of only 2 choices, there will be four. It will force every candidate to listen and to give on some things to appease most Americans.

There are certain things I can not give any ground on. Trump doing his best to undermine Civil Rights, Putting his opinion on the environment over Science's findings, and what have you. It's clear to say that these things are significantly harmful to everyone. And as the party still in power, the dragging the feet simply comes across as not caring about humanity as much as

Is it fair? Somewhat. Not everyone in the Republican Party believes in it, but the simple fact is that Political leaders aren't born in the ether. They are crafted, by themselves or the party, to be an amalgamation of what the zeitgeist of the world is now. Simply put, you wouldn't have a Hyde-Smith running to represent the Democratic populous. They wouldn't stand for it.

That fact that people like her and DeSantis, DeVos, Pruitt, Hunter, Nunes, Cruz, etc are continually put up for vote or selected by the current Administration to represent the Republican values... normally turn out to be loathsome people on the positive end, or out right crooks on the negative end.

It's hard to be on the outside of the party, see this, and then wonder if Republicans take their own advice. You know, the advice about Hillary and why we have the 45th that we do have? The Republican representation we have now can be summed up as the word 'Contentious'. But it is what's voted in. These representatives are what the party molded these people to be because they read the populous and sent them off into the world.

And then they were voted in. Everyone can point to how unhinged the Corporate Democrats are. Believe me, it's easy. But personal choices does come into account. And it starts by doing ground root campaigns to make sure worthwhile representatives are able to get into the limelight.

After the midterms, we have Congresswoman Jahana Hayes who was a teacher who became the first Black Woman that CT elected into Congress. Tony Evers who stopped being a superintendent to become the Governor of WI. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who championed her causes, had the passion, and became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Hell, the first two Muslim CongressWomen came about because they excited the people, and the people backed them.

And there are many other victories that didn't stem from the Corporation stable. Not all, sadly, but enough to show that this is a growing movement. That people with Left-leanings will not adhere to the Corporate Democrat as if they are the only game in town.

Republicans do not have to continually vote for the dregs because they put on the traditions as their oly choice. I know you can find moral Republicans because moral republicans exist. But if the party still only backs from the same poisoned well, there will be no surprise that it will seemingly get worse and worse as the time goes on.

Shadowstar38:
So what I've gathered so far is

Until Democrats are in charge of the country, they can do no wrong and they have no room for improvement. And every single Conservative in the country is literally Satan and we should commit genocide against them. Have I covered all the bases?

Kind of making undeadsuitor's point about claiming to be "liberal" but caring more about your bruised feelings than liberal politics. If your response is to resort to histrionics because you don't get your way, maybe stop.

But okay, let me state the obvious. Rape is bad M'kay. Don't rape kids. It's not cool. Will that suffice?

No. Because pretty much every one of the child molesters who's been But okay, let me state the obvious. Rape is bad M'kay. Don't rape kids. It's not cool. Will that suffice The problem is, you're going on to defend the people who keep the baby rapers in positions of power. Saying "don't rape kids" really isn't enough. Actions are kind of important, and if your actions are to go on screeching about liberal bubbles in defense of people who abuse children, then your words are meaningless.

The alt-right has a list of male feminists who have gone on to do horrible things, from sexual harassment to shooting an intimate partner in the head multiple times. While they're likely doing it for the wrong reasons, the trend that these people are hypocrites and should not be tolerated in feminist circles is a legit issue, and the problem is that a lot of them were. They became missing stairs.

In the same sense, if you claim one thing, but then take actions to undermine that thing by keeping people in power, then your words on the matter are utterly meaningless.

So here's a thought. If the Democrats are the last bastion of hope here, force them to be less insane and actually earn the trust of more voters.

You mean the party that routinely gets the majority/plurality of votes needs to do more to reach out to voters? Dems just had record gains this last year, which you might understand if you looked at the numbers instead of reading headlines from your bubble (irony, much). The numbers very much favor the left.

If properly challenged with facts and instead of emotion, then you have someone to support you.

Weird how your responses are one giant appeal to emotion, then. The data indicates that people are okay with the left, but you're insisting otherwise because you don't feeeeeeel they're being sane and reaching out.

Shadowstar38:

And if you insist on throwing godwins law into the equation, you need a therapist or some medication.

Hey! It's not our fault that calling a fascist "fascist" sounds overblown and absurd. Logic and facts imply that calling people for the way they act is the rational way to discuss. But the moment you hear someone being called a Nazi, the thought "is that person promoting or practicing palingenetic ultranationalism?" doesn't seem to even cross your mind.

Shadowstar38:

Holding the general populace to the same standards as the people who are in charge is ridiculous though. The American political system is absolutely fucked. Everybody knows this, but at the same time they want to act like the right answer at the voting booth is a clear cut choice and shame people for not towing the line.

There is a clear choice. Don't vote for republicans unless you are completely immoral. Around 80% of the country doesn't.

BreakfastMan:
There is a clear choice. Don't vote for republicans unless you are completely immoral. Around 80% of the country doesn't.

Despite Shadowstar's prior gotcha, I'd rather people not vote than vote for the scum that's been popular.

