Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

JamesStone:

Saelune:

JamesStone:

I agree with your ideology. I despise your methods, and believe those same methods bring harm to the ideology I believe in.

As I stated in my OP, Civility is a tool of oppression. If you really honestly agree with my 'ideology' as you claim, then I hope you can come to realize that you let yourself be shackled down and eventually learn to throw them off you.

Again, good job ignoring every point. Civility is indeed a tool of oppression when used incorrectly, and lack of civility is some times the only option. But it's not black and white and must be done with tact. Tact you lack. And because of that lack of tact, you play right into the enemy's hands.

Said it before, will say it again. The alt-right thanks you for your service, Saelune.

And the right thanks you for your subservience.

The right hate me because I speak out against them. They hate me because I out them. Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Saelune:
Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Speaking as one of the like, only 4 right wingers on this site, I can assure you that you aren't our prime target. You would probably make the top 20 if we ever did a listicle though. Probably.

ex951753:
Why aren't you out there punching Nazis?

Bad optics?

This site really needs to fix the embedding issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWwiUIVpmNY

Saelune:
This site really needs to fix the embedding issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWwiUIVpmNY

Welcome back Saelune.

Saelune:

JamesStone:

Saelune:
As I stated in my OP, Civility is a tool of oppression. If you really honestly agree with my 'ideology' as you claim, then I hope you can come to realize that you let yourself be shackled down and eventually learn to throw them off you.

Again, good job ignoring every point. Civility is indeed a tool of oppression when used incorrectly, and lack of civility is some times the only option. But it's not black and white and must be done with tact. Tact you lack. And because of that lack of tact, you play right into the enemy's hands.

Said it before, will say it again. The alt-right thanks you for your service, Saelune.

And the right thanks you for your subservience.

The right hate me because I speak out against them. They hate me because I out them. Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Actually dealing with the right strategically and advising ways to dismantle their strangehold on current discussion topics by way of emotional stringpulling = subservience in your mind.

"The right hate me". Yes, they sure do. That's why right wing jackasses... sorry "media personalities" like Milo and Shapiro are making bank in arguing people like you and avoiding rational arguments like the plague, because they hate you. They pretend to hate your ilk for views and money. People like you are the lifeblood of the young alt-righters of today. Fox News and youtube jackholes go nuts for the chance of "proving" to a gullible audience of paranoid morons the boogeyman of the stereotypical "leftist" exists and is out to get them. Even if they hate what you stand for, boy do they love a good shitfling.

I'd say it's more love-hate relationship. They hate who you are and what you stand for, and in fact some of them would like to see you (and me, and some other "undesirables") hanging from at tree. At the same time do they love some free ammo to shoot you with, and that you give'em plenty.

Was Gandhi civil? I really don't know.

Guess who's back? Back again?

CM156:

Saelune:
Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Speaking as one of the like, only 4 right wingers on this site, I can assure you that you aren't our prime target.

What is your target then?

Marik2:

CM156:

Saelune:
Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Speaking as one of the like, only 4 right wingers on this site, I can assure you that you aren't our prime target.

What is your target then?

You. For asking me that question.

Baffle2:
Was Gandhi civil? I really don't know.

Gandhi was civil. Right up until he nuked my civ

Gethsemani:

Saelune:

Even you boiling down literal Nazis to 'people who disagree with you' is a problem.

See Nazis are some of the people that disagree with me, but they are far from the only people that do. And that right there is your problem: You are too outraged at the current state of politics to make distinctions between all the people that disagree with you, instead lumping them all together as "Nazis".

If the topic of disagreement is if ICE should stop putting children in cages or not, I kinda see where Saelune is coming from. And suddenly doing the former to send a message to future immigrants to not to come is less civil than insults. Can you see how insulting the "both sides are equal" argument is now?

Saelune:
The right hate me because I speak out against them. They hate me because I out them. Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

You know me, I think you're great.

But I think JamesStone's point, which I sort of half agree with, is that the alt right (which these days is basically indistinguishable with the right) thrives on a sense of persecution. Of course, they have no idea what actual persecution is like, so their examples of persecution are ridiculous, but they still thrive on it nonetheless. They expect us to be shrill and condescending, and they expect that doubly so from people like us who have some personal stake in the discussion. They put us in a position where the only way to "win" is to always be perfect and to be perfectly civil in the face of deep attacks on things that really matter to us, otherwise they will throw their toys out of the pram and "so much for the tolerant left!"

And sure, noone can be perfect. We all get angry, and burned out, and exhausted, and we deserve the right to be all of those things. It isn't fair that we are the ones who have to perform for the amusement of these fucking reactionary apes who in 20 years time will be trying to pretend they were secretly our allies all along. But we do owe it to ourselves on a level not to give them the ammunition, or to not to let them know when they get to us.

I don't think it's shameful, or selling out, to sit there and try and get inside the heads of these people. Think about how they are going to emotionally respond to you and try and preempt that, or at least give them a way in to what you're saying, because generally what they want is to dismiss you as a crazy irrational person who is attacking them for no reason and can't be reasoned with, and you aren't that person so it's a disservice to you if you give them the opportunity to see you that way. You're a much bigger threat to them if they can't paint you as beyond reason.