One of the big problems is that Republican politics are incredibly unpopular with the bulk of Americans, and very popular specifically with Republicans.

Something Amyss:
Weird how your responses are one giant appeal to emotion, then. The data indicates that people are okay with the left, but you're insisting otherwise because you don't feeeeeeel they're being sane and reaching out.

Also this whole "Challenge them with facts not emotions" line of thinking doesn't do a damn bit of good for people who will be shown every single fact and still outright ignore it or decry them as lies. See: Climate change deniers, we still have flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, Young Earth Creationists, numerous conspiracy nuts, Holocaust deniers, and many Trump supporters - who often fall under these other banners of anti-intellectualism.

For a significant chunk of the US population facts just don't matter. So how exactly are we supposed to deal with people who will deny reality and continue to spout objectively wrong info and ideas? They're beyond education or appeals to sensibility or even emotional appeals. Many of the potential "solutions" are morally reprehensible in a civilized society, but it's absolutely impossible to suppress and prevent the spread of disinformation and lies.

Dr. Thrax:

For a significant chunk of the US population facts just don't matter. So how exactly are we supposed to deal with people who will deny reality and continue to spout objectively wrong info and ideas? They're beyond education or appeals to sensibility or even emotional appeals.

Now, call me crazy, but perhaps we could make an appeal to these people's material interests? I dunno, just a thought...

BreakfastMan:
Now, call me crazy, but perhaps we could make an appeal to these people's material interests? I dunno, just a thought...

I mean, we already are. Universal healthcare so people don't have to go broke if they need a doctor, or so that they can take better care of themselves. Universal education so they can go to school without breaking the bank to get that degree they want. Livable wages/Universal Basic Income = we want you to have more money, and yet people still vote against their own interests and throw it all off as just "giving handouts" and "rewarding laziness". You cannot appeal to these people on any kind of a leftist platform that isn't more of the same right-of-center BS.

Dr. Thrax:

BreakfastMan:
Now, call me crazy, but perhaps we could make an appeal to these people's material interests? I dunno, just a thought...

I mean, we already are.

We really aren't. Bernie campaigned on that stuff, but Hilary didn't. Half the democratic party doesn't, the most a lot of them campaign on is "make obamacare slightly better".

BreakfastMan:
We really aren't. Bernie campaigned on that stuff, but Hilary didn't. Half the democratic party doesn't, the most a lot of them campaign on is "make obamacare slightly better".

I mean "we" as in "A good chunk of us on the left" are, the Democratic Party itself - the Establishment - isn't, and won't because they benefit too much from the status quo and are too busy utilizing incrementalism to keep Establishment supporters appeased. But again, you're not going to earn the trust of people who suck on the teat of Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Trump, et al on a leftist platform, they're too busy trying to turn "liberal" into a pejorative and be outraged at the newest piece of disinformation.

Dr. Thrax:

Something Amyss:
Weird how your responses are one giant appeal to emotion, then. The data indicates that people are okay with the left, but you're insisting otherwise because you don't feeeeeeel they're being sane and reaching out.

Also this whole "Challenge them with facts not emotions" line of thinking doesn't do a damn bit of good for people who will be shown every single fact and still outright ignore it or decry them as lies. See: Climate change deniers, we still have flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, Young Earth Creationists, numerous conspiracy nuts, Holocaust deniers, and many Trump supporters - who often fall under these other banners of anti-intellectualism.

For a significant chunk of the US population facts just don't matter. So how exactly are we supposed to deal with people who will deny reality and continue to spout objectively wrong info and ideas? They're beyond education or appeals to sensibility or even emotional appeals. Many of the potential "solutions" are morally reprehensible in a civilized society, but it's absolutely impossible to suppress and prevent the spread of disinformation and lies.

I mean, I do agree, but I think it's telling that the people who always try and argue the FACTS and not EMOTIONS are routinely the most emotional. The FEELS BEFORE REALS crowds has always been the most likely to put their feelings before reality.

And part of the reality is that we're not inherently rational beings. We're wired in all sorts of funky ways that helped keep our ancestors alive and our tribe strong. The logicbros talk a good fight, but they're usually victims of the same mistakes.

I mean, we already are. Universal healthcare so people don't have to go broke if they need a doctor, or so that they can take better care of themselves. Universal education so they can go to school without breaking the bank to get that degree they want. Livable wages/Universal Basic Income = we want you to have more money, and yet people still vote against their own interests and throw it all off as just "giving handouts" and "rewarding laziness". You cannot appeal to these people on any kind of a leftist platform that isn't more of the same right-of-center BS.

There was an article recently about a county that had flipped red for Trump in 2016, where the jobs were all going bye-bye. I think it was due to coal, but there's so many industries Trump is killing, it's hard to tell. Anyway, the thrust of the article was that residents blamed corporate greed but didn't want to hear about how they had picked wrong. Trump said he was going to make America something something and by gawd, you can't sit here and tell us that loosening restrictions on corporations led to this loss I blame on corporate gred!