Alright let's see if this will work...

Gethsemani:
And yet, Martin Luther King and Ghandi, two people known for their civility and respectability, remain two of the foremost persons we think off when we think of progressives affecting change. That doesn't mean that Malcolm X or the militant Free India Movement wasn't needed, but they are not the only choice.

I find it incredibly ironic you're using MLK and Gandhi as examples of why someone needs to stop making so much noise and just 'be civil'. Both of those leaders were arrested for civil disobedience. Both of them spoke out against oppression in manners which forced people to listen to them. And here you are using them to tell an aggrieved individual to shut up? Talk about a way to miss the point.

Not to mention comparing Rosa Parks with Malcolm X. Is civil disobedience equivalent to violence?

I remember Saelune saying something like this in another thread, but I figure since she's being attacked that it's a good time to bring it up again: If you vote for a Nazi, you're a Nazi sympathizer. If you're supporting a Nazi, then you're a Nazi sympathizer. If you're helping the right-wing oppress the left-wing, then you're...

It strikes me that demands for civility aren't a million miles away from claiming the black guy murdered by police wasn't an angel.

Anyhoo:

Gethsemani:
You are too outraged at the current state of politics to make distinctions between all the people that disagree with you, instead lumping them all together as "Nazis". It makes you no better than Trump calling all immigrants "illegals" or all arabs "terrorists". It makes you no better then the actual Nazis who considered all Jews Untermensch.

No. That's is flat out wrong. Condemning someone for their beliefs and actions (which can be done rightly and wrongly) is far different from condemning someone for their ethnicity.

Gethsemani:
As long as one side keeps itself respectable, it is hard to escalate the conflict.

Up until the other side realises it will be believed if it lies about that. There were communists active in Germany and elsewhere, sure, they may have burned down the Reichstag. The Jewish conspiracy was a total fabrication, and people believed it.

From what I have been seeing, there is actual civility that should still be used, but Trump and many others are claiming civil ways of protesting and speaking out as uncivil. The whole kneeling for the Anthem is definitely a civil way to show how many are displeased with the current climate of the US when it comes to how Blacks are affected by systematic racism. No one is being hurt and they aren't going out and disrupting the event, just showing solidarity and with such a big audience and going against the grain, can at least get a conversation starting. However, people make mountains out of molehills, say it's about disrespecting the troops, and frame it in a way to make it seem uncivil. For many, showing that there are problems when people don't want to know is considered uncivil. So for me, when I hear people like Trump and his administration say the other side should be civil, I am skeptical that what happened was uncivil. Protesting politicians even in their down time can be civil, as they wield considerable power and that comes with the job. However, if you just go up and decide to commit violence to a supporter or cause acts of destruction, that's where it does get into actual uncivil territory. Once again, problem with this administration is a lot of uncivil acts are brushed aside because it's people on their side.

JamesStone:

You don't engage with them to reason with them, because they aren't arguing in good faith. I explained this. That's what "being civil" would be. A proper lack of civility would be arguing with them with the express purpose of ignoring what they're actually saying and stripping down their arguemnts into what they actually mean. And that's not done for their benefit. It's done for the benefit of anyone listening or reading.

Your method is similar, only with none of the results since when you argue with a pencil pusher like Zontar who in most posts has no intention but to "troll liberals", you don't appear like the voice of reason. Most other posters that eviscerate his "arguments" appear like the voice of reason. You just look like a version of him that believes the opposite of what he believes. You give him the perfect scapegoat for him to rally behind.

You lack the tact required for lack of argumentative civility. You just overgeneralize and insult with no aim or accuracy towards the person, and let the argument sit and rot while you send barrage after barrage of ad hominens, stock insults we've heard time and time again, stereotypical ranting, Hitler comparisons and the like. Your words are stale Saelune, and you're too tactless to do anything in an argument than to vent and give more ammo to the opposition. Like I said before, you're the perfect ally to your argumentative opponents.

I gotta echo this. If you are going to forgo typical civility, you need to be able to, you know, actually replace it with something. Saelune? You don't. You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

Those who achieved great things by forgoing typical civility had magnetic personalities, ungodly charisma, a passion that turned the hearts of their fellows and turned nations on their heads. They did more than just call people Nazis a lot.

Everything you're doing? It is accomplishing...nothing. Seriously, all the people you've called Nazi and bigot. Has it actually done anything? Answer this question, don't just ignore it and hit me with an ad hominem.

erttheking:
I gotta echo this. If you are going to forgo typical civility, you need to be able to, you know, actually replace it with something. Saelune? You don't. You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

Those who achieved great things by forgoing typical civility had magnetic personalities, ungodly charisma, a passion that turned the hearts of their fellows and turned nations on their heads. They did more than just call people Nazis a lot.

Everything you're doing? It is accomplishing...nothing. Seriously, all the people you've called Nazi and bigot. Has it actually done anything? Answer this question, don't just ignore it and hit me with an ad hominem.

While I'm guessing the answer to this would be "no", I'm also guessing that at least the vast majority of people here would have to give the same answer if they were asked.

Thaluikhain:

erttheking:
I gotta echo this. If you are going to forgo typical civility, you need to be able to, you know, actually replace it with something. Saelune? You don't. You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

Those who achieved great things by forgoing typical civility had magnetic personalities, ungodly charisma, a passion that turned the hearts of their fellows and turned nations on their heads. They did more than just call people Nazis a lot.

Everything you're doing? It is accomplishing...nothing. Seriously, all the people you've called Nazi and bigot. Has it actually done anything? Answer this question, don't just ignore it and hit me with an ad hominem.

While I'm guessing the answer to this would be "no", I'm also guessing that at least the vast majority of people here would have to give the same answer if they were asked.

Yes, but the vast majority of people here aren't advocating adopting an entirely new system of approaching things because the old ways are apparently ineffective when the new system has actively alienated people on the same side as them through shoddy implimintation. Glass houses and all that.

JamesStone:

Saelune:

JamesStone:

Again, good job ignoring every point. Civility is indeed a tool of oppression when used incorrectly, and lack of civility is some times the only option. But it's not black and white and must be done with tact. Tact you lack. And because of that lack of tact, you play right into the enemy's hands.

Said it before, will say it again. The alt-right thanks you for your service, Saelune.

And the right thanks you for your subservience.

The right hate me because I speak out against them. They hate me because I out them. Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

Actually dealing with the right strategically and advising ways to dismantle their strangehold on current discussion topics by way of emotional stringpulling = subservience in your mind.

"The right hate me". Yes, they sure do. That's why right wing jackasses... sorry "media personalities" like Milo and Shapiro are making bank in arguing people like you and avoiding rational arguments like the plague, because they hate you. They pretend to hate your ilk for views and money. People like you are the lifeblood of the young alt-righters of today. Fox News and youtube jackholes go nuts for the chance of "proving" to a gullible audience of paranoid morons the boogeyman of the stereotypical "leftist" exists and is out to get them. Even if they hate what you stand for, boy do they love a good shitfling.

I'd say it's more love-hate relationship. They hate who you are and what you stand for, and in fact some of them would like to see you (and me, and some other "undesirables") hanging from at tree. At the same time do they love some free ammo to shoot you with, and that you give'em plenty.

Honestly, I don't really think there is anyone left to convince. The line is drawn. I may have people like erttheking upset that I don't play nice, but it hasn't made erttheking decide to vote for Trump.

The people who see me act like I do and feel justified in their white supremacy were already white supremacists.

erttheking:

JamesStone:

You don't engage with them to reason with them, because they aren't arguing in good faith. I explained this. That's what "being civil" would be. A proper lack of civility would be arguing with them with the express purpose of ignoring what they're actually saying and stripping down their arguemnts into what they actually mean. And that's not done for their benefit. It's done for the benefit of anyone listening or reading.

Your method is similar, only with none of the results since when you argue with a pencil pusher like Zontar who in most posts has no intention but to "troll liberals", you don't appear like the voice of reason. Most other posters that eviscerate his "arguments" appear like the voice of reason. You just look like a version of him that believes the opposite of what he believes. You give him the perfect scapegoat for him to rally behind.

You lack the tact required for lack of argumentative civility. You just overgeneralize and insult with no aim or accuracy towards the person, and let the argument sit and rot while you send barrage after barrage of ad hominens, stock insults we've heard time and time again, stereotypical ranting, Hitler comparisons and the like. Your words are stale Saelune, and you're too tactless to do anything in an argument than to vent and give more ammo to the opposition. Like I said before, you're the perfect ally to your argumentative opponents.

I gotta echo this. If you are going to forgo typical civility, you need to be able to, you know, actually replace it with something. Saelune? You don't. You just have unimaginative insults that accomplish nothing. You don't convince people on the fence, you don't make your side look better, and you don't come off as someone with a lot of ammo on their side. And you seem to spend just as much time beating on people on your side that you feel like aren't as dedicated as you are, which is highly unproductive and serves mainly to push people away from you. I certainly feel like I'm being pushed away from you.

Those who achieved great things by forgoing typical civility had magnetic personalities, ungodly charisma, a passion that turned the hearts of their fellows and turned nations on their heads. They did more than just call people Nazis a lot.

Everything you're doing? It is accomplishing...nothing. Seriously, all the people you've called Nazi and bigot. Has it actually done anything? Answer this question, don't just ignore it and hit me with an ad hominem.

While I do compare myself to people like MLK, I don't actually think I am anything close to him, certainly not in accomplishing things. Buuuut I do more than you want to credit me with. I think this topic is actually doing a fair bit.

evilthecat:

Saelune:
The right hate me because I speak out against them. They hate me because I out them. Considering I am one of the prime targets of the right on this site, I think I am doing exactly what I should be doing.

You know me, I think you're great.

But I think JamesStone's point, which I sort of half agree with, is that the alt right (which these days is basically indistinguishable with the right) thrives on a sense of persecution. Of course, they have no idea what actual persecution is like, so their examples of persecution are ridiculous, but they still thrive on it nonetheless. They expect us to be shrill and condescending, and they expect that doubly so from people like us who have some personal stake in the discussion. They put us in a position where the only way to "win" is to always be perfect and to be perfectly civil in the face of deep attacks on things that really matter to us, otherwise they will throw their toys out of the pram and "so much for the tolerant left!"