The GOP has been running on this for years, though, and it's not surprising. The Dems are coming to take your jobs (put us in charge so we can send them overseas and replace you with a machine) your way of life (elect us so we can force you to adopts our way of life) and your guns (okay, those are safe) and it really doesn't matter if you have the most milquetoast moderate Democrat, these are still going to ring true. Obama was going to take away our guns for eight years straight, along with installing Sharia Law and requiring all Americans to be gay or some such, despite politics that were...pretty mild. The dialogue of the extremist left is more important than what the left is doing, to the point that even when people agree with liberal policy, they will oppose it.

The Affordable Care Act is one such thing, where most conservatives even supported the tenets unless you brought up the word OBAMACARE. Oh, that dread Obama, who was going to put grammy in a death camp because of socialism.

People want job security, but we see them vote for people who want to take away their jobs in the name of the bottom line. People want health care, but will vote for the people who take away their health care. People want integrity, then vote for a reality show celebrity.

And kind of worse than that, something we see right in this thread: I want the Republicans to lose, but you hurt my feelz and so I will vote to spite you!

At this point, I'm not even sure it matters if this is sincere, because either way, it puts responsibility for one's actions on someone else.

Dr. Thrax:
For a significant chunk of the US population facts just don't matter. So how exactly are we supposed to deal with people who will deny reality and continue to spout objectively wrong info and ideas? They're beyond education or appeals to sensibility or even emotional appeals. Many of the potential "solutions" are morally reprehensible in a civilized society, but it's absolutely impossible to suppress and prevent the spread of disinformation and lies.

More science and math in school and earlier.

Kids need to learn by heart that stuff can be right and can be wrong and that proofs are how you find out which it is and that it doesn't matter at all what your opinion about the fact is or who shows the proof.

Scientific thinking is something that can be learned. And adapting that mindset is even more important than learning the facts themself.

And yes, that means this whole "all opinions are valid"-stuff needs to leave schools. Children are not really able to distinguish well between opinion and fact.

Satinavian:
More science and math in school and earlier..

So, have you ever noticed that the people who say things like "facts don't care about your feelings" tend to have really weird opinions..

The reason for that is that there is a difference between rationalism, which is what you seem to mean by "scientific thinking" and "critical thinking", which is in many ways kind of opposed to rationalism.

Teaching children that science is about "facts" and being right or wrong is not preparing them for the reality of science or knowledge

In actual, real science, there often is a plurality of perspectives or opinions. Even when two people have access to the data, they might still come out with a completely different interpretation of that data, which are effectively personal opinions. This plurality is not a flaw, it's actually how science is (on paper) supposed to work. The different perspectives and theories play off each other dialectically, and the result over time is that the stronger and more explanatory theories win out over weaker ones. Teaching children that science always has a clear right and wrong answer isn't preparing them to navigate a world of differing perspectives, it isn't preparing them to recognize science from pseudoscience. It's teaching them to pick a "scientific" or pseudoscientific opinion which matches their opinions and declare that it must be true.

The reason teachers try to encourage kids to value their opinions is not some secret plot to make them incapable of reason, but to prepare them for an intellectual environment in which having a diversity of perspectives is actually a strength.

Teaching children that there is always a single perspective degrades their ability to to understand why an argument is right or wrong

In mathematics, the outcome is always the same regardless of individual perspective. 2 + 2 = 4. Any person with access to the same rules and the same information can reach the same result.

Now, let's apply the same to a social issue, like racism. Jim has never experienced racism. He therefore concludes quite appropriately that racism doesn't really exist and shouldn't require action to deal with. Charles disagrees with Jim. He's experienced a lot of racism, and therefore concludes that racism is important and required action to address. Both of these perspectives are internally reasonable, but they produce a different result.

To get past their disagreement, the two must empathize with each other and try to understand why the other person thinks as they do, they must see their own arguments from someone else's perspective. Mathematics or a rigid, dogmatic approach to scientific "facts" is not going to help them do that, in fact it teaches them entirely the wrong lesson, that a reasonable perspective can be generalised and that a person who disagrees with a reasonable perspective must be unreasonable or not worth considering.

In real life, we must often consider how people's cognitive biases and individual experiences shape their perspective, or even how our own cognitive biases can shape our own perspectives, so that we understand why a position is reasonable or unreasonable.

Critical thinking is not about recognising facts from opinions, it's about recognising reasonable and unreasonable beliefs

At what point does something become a fact?

Is it when someone comes out with a single piece of data or evidence that suggests something?

Is it when there is literally no debate as to the meaning of the evidence?

Is it when someone in a position of sufficient authority decides that the evidence has spoken, or when a suitable majority of such people decide?

See, what I'm getting at is that the line between what is a fact and what is an opinion is an opinion, and its an opinion which often comes down in practice to consensus and appeals to authority. A hundred years ago, almost everyone believed that racial differences in intelligence and character were a fact, they had been proven by generations of racial scientists who clearly had the proofs. 2 + 2 = 4.

To realise how wrong that was, we had to step back and ask the important question of what counts as "proof", and whether previous proofs could be trusted. We needed to examine the process of how something goes from being an opinion to being a fact, and we needed to examine it critically, to understand how that process could be shaped or manipulated. Blind trust in the value of "proof" was absolutely no help in that regard.

Rather than teaching children that what they learn in school is right because it's been "prooven" or is a fact, we should be teaching them about how to recognise a reasonable belief from an unreasonable ones. In practice, this comes down to teaching children quite directly about ideological manipulation and how to recognize it, including how things can be represented as "scientific facts". We should be teaching them to hold their own beliefs at critical distance in case they turn out not to be reasonable, not go down fighting trying to defend them as "facts".

Teaching kids that "facts" are fixed and can be clearly recognised is how you end up with people saying "there are only two genders" because of what they learned in high-school sex education classes, and getting all their political opinions from blogs with names like "the brain zone".

Satinavian:
More science and math in school and earlier.

Kids need to learn by heart that stuff can be right and can be wrong and that proofs are how you find out which it is and that it doesn't matter at all what your opinion about the fact is or who shows the proof.

Scientific thinking is something that can be learned. And adapting that mindset is even more important than learning the facts themself.

And yes, that means this whole "all opinions are valid"-stuff needs to leave schools. Children are not really able to distinguish well between opinion and fact.

And what's to stop parents from sabotaging this learning? Kids are more likely to trust their parents than teachers so if Mommy and Daddy say that Ms. Lewis is wrong then there's literally nothing you can do about it. A significant portion of a child's learning is at home, and if their parents/guardians aren't teaching them or are teaching them falsehoods the only thing you can do is pray that the kid wises up when they get older.

Satinavian:
More science and math in school and earlier.

Kids need to learn by heart that stuff can be right and can be wrong and that proofs are how you find out which it is and that it doesn't matter at all what your opinion about the fact is or who shows the proof.

Evilthecat already nailed this one, but I'll provide an anecdote that I find highlights this really well:
I've got a friend that's a pretty bright guy, he's undoubtedly smart and eloquent and he's always been firmly in the "STEM subjects are more important than soft science and art bullshit"-camp. This guy is a teacher these days (in language and history, ironically) and has been working a lot with immigrant children these last few years. He told me a story a few weeks ago about how he had been working on an integration project for these immigrant students for a while and a part of that was having the students do an art project to describe their own day to day life. One of the students did a short play, mostly silent since he didn't speak Swedish very well, and it was shown to the Swedish students at the school. In the words of my friend: "I've never seen a bunch of teenagers really understand how different someone else can live until I saw their reactions to the play". After this, my friend admitted that he's revised his stance on how unimportant teaching the arts to students are, because he's seen first hand how well performed arts can cause the same kinds of revelations and understanding as STEM subjects.

STEM is important, sure, but you should never underestimate the ability to express, see and understand differences among individuals. Psychology, drama and all the other soft subjects might seem fussy and incoherent, but when applied well they will teach you more about other people then STEM ever will. The problem today is not that people have different opinions or doesn't understand how to evaluate facts, the problem is that people are becoming less and less accepting (again) of different people and different opinions. That's not solved by more math, that's solved by more arts and humanities.

Dr. Thrax:
And what's to stop parents from sabotaging this learning? Kids are more likely to trust their parents than teachers so if Mommy and Daddy say that Ms. Lewis is wrong then there's literally nothing you can do about it. A significant portion of a child's learning is at home, and if their parents/guardians aren't teaching them or are teaching them falsehoods the only thing you can do is pray that the kid wises up when they get older.

It not so much about learning that the Earth is not flat in school.

It is learning about how you can prove things like sin?x+cos?x=1. That there are facts and they can be objectively true or false. And that proofs matter, not opinions about facts.

Parents won't sabotage that. But it is the basis to being later receptable to scientific arguments.

Gethsemani:
The problem today is not that people have different opinions or doesn't understand how to evaluate facts, the problem is that people are becoming less and less accepting (again) of different people and different opinions. That's not solved by more math, that's solved by more arts and humanities.

Not really disagreeing with you on the value of the other subjects for understanding people. Just this is not the problem discussed atm. Arts and humanities have their uses, but won't really help against flat earth believers or creationists. Different problems, different tools.

I don't even want to argue which is the more pressing problem.

Satinavian:
Not really disagreeing with you on the value of the other subjects for understanding people. Just this is not the problem discussed atm. Arts and humanities have their uses, but won't really help against flat earth believers or creationists. Different problems, different tools.

I don't even want to argue which is the more pressing problem.

I feel like we're working off a different paradigm.

Who cares about Flat Earthers? Who really even cares about Creationists any more? I mean, even in the US Creationism hasn't really been on the agenda since the Bush administration.

Nowadays, the people the right are throwing dog whistles to aren't fundamentalist Christians who want to ban teaching evolution in schools, it's racists, sexists and homophobes who think that science prooves white people are superior to everyone else, or that gay people are going against evolution.

Maybe it's just me, but still being worried about creationists just seems really naive. We got bigger problems.

Satinavian:
More science and math in school and earlier.

There's only one party in America that supports more schooling, if only because the other side has been systematically dismantling that exact sort of public education. And why is that? Because the critical thinking you and Evil are mentioning would make it harder for them to hold onto power.

But that's all beside the point, I just wanted to add something to what I really wanted to say so that I'm at least not as bad as the page counter. My real reason being:

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha holy shit people are still not understanding the Nazi stuff. That whole bit with Shadow straight up lying, whew. Good stuff.