And sure, noone can be perfect. We all get angry, and burned out, and exhausted, and we deserve the right to be all of those things. It isn't fair that we are the ones who have to perform for the amusement of these fucking reactionary apes who in 20 years time will be trying to pretend they were secretly our allies all along. But we do owe it to ourselves on a level not to give them the ammunition, or to not to let them know when they get to us.

I don't think it's shameful, or selling out, to sit there and try and get inside the heads of these people. Think about how they are going to emotionally respond to you and try and preempt that, or at least give them a way in to what you're saying, because generally what they want is to dismiss you as a crazy irrational person who is attacking them for no reason and can't be reasoned with, and you aren't that person so it's a disservice to you if you give them the opportunity to see you that way. You're a much bigger threat to them if they can't paint you as beyond reason.

I think that is just another way to let them control you. It wont matter, so I think we should just not worry about it and respond how we feel is best for ourselves. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Saelune:
Hitler wasn't stopped by civility. The Confederates weren't stopped by civility. King George wasn't stopped by civility.

They also weren't stopped by people calling them mean names. Like, call Trump "The cheeto-in-chief" all you want, I don't give a fuck, but don't pretend it s actually doing something.

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
Hitler wasn't stopped by civility. The Confederates weren't stopped by civility. King George wasn't stopped by civility.

They also weren't stopped by people calling them mean names. Like, call Trump "The cheeto-in-chief" all you want, I don't give a fuck, but don't pretend it s actually doing something.

Insults actually seem to be pretty effective against Trump, he is so thin-skinned. I just never have gotten a chance to insult him to his face.

Wolf insulted him and now he is having his snowflake ball soon because of it.

Saelune:
While I do compare myself to people like MLK, I don't actually think I am anything close to him, certainly not in accomplishing things. Buuuut I do more than you want to credit me with. I think this topic is actually doing a fair bit.

It is not so much that you lack the Charisma of MLK.

It is more that your ramblings achieve nothing positive for your side at all. The only benefit they have is that you might feel better after venting. But you are not actually helping.

Don't fool yourself into believing that you do your part in fighting rightwing extremism or the Republicans via internet insults. The only one you are doing that for is you.

And you think this topic is an example of you doing your bit ? You promoting giving up on civility ? And every other leftwinger in R&P except one person disagreeing with you on that and trying to tell you more or less polite that you are not being helpful for the common cause? (ok, some didn't commit)

Yes, that certainly proves something.

You started this thread to get reaffirmation from your political allies. But overall it reads like some kind of intervention because you were a cherished contributer. This is done out of respect and the hope that things might return to how they once were.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
While I do compare myself to people like MLK, I don't actually think I am anything close to him, certainly not in accomplishing things. Buuuut I do more than you want to credit me with. I think this topic is actually doing a fair bit.

It is not so much that you lack the Charisma of MLK.

It is more that your ramblings achieve nothing positive for your side at all. The only benefit they have is that you might feel better after venting. But you are not actually helping.

Don't fool yourself into believing that you do your part in fighting rightwing extremism or the Republicans via internet insults. The only one you are doing that for is you.

And you think this topic is an example of you doing your bit ? You promoting giving up on civility ? And every other leftwinger in R&P except one person disagreeing with you on that and trying to tell you more or less polite that you are not being helpful for the common cause? (ok, some didn't commit)

Yes, that certainly proves something.

You started this thread to get reaffirmation from your political allies. But overall it reads like some kind of intervention because you were a cherished contributer. This is done out of respect and the hope that things might return to how they once were.

You should see politics on reddit. That site is echo-chamber city. It is actually one thing that keeps me here, cause there is far more freedom for both sides to openly argue here, and believe it or not, I value that. I spend more time arguing with people who disagree with me than circle-jerking with those who do agree with me.

But again, I need to disprove this myth that I am alone in my views. Gethsemani disagrees with me, but she cares more for the appearance of civility, which is kind of my whole thesis here. erttheking just hates the idea of the streets becoming a warzone, and while it frustrates me that he too likes to oppose me in how I conduct myself, I do get it. I don't want war and violence, I want a fair and just government that protects its people, even from its other people, but I do not think that will be achieved through any sort of civility, particularly as the government itself lacks not only civility, but straight up lacks morality. It is literally ruining the lives of the people they govern, and again, even the bigots I am so opposed to! But they seem like they would go into the gas chamber with us if it means watching us die too.

I dont think JamesStone is actually a left-winger. But he atleast does a better job of making me unsure, unlike some others who say they dont like Trump, but outright defend every single thing he does.

Saelune:
You should see politics on reddit. That site is echo-chamber city. It is actually one thing that keeps me here, cause there is far more freedom for both sides to openly argue here, and believe it or not, I value that. I spend more time arguing with people who disagree with me than circle-jerking with those who do agree with me.

I agree with you in this.

And i never go to reddit for politics. Or twitter. Which might influence my sense of appropriateness.