Satinavian:
It not so much about learning that the Earth is not flat in school.

It is learning about how you can prove things like sin?x+cos?x=1. That there are facts and they can be objectively true or false. And that proofs matter, not opinions about facts.

Parents won't sabotage that. But it is the basis to being later receptable to scientific arguments.

Parent's will and already have. Critical thinking skills are a threat to a lot of right-wing ideologies, and a skill like this needs to be reinforced at home, especially if we're trying to apply this to younger children. A child is not going to have the kind of critical thinking ability to prove complex ideas and problems, especially if they're being fed tainted ideas and "proof" from their parents. And it's easy to find "proof" for just about anything you want these days on the internet, kids won't be able to tell the difference between bullshit and reality.

This line of thinking is incredibly naive and ignores the plethora of self-proclaimed intellectuals, both online and offline, who boast about how objective and factual they are while simultaneously being objectively wrong, and when pointed towards the facts that prove them wrong, they attack the evidence as false.

In the current climate, you cannot simply "educate" ignorance out of existence, you need to deal with the sources of ignorance and there is no morally acceptable way to "deal" with it. But we are going to have to make a choice in the future of if we're going to deal with it or if we're going to do nothing and fall into the paradox of tolerance.

Satinavian:
More science and math in school and earlier.

We tried that like twenty years ago and it may be in part responsible for the logicbro problem we have now.

Kids need to learn by heart that stuff can be right and can be wrong and that proofs are how you find out which it is and that it doesn't matter at all what your opinion about the fact is or who shows the proof.

Scientific thinking is something that can be learned. And adapting that mindset is even more important than learning the facts themself.

Science doesn't deal in proofs, though. all science is tentative based on our current understanding. The heart of scientific thinking is the understanding that we can be wrong, and the advancement of ways to test our reality. What you seem to want here opens the door to the exact sort of indoctrination that conservatives claim schools use to turn kids liberal, and exactly the sort of thinking that can backfire, because once you learn something is a "fact" it becomes harder to unlearn it.

One of the most exciting things about science is discovering something not just new, but something that alters our current understanding. This is why it's important to not conflate evidence with "proof."

And yes, that means this whole "all opinions are valid"-stuff needs to leave schools. Children are not really able to distinguish well between opinion and fact.

This has nothing to do with age. We've evolved with pattern biases and a tendency towards believing we are right, whether or not we're correct.

Veering back on topic...I was just reminded of a library dedicated to Michelle Obama that was vandalised by the right. And the thing is, the civility folks aren't anywhere to be found on this one. A crime has been committed along political and ideological lines, and the calls for civility vanish faster than a group of ninja in a Hollywood flick.

There is a very real problem at the root of this topic, in that we have one side that's expected to be without sin and one side for which it is acceptable to commit acts of vandalism, violence, etc. We rarely see a Proud Boys assault met with cries for civility, but even peaceful protests on the left are treated like wild animals that need to be put down and we clutch our pearls and the cries go out for civility.

Obstructionist Mitch McConnell called for bipartisanship in an op-ed recently. A man who has bragged about obstructing during multiple administrations looked at the loss of the House majority and suddenly decided people need to be bipartisan, and that's almost certainly going to turn into "do things our way."

We can argue until we're blue in the face over whether we should "stoop to their level" or not, but this is civility being used as a tool of oppression. I don't even really know how to solve it, but it starts with holding the people doing this accountable for what they're doing. I'm not saying obsctruct Congress, but McConnellneeds to be held to the same standards the new Blue Majority is. I'm DEFINTELY NOT saying to curb stomp Proud Boys, but we need to stop accepting it when one side is violent and clutching our pearls when another side is violent.

Saelune:

runic knight:
Civility is just a means to engage with others in a manner without hostility, and in the spirit of engaging in good faith conversation, discussion, or simple interaction.

Not being civil does nothing but antagonize, deepen divisions, and justify in the minds of those who dislike you that they are entirely right in their presumption. This has the consequence of making it harder to get changes, making ill-treatment deemed more acceptable a response to the hostility, and even potentially escalating problems.

Civility is not always the right response, as there is always arguments for justifiable hostility in the face of true aggression, but the existence of those circumstances does not devalue civility itself, nor does it justify discarding it solely because of a need to feel justified in being hostile towards others. Civil disobedience worked largely because it was civil.

That the opening post mentions Hitler in their complaint about civility shows about all that needs to be said about their intentions to engage in good faith conversation on the topic, but the post itself in these forums, and the rules the forums themselves have shows why they are wrong. People can engage in discussion and arguments here, because it fosters civility. If you think civility is bad, I would suggest arguing in places where it is not fostered and seeing how effective you are in convincing anyone there.

And how does mentioning Hitler do that exactly? The point is, Hitler was not defeated by civility, and civility is why he was able to kill as many as he was. If more people were 'uncivil' to Hitler way sooner, he might have had a lower kill count.

You should apply some of that good faith you claim I lack.

Equating Hitler with modern conservatives show both a complete disregard for engaging in good faith (it basically says they are all THE DEVIL as a worthless demonizing of them), and an open hostility toward them by labeling them such in an environment where any labeled such are deemed an acceptable target to physically attack by some of the more... radical members of your political lean, which I seem to recall you openly support the actions of in that manner.

Hitler, as a leader of a violent warring faction amid a world war, was not defeated by civility, that is correct. But attempts to use civility to stop him ceased being a valid strategy when he started invading nations and waging war, you know, when he stopped being civil himself. Hell, being civil should have stopped earlier when his ACTIONS were hostile instead of trying appeasement as long as they did, leading to why appeasement itself is seen as such a negative, but civility it still seen as a good thing in the same culture (you know, because being civil and trying to appease someone are entirely different things and only through the most blatantly intentional dishonesty could they be equated in an argument). You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil. No one expect you to engage in civil conversation with someone actively being violent toward you, but in order to pretend both Hitler and conservatives are the same, you also have to pretend that is what people believe. This is sort of why the very first line I made defined civility, and why hitler is by that definition a horrible justification for not being civil to other people you dislike. Equating modern conservatives with hitler, especially as justification for not being civil, is willfully, maliciously dishonest though, and demonstrates clearly as I claimed of you before, a complete lack of willingness to engage in good faith.

I applied good faith, you failed to demonstrate any, as you have many times before, so I concluded you lacked it here as well. The "no you" defense you attempt here really doesn't change that, merely continues to demonstrate you have no intention of engaging in the discussion in good faith and solely just want to justify being hostile and uncivil to people because you demonize them in your head and generalize them all together.

The entire first post reads like the disjointed rant against "white america" you'd see in a communist manifesto where all people you dislike are thrown at the wall as if they are all the same, where "rapist" and "conservative" is the same dirty word and evil being. And where the actions of one and the words of the other are pretended to be the same so you can feign astonishment that people would ever expect you to be civil in engaging with conservatives who aren't being violent shitheads by claiming 'they are just nazi!" through tortured reasoning and intentionally dishonest comparisons, such as you have demonstrated in that first post.

You were given an assumption of good faith when I started to read your post, as I give anyone I listen to, and you willingly shat all over it for the sake of justifying your hostility with your own blind hatred and inability to distinguish between individuals who actually commit horrible acts (thus not deserving of civility in response) and people who just hold political opinions your dislike but are not acting violently (thus being civil themselves and deserving it in response).

So in short, you are not justified in being uncivil to people who themselves are civil just because you want to be a jerk because you've demonize them.

runic knight:

Saelune:

runic knight:
Civility is just a means to engage with others in a manner without hostility, and in the spirit of engaging in good faith conversation, discussion, or simple interaction.

Not being civil does nothing but antagonize, deepen divisions, and justify in the minds of those who dislike you that they are entirely right in their presumption. This has the consequence of making it harder to get changes, making ill-treatment deemed more acceptable a response to the hostility, and even potentially escalating problems.

Civility is not always the right response, as there is always arguments for justifiable hostility in the face of true aggression, but the existence of those circumstances does not devalue civility itself, nor does it justify discarding it solely because of a need to feel justified in being hostile towards others. Civil disobedience worked largely because it was civil.

That the opening post mentions Hitler in their complaint about civility shows about all that needs to be said about their intentions to engage in good faith conversation on the topic, but the post itself in these forums, and the rules the forums themselves have shows why they are wrong. People can engage in discussion and arguments here, because it fosters civility. If you think civility is bad, I would suggest arguing in places where it is not fostered and seeing how effective you are in convincing anyone there.

And how does mentioning Hitler do that exactly? The point is, Hitler was not defeated by civility, and civility is why he was able to kill as many as he was. If more people were 'uncivil' to Hitler way sooner, he might have had a lower kill count.

You should apply some of that good faith you claim I lack.

Equating Hitler with modern conservatives show both a complete disregard for engaging in good faith (it basically says they are all THE DEVIL as a worthless demonizing of them), and an open hostility toward them by labeling them such in an environment where any labeled such are deemed an acceptable target to physically attack by some of the more... radical members of your political lean, which I seem to recall you openly support the actions of in that manner.

Hitler, as a leader of a violent warring faction amid a world war, was not defeated by civility, that is correct. But attempts to use civility to stop him ceased being a valid strategy when he started invading nations and waging war, you know, when he stopped being civil himself. Hell, being civil should have stopped earlier when his ACTIONS were hostile instead of trying appeasement as long as they did, leading to why appeasement itself is seen as such a negative, but civility it still seen as a good thing in the same culture (you know, because being civil and trying to appease someone are entirely different things and only through the most blatantly intentional dishonesty could they be equated in an argument). You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil. No one expect you to engage in civil conversation with someone actively being violent toward you, but in order to pretend both Hitler and conservatives are the same, you also have to pretend that is what people believe. This is sort of why the very first line I made defined civility, and why hitler is by that definition a horrible justification for not being civil to other people you dislike. Equating modern conservatives with hitler, especially as justification for not being civil, is willfully, maliciously dishonest though, and demonstrates clearly as I claimed of you before, a complete lack of willingness to engage in good faith.

I applied good faith, you failed to demonstrate any, as you have many times before, so I concluded you lacked it here as well. The "no you" defense you attempt here really doesn't change that, merely continues to demonstrate you have no intention of engaging in the discussion in good faith and solely just want to justify being hostile and uncivil to people because you demonize them in your head and generalize them all together.