I don't want war and violence, I want a fair and just government that protects its people, even from its other people, but I do not think that will be achieved through any sort of civility, particularly as the government itself lacks not only civility, but straight up lacks morality. It is literally ruining the lives of the people they govern, and again, even the bigots I am so opposed to! But they seem like they would go into the gas chamber with us if it means watching us die too.

I don't know how to fix the mess that is the American system. Its design flaws are part of the reason of the current problems which makes it really difficult to tackle them with the available tools.

But i am convinced that the only way is to expose the glaring problems and point people to the facts. Again and again. Those who don't want to change things are happy about every distraction they can get. And a shit flinging contest works just fine for that.

The American right wing profits from making this stupid partisan division even stronger. That appeals to the tribal nature of humans. If it is "us vs. them" it is easier to ignore the moral failings of the own side. And if people really hate each other, it is easier to dismiss arguments of the other side as "fake" without actually checking them.

I dont think JamesStone is actually a left-winger. But he atleast does a better job of making me unsure, unlike some others who say they dont like Trump, but outright defend every single thing he does.

I think i know whom you are talking about and you are probably right about that.

I agree. Civility is a garbage sentiment. Civility doesn't mean anything on paper, it's a pointlessly unfair exchange of empowerment. We've got mining interests wanting to destroy entire continents for the simple fact that it will earn them an extra 0 to their hypothetical 'value' ... civility is a golden fallacious mean that pretends as if there's no place for the good ol' fashioned car bomb when all political means to protect your basic assurances have failed.

I totally advocate for civil unrest. Yes, even car bombs and targeted assassination of politicians, their families, their friends, their magnate industrial personalities backing them, the police that no longer serve protecting the people, and commiting as much violence as possible (against actors of the state inthe name of your assurances) when all other means have failed.

It's not a question of civility. There is no civility when one demands a level of decorum even as you're cold, hungry and sick, and there lies no conceivable way to be beyond those things. A society that serves to transcend the state of its humanity beyond those things with an eye to the longest possible pursuit of its own happiness is the only society worth defending, and the only attitude worth taking to your grave.

It is the fundamental conception of what it means to be 'heroic' in the most easiest possibly communicated state.

A true 'civilization' is one that leverages actions against the needs of a person performing said actions. If people are willing to ignore basic needs, and ignore any grounds to meaningfully represent those needs, then there isn't civility to begin with and the people demanding it are the ones least deserving of basic concepts of mercy or restraint. For every penal code, there needs an equal and class categorized 'attenuation code'. You being charged wih terrorism or treason for starting a food riot and slaying of a politician advocating for a police state to protect the wealthy? Well the attenuation code should serve as the true bulwark of a person's freedom given it should publicly balance your 'crimes' in terms of the constraints placed on any other means to transcend the conditions suffered by that riot's participants.

Because the fact of the matter is liberty from concerns centred on need is the only actual liberty that exists. People's freedoms do not survive their politicians and it is a sad fact of reality that this has been demonstrated time and again throughout history.

If I had access to the Australian Constitution, I would make it against the law for any state or federal government to collect the taxes of any group of people that their respective governments have not sought to create fundamental assurances of equality of opportunity for access to housing, education, electricity, water, state transport, food, medical care and more basic necessities that should be considered basic needs of people.

Clearly a government no longer serves its people when it creates inequal platforms of exchange. When it no longer serves its people, it no longer deserves any courtesy it demands.

Khellendrosiic:
I find it incredibly ironic you're using MLK and Gandhi as examples of why someone needs to stop making so much noise and just 'be civil'. Both of those leaders were arrested for civil disobedience. Both of them spoke out against oppression in manners which forced people to listen to them. And here you are using them to tell an aggrieved individual to shut up? Talk about a way to miss the point.

To add to the irony, Ghandi and MLK both acknowledged that "uncivil" methods may become necessary, even though they wholly preferred non-violent methods. MLK himself said that riots were "the language of the unheard".

Saelune:

Satinavian:

Saelune:
While I do compare myself to people like MLK, I don't actually think I am anything close to him, certainly not in accomplishing things. Buuuut I do more than you want to credit me with. I think this topic is actually doing a fair bit.

It is not so much that you lack the Charisma of MLK.

It is more that your ramblings achieve nothing positive for your side at all. The only benefit they have is that you might feel better after venting. But you are not actually helping.

Don't fool yourself into believing that you do your part in fighting rightwing extremism or the Republicans via internet insults. The only one you are doing that for is you.

And you think this topic is an example of you doing your bit ? You promoting giving up on civility ? And every other leftwinger in R&P except one person disagreeing with you on that and trying to tell you more or less polite that you are not being helpful for the common cause? (ok, some didn't commit)

Yes, that certainly proves something.

You started this thread to get reaffirmation from your political allies. But overall it reads like some kind of intervention because you were a cherished contributer. This is done out of respect and the hope that things might return to how they once were.

You should see politics on reddit. That site is echo-chamber city. It is actually one thing that keeps me here, cause there is far more freedom for both sides to openly argue here, and believe it or not, I value that. I spend more time arguing with people who disagree with me than circle-jerking with those who do agree with me.

But again, I need to disprove this myth that I am alone in my views. Gethsemani disagrees with me, but she cares more for the appearance of civility, which is kind of my whole thesis here. erttheking just hates the idea of the streets becoming a warzone, and while it frustrates me that he too likes to oppose me in how I conduct myself, I do get it. I don't want war and violence, I want a fair and just government that protects its people, even from its other people, but I do not think that will be achieved through any sort of civility, particularly as the government itself lacks not only civility, but straight up lacks morality. It is literally ruining the lives of the people they govern, and again, even the bigots I am so opposed to! But they seem like they would go into the gas chamber with us if it means watching us die too.

I dont think JamesStone is actually a left-winger. But he atleast does a better job of making me unsure, unlike some others who say they dont like Trump, but outright defend every single thing he does.

Said it before, will say it again. I'm a Communist from Portugal and I'm pretty sure every relevant vote I voted on you'd agree with. When I condemn you and your gun ho reckless attitude is with the full leque of experience my time at the Portuguese Communist Youth (JCP) by having seen first hand what that attitude gives: jackshit. Worse than jackshit, in fact, it causes a detachment from otherwise unconvinced people who would otherwise support the cause, and many did after being exposed to more rational argumentation and proper applications of this concept of "lack of civility" that you seem to defend but have no proper idea how it should work in an argumentative context or how to properly apply it to your advantange.

I was once like you, Saelune, and saw many people like you. Which is why I condemn you so heavily, you remind me of me when I was younger.

You harm your cause with your reckless and insulting attitude, you are a terrible argumentatist and incredibly selfish arguer at that, talking seemingly to vent instead of to exchange ideas or dismantle bad faith opposition, and your "No True Scotsman" attitude demonstrated even in the post I'm quoting burns you bridges and erodes trust, as this thread alone is proof, and your own comments about the reaction of previously fully-agreeable posters can atest to even if you still can't help sprinkle them with what has unfortunately become typical self-assessions of grandeur and self-congratulatory tone.

I hope you realize that you've been arguing with yourself all this time. No one ever said you were alone in your views. Only that you have a completely oversimplified, wrongly analyzed and self-important interpretation of what those views actually are.
In essence, you're going at it the wrong way. Many other posters who you have much greated consideration for than me told you so already, directly or indirectly. I hope this thread will cause you to reflect about this sometime in the future, but knowing your arrogant attitude and self-importance complex I won't hold my breath.

Khellendrosiic:

I find it incredibly ironic you're using MLK and Gandhi as examples of why someone needs to stop making so much noise and just 'be civil'. Both of those leaders were arrested for civil disobedience. Both of them spoke out against oppression in manners which forced people to listen to them. And here you are using them to tell an aggrieved individual to shut up? Talk about a way to miss the point.

You'll note that I am not telling anyone to shut up, I am trying to bring the point home that one can be really, really vocal in their criticism of something without being nasty, mean or angry. MLK and Ghandi were very vocal about their causes, both got arrested on what can best be described as trumped up charges several times and both urged people to go out and make a change. What neither of them did was that they resorted to calling their opponents names, they didn't start long vitriolic screeds about segregation or colonialism. They delivered passionate speeches against those things, but they also avoided personal attacks against the people that perpetuated those things.

Khellendrosiic:
Not to mention comparing Rosa Parks with Malcolm X. Is civil disobedience equivalent to violence?

Morally, arguably not. But in that they are both acts that break the law and can cause legal repercussions, definitely. Which makes them different from MLK and Ghandi, who both tried their best to stay within the confines of the laws.

Khellendrosiic:
I remember Saelune saying something like this in another thread, but I figure since she's being attacked that it's a good time to bring it up again: If you vote for a Nazi, you're a Nazi sympathizer. If you're supporting a Nazi, then you're a Nazi sympathizer. If you're helping the right-wing oppress the left-wing, then you're...

That's all fine and nice and I've got no qualms with calling NSDAP voters Nazis. But you'll notice that your last sentence doesn't follow the former. If you help the right-wing oppress the left-wing then you're a right-winger is the logical conclusion to that sentence. Saelune's way of it is a traditional composition/division fallacy: All nazis are right wingers, but not all right wingers are nazis. For all his shittiness and authoritarian bluster, Trump is not a nazi. So calling Trump a nazi and thus in extension the republic party and all its voters is not only wrong in that they are not nazis, it is also (intentionally) deeply insulting to those people.

Have they enabled an incompetent authoritarian with no respect for democracy to become president? Yes, but that's not nazism. Nazism involves huge doses of fallacious racial science, ideas about a Jewish world conspiracy and an ardent, violent anti-communism. Trump and the Republicans fail at all of that. At their worst they exhibit some deep shades of fascism, which is related but distinct from nazism. So what Saelune is doing is not dropping truth bombs, it is calling people names. I get the reasons why Saelune is angered about the political development in the western world and the US, but name calling and being adamant that your political opponents are exactly the same as the people that instituted the worst genocide in all of human history (based on ideals of Germanic Superiority and faulty racial science) helps no one. No one but those people, as JamesStone points out, because they can garner sympathy from the "persecution" of being called Nazis.