The entire first post reads like the disjointed rant against "white america" you'd see in a communist manifesto where all people you dislike are thrown at the wall as if they are all the same, where "rapist" and "conservative" is the same dirty word and evil being. And where the actions of one and the words of the other are pretended to be the same so you can feign astonishment that people would ever expect you to be civil in engaging with conservatives who aren't being violent shitheads by claiming 'they are just nazi!" through tortured reasoning and intentionally dishonest comparisons, such as you have demonstrated in that first post.

You were given an assumption of good faith when I started to read your post, as I give anyone I listen to, and you willingly shat all over it for the sake of justifying your hostility with your own blind hatred and inability to distinguish between individuals who actually commit horrible acts (thus not deserving of civility in response) and people who just hold political opinions your dislike but are not acting violently (thus being civil themselves and deserving it in response).

So in short, you are not justified in being uncivil to people who themselves are civil just because you want to be a jerk because you've demonize them.

If they don't want to be compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis.

image

runic knight:
Hitler, as a leader of a violent warring faction amid a world war, was not defeated by civility, that is correct. But attempts to use civility to stop him ceased being a valid strategy when he started invading nations and waging war, you know, when he stopped being civil himself.

So what you're saying is that we have the green light to violently depose Trump?

runic knight:

Saelune:

runic knight:
Civility is just a means to engage with others in a manner without hostility, and in the spirit of engaging in good faith conversation, discussion, or simple interaction.

Not being civil does nothing but antagonize, deepen divisions, and justify in the minds of those who dislike you that they are entirely right in their presumption. This has the consequence of making it harder to get changes, making ill-treatment deemed more acceptable a response to the hostility, and even potentially escalating problems.

Civility is not always the right response, as there is always arguments for justifiable hostility in the face of true aggression, but the existence of those circumstances does not devalue civility itself, nor does it justify discarding it solely because of a need to feel justified in being hostile towards others. Civil disobedience worked largely because it was civil.

That the opening post mentions Hitler in their complaint about civility shows about all that needs to be said about their intentions to engage in good faith conversation on the topic, but the post itself in these forums, and the rules the forums themselves have shows why they are wrong. People can engage in discussion and arguments here, because it fosters civility. If you think civility is bad, I would suggest arguing in places where it is not fostered and seeing how effective you are in convincing anyone there.

And how does mentioning Hitler do that exactly? The point is, Hitler was not defeated by civility, and civility is why he was able to kill as many as he was. If more people were 'uncivil' to Hitler way sooner, he might have had a lower kill count.

You should apply some of that good faith you claim I lack.

Equating Hitler with modern conservatives show both a complete disregard for engaging in good faith (it basically says they are all THE DEVIL as a worthless demonizing of them), and an open hostility toward them by labeling them such in an environment where any labeled such are deemed an acceptable target to physically attack by some of the more... radical members of your political lean, which I seem to recall you openly support the actions of in that manner.

Hitler, as a leader of a violent warring faction amid a world war, was not defeated by civility, that is correct. But attempts to use civility to stop him ceased being a valid strategy when he started invading nations and waging war, you know, when he stopped being civil himself. Hell, being civil should have stopped earlier when his ACTIONS were hostile instead of trying appeasement as long as they did, leading to why appeasement itself is seen as such a negative, but civility it still seen as a good thing in the same culture (you know, because being civil and trying to appease someone are entirely different things and only through the most blatantly intentional dishonesty could they be equated in an argument). You lose the point when you try to justify people being hostile and base it on a strawman view where those who call for civility expect people to be civil to individuals who are not themselves being civil. No one expect you to engage in civil conversation with someone actively being violent toward you, but in order to pretend both Hitler and conservatives are the same, you also have to pretend that is what people believe. This is sort of why the very first line I made defined civility, and why hitler is by that definition a horrible justification for not being civil to other people you dislike. Equating modern conservatives with hitler, especially as justification for not being civil, is willfully, maliciously dishonest though, and demonstrates clearly as I claimed of you before, a complete lack of willingness to engage in good faith.

I applied good faith, you failed to demonstrate any, as you have many times before, so I concluded you lacked it here as well. The "no you" defense you attempt here really doesn't change that, merely continues to demonstrate you have no intention of engaging in the discussion in good faith and solely just want to justify being hostile and uncivil to people because you demonize them in your head and generalize them all together.

The entire first post reads like the disjointed rant against "white america" you'd see in a communist manifesto where all people you dislike are thrown at the wall as if they are all the same, where "rapist" and "conservative" is the same dirty word and evil being. And where the actions of one and the words of the other are pretended to be the same so you can feign astonishment that people would ever expect you to be civil in engaging with conservatives who aren't being violent shitheads by claiming 'they are just nazi!" through tortured reasoning and intentionally dishonest comparisons, such as you have demonstrated in that first post.

You were given an assumption of good faith when I started to read your post, as I give anyone I listen to, and you willingly shat all over it for the sake of justifying your hostility with your own blind hatred and inability to distinguish between individuals who actually commit horrible acts (thus not deserving of civility in response) and people who just hold political opinions your dislike but are not acting violently (thus being civil themselves and deserving it in response).