Gethsemani:
Morally, arguably not. But in that they are both acts that break the law and can cause legal repercussions, definitely. Which makes them different from MLK and Ghandi, who both tried their best to stay within the confines of the laws.

Erm...what? The whole point of the Salt March was to get lots of people overtly breaking a (minor) law, MLK similarly adopted a strategy of getting volunteers to be mass arrested for breaking the law in both Albany and Birmingham, rather more successfully in the latter.

Gethsemani:

Have they enabled an incompetent authoritarian with no respect for democracy to become president? Yes, but that's not nazism. Nazism involves huge doses of fallacious racial science, ideas about a Jewish world conspiracy and an ardent, violent anti-communism. Trump and the Republicans fail at all of that. At their worst they exhibit some deep shades of fascism, which is related but distinct from nazism. So what Saelune is doing is not dropping truth bombs, it is calling people names. I get the reasons why Saelune is angered about the political development in the western world and the US, but name calling and being adamant that your political opponents are exactly the same as the people that instituted the worst genocide in all of human history (based on ideals of Germanic Superiority and faulty racial science) helps no one. No one but those people, as JamesStone points out, because they can garner sympathy from the "persecution" of being called Nazis.

You have Republicans doing all of this. Even things like the Drug War. Fun fact, the U.S. government popularized the term 'marijuana' (or originally in the 50s alternatively spelt 'marihuana') because they wanted it to sound more hispanic. That was the only reason why they referred to the drug that way during the anti-cannabis campaigns. They thought 'cannabis' and 'Indian hemp' was a little too close to their shores. During the 70s and 80s you had the CIA purposefully foster cocaine addiction amongst black communities. Right now you have a Republican president refusing to call literally neo-Nazis neo-Nazis on a government broadcast when they murdered a person in cold blood and march on civilian streets. Militia armed to the teeth and local police refusing to intervene.

To date, no one seems to be doing anything about trying to curtail literal neo-Nazis from police service even when there is a demonstrable push by said groups to join said organizations for the express purpose of undermining the civil liberties of minority groups. And not a single Republican in both state and federal legislatures has meaningfully attempted to stop them.

Sorry, but someone pointing to parallels to things like the Weimar Republic is not exactly unfounded. Unless people actually want to put their foot down and make a stand in terms of basic humanism then it's no less than complicity. If someone gets offended by being labelled as complicit and some person points out their complicity, pretending like the person pointing it out is somehow unjust for doing so is batshit insane.

The fact of the matter is someone like Saelune is amongst the first to suffer if people simply be complicit. People who are watching their civil liberties go down the pisser don't have the luxury of being patient with people, because it is going to require a hell of a lot of Listerine to wash away the taste in your mouth when she's on the fucking money.

The bitter fact of the matter is that it took until 2003 for the German government to officially apologize to LGBTQ groups for the provable war crimes they faced. No complicit Allied power that kept them in the camps and pretended it was okay to do so after the camps were supposedly 'liberated' has apologized at all for that complicity. Where's that information in people's school history textbooks, huh? That is post-war Germany. 20 years after people like Habermas won the Historikerstreit... Pretending like it simply won't happen again is a luxury afforded only to the people that know it won't happen to them personally.

If people are metaphysically complicit, then it's a formality of title. Was every German a Nazi?No. But you don't get to wash your hands of it. In the same way that offshore processing facilties should be treated as a national shame in Australia. As should the Stolen Generations should be a national shame. It should be fucking plastered on the walls of parliament, an explicit promise it shall not happen again. Of the deepest reverences that we can muster. Politicians should pledge fucking oaths to it. Remember it. Internalize it. Otherwise you don't get to pretend anymore someone pointing out how nations fail to live up to any of its credibility to persist as they are is somehow awful for doing so.

When Australia was having the patently fucked up discussion about Reconciliation, what people actually wanted was a recognition by those in power, and those that allow those in power, was simply the national affirmation it was wrong and shameful. That it will never be forgotten and that we are lesser as beings capable of moral choice if we do so.

That is not asking the world of people. It's a basic affirmation of rising to our best of possible natures to internalize the mistakes of history and reconcile ourselves with it so that it will not happen again. It will happen again, the ball will start rolling to crush those beneath it, the second people pretend as if the mechanics that allowed it won't simply be replicated the second we pretend those mistakes are irrelevant to ourselves.

What's the end goal here? Surely it is simply the recognition that people can be awful human beings? People for whom could be anything but, choosing directly or indirectly that they were awful human beings is the end goal. Whether by diffusion of responsibility, whether by apathy, whether by machination--that is the end goal. Recognizing humans as beings of moral choices and people fail to do so is precisely when they fail to understand the mechanics of their nature.

For all that namby-pamby rhetoric of pretending otherwise is a joke. It is beyond infantile. In the same way the Japanese handled the provable fact of their war crimes and how they handled the post-war disillusionment of their loss.

How did they handle it? A government actively coddling them rather than confronting them with the deluge of the evidence of their war crimes with cartoons and comics. Ever wonder why the Japanese cutesify fucking everything, including military paraphernalia? Dates back to the organized funding propping up of this coddling process. Arguably the largest social engineering program in history.

Even now, the 'moefification' of the military has key sponsors in the JSDF to further infantilize its people--And Japanese sociologists aren't being 'mean' or 'uncivil' pointing out the correlations to the collective immaturity in how they handle and relate to their own past. Well sorry to burst people's bubbles, but guess what? Those sociologists have a legitimate point no matter how 'rude' people think they are being.

Even in this thread you got certifiable garbage arguments making excuses for the abhorrent way the system treats her simply because of 'tone'. Well 'fuck them' is a suitable response. And if people are morally and intellectually bankrupt not to recognize why she might feel that way regardless of her tone--as if somehow she should only get a bone only by circumnavigating the continental levels of mental gymnastics bullshit to justify the system isn't their fault--well, those people deserve to be lumped in with any mindless fascist group label.

They're fucking sheep. All of us allude to the past. Milton, Zimbardo and Asch proved the psychological constructs that make a Third Reich are extant mechanics of socialization. All else is window dressing and villains of varying shades. No, Nazis at Auschwitz are not just like Japanese soldiers at Nanjing. But we can draw parallels, ones that are fundamental that make them universally crimes against humanity, uniquely terrible with similar human dimensions.

That if we ignore them you see cullings of people time and again. The rise of fascism in the West, funnily enough has connections to its past incarnations. Go figure.

I mean when can we call a neo-Nazi a neo-Nazi when they feel so 'aggrieved' by a trans person talking about empirically observable, institutionalized discrimination when they vote in politicians purely on the basis of neo-Nazi talking points? Maybe those aggrieved and 'persecuted' should stop proving other's suspicions? Maybe they're exclusively the one's to blame rather than pretending as if a Saelune shining their shoes and picking their cotton fields is somehow reasonable.

You know... moral responsibility? Self-ownership? Introspective analysis? Self-interrogation? No... clearly a Saelune is responsible with the immensity of making them better people, all while being expected to be pleasant and everybody else who is totally not complicit pretending as if they're not to blame because... reasons.

How's that for being redpilled or whatever legitimately fucking stupid alt-right buzzterm?

Gethsemani:
No one but those people, as JamesStone points out, because they can garner sympathy from the "persecution" of being called Nazis.

What do you mean with "can"? They already try to, even before anyone called them Nazis.

Welcome back, Saelune!

JamesStone:

You harm your cause with your reckless and insulting attitude [...]

No cause has been damaged to any serious degree by people arguing on this forum. We're shooting the shit partly because we enjoy the sport of it, and partly because it's therapeutic, not because we actually expect to change the world. This is not a Cambridge Union debate. Have some perspective.

JamesStone:
[...] you are a terrible argumentatist [...]

This is ironic, coming, as it does, at the beginning of a screed of personal insults.

====

On the topic of civility: respect is earned. The common topics this forum-- the US incumbent, government policy in the US and UK, etcetera-- are highly emotive issues, and ones which directly impact a number of posters here (sometimes in some pretty unpleasant ways).

So, emotion is understandable. Personal investment and anger is understandable. And there is nothing about fury (or rudeness) which invalidates the points being made; nothing which undermines the underlying rationale or logic or what-have-you. The argument is just as solid.

The speaker may want to state their case in a civil way if they wish, or they may wish to be forceful or angry. They can be forceful or angry if they want; they do not owe respect to these politicians, who will never read this forum, and whose own actions are a thousand times more harmful than a few mean words.

And, frankly, if somebody is going to dismiss an argument on the basis of tone, then they're not being very bright.

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
Hitler wasn't stopped by civility. The Confederates weren't stopped by civility. King George wasn't stopped by civility.

They also weren't stopped by people calling them mean names. Like, call Trump "The cheeto-in-chief" all you want, I don't give a fuck, but don't pretend it s actually doing something.

Insults actually seem to be pretty effective against Trump, he is so thin-skinned. I just never have gotten a chance to insult him to his face.

Wolf insulted him and now he is having his snowflake ball soon because of it.

What policy changes has insulting trump resulted in?

Alright. So one thing I've noticed is that most people here think Saalune isn't being civil. Your (as in everyone) assumption is that Saelune also has the same understanding of civility. I think this is a bad assumption.

Two, if recent events haven't proven it to you, I don't know what will. Being civil make you sidelined. You are not part of the discussion. Everyone can easily ignore you. And you will lose.

Three, the current most effective way of changing society is to influence governments. I really don't like this. Like a lot. But unfortunately, that's how it is. You don't change governments through civility. You take it by manipulation or force. That's what MLK did. Manipulate people's emotions. Trump did the same. So did Ghandi and Hitler. You don't win arguments through reason.

Lastly .... has anyone read the "I Have a Dream Speech"? MLK calls white people racists. He calls, what white people thought as justice, police brutality (you know, exactly like the discussion today). He also threatens the nation with revolts until Rights are given. He calls for it to happen everyone in the States. In fact, he sounds much more like Saelune than anyone else here.

Looking at that speech and comparing it to the conversation and reality today... Nothing much has changed

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 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