So in short, you are not justified in being uncivil to people who themselves are civil just because you want to be a jerk because you've demonize them.

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division. Making sure further
Comprise impossible. Over... Saelune criticizing you?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

runic knight:
Equating Hitler with modern conservatives show both a complete disregard for engaging in good faith (it basically says they are all THE DEVIL as a worthless demonizing of them), and an open hostility toward them by labeling them such in an environment where any labeled such are deemed an acceptable target to physically attack by some of the more... radical members of your political lean, which I seem to recall you openly support the actions of in that manner.

Simple answer here: If you understand why being equated with Hitler is an insult, then stop doing the behavior that makes the insult viable. Stop supporting Nazis and you'll stop getting called a Nazi supporter. Bing bang boom, cause and effect.

trunkage:

runic knight:
Snip

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division. Making sure further
Comprise impossible. Over... Saelune criticizing you?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

Saelune:

trunkage:

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division. Making sure further
Comprise impossible. Over... Saelune criticizing you?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

Which, ironically, brings a major tenet of this entire thought process full circle.

"You, you need to be docile and just the way I like you at all times. Me? Oh, no. I'm allowed to have a full range of emotions. If I'm rude to you, you did something to deserve it.

But no one will ever do anything comparable to you that allows you to act the same way as I do when I lose my temper..."

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:

trunkage:

You know you utterly failed your own personal test for civility here. Openly hostile. Creating division. Making sure further
Comprise impossible. Over... Saelune criticizing you?

I mean you did say that Saelune has a history of this and this very mild criticism seemed to be the last straw. (Yes only criticism. That wasn't an insult.) So prehaps you should add to your civility list that people who has offended you gets a permaban from civil conduct from you. And maybe something about you personally picking out words you find offensive so it's easy to exclude them too. (I.e. 'civility' has the literal same problem as Hate Speech laws. It comes down to subjective feelings about words)

'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

Which, ironically, brings a major tenet of this entire thought process full circle.

"You, you need to be docile and just the way I like you at all times. Me? Oh, no. I'm allowed to have a full range of emotions. If I'm rude to you, you did something to deserve it.

But no one will ever do anything comparable to you that allows you to act the same way as I do when I lose my temper..."

Its not ironic. It is a major point of my topic. People are hypocrites is basically the whole subtext of my argument.

Ofcourse now I have examples in this very topic to point to, or rather for Trunkage to point to.

Saelune:
Its not ironic. It is a major point of my topic. People are hypocrites is basically the whole subtext of my argument.

Ofcourse now I have examples in this very topic to point to, or rather for Trunkage to point to.

The Irony here is that the interplay between Runic Knight and Trunkage. For it to start out espousing the wonders of Civility to get down to this level... In just two exchanges, no less. That feels like a new record or something

BreakfastMan:
We really aren't. Bernie campaigned on that stuff, but Hilary didn't. Half the democratic party doesn't, the most a lot of them campaign on is "make obamacare slightly better".

Bernie couldn't even carry his own party, and is far from a saint in this regard, either/ He's put party before women's rights, black rights, and LGBT rights because he feels it's more important to have Democrats in seats than people who support progressive values. And he lectures us on these points, because nothing says progressive leader working in our own interest like an old out of touch white dude lecturing us on bodily autonomy.

However, as it stands, there are two options right now: make Obamacare slightly better or "don't get sick" and we're watching people vote for the people who will strip health care entirely, which still makes the point.

Something Amyss:

Bernie couldn't even carry his own party, and is far from a saint in this regard, either/ He's put party before women's rights, black rights, and LGBT rights because he feels it's more important to have Democrats in seats than people who support progressive values.

When was this, and what specifically did he do?

Saelune:

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
'Do as I say, not as I do' seems to be a recurring response to me.

Which, ironically, brings a major tenet of this entire thought process full circle.

"You, you need to be docile and just the way I like you at all times. Me? Oh, no. I'm allowed to have a full range of emotions. If I'm rude to you, you did something to deserve it.

But no one will ever do anything comparable to you that allows you to act the same way as I do when I lose my temper..."

Its not ironic. It is a major point of my topic. People are hypocrites is basically the whole subtext of my argument.

Ofcourse now I have examples in this very topic to point to, or rather for Trunkage to point to.

I'd agree. You haven't even been that aggressive in this thread. Everyone who pretends to be civil are usually not civil. But similar things happen with the Left and calling for equality becuase IT'S ALWAYS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RICH. And then we wonder why the rich keeps complaining about those cultural Marxists. We can justify what and how we do this but that is what wealth redistribution is.

Anyway, my main point is Civility is exactly like Hate Speech. Subjective. Arbitrary. Politically Correct. Politically Biased. If it stay true to its name, it would be fine. But that's not how people work. They manipulate rules ro take out opponents. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If we had something like Hate Speech it needs to be for everything. Terms used by the left as Hate Speech included, eg. Nazi, Racist etc. if we use Civility, it needs to used uncivil terms used by the Right. Unnatural, snowflake etc. There will just be a whole lot of words we can't use

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here