Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:
The old mining villages were about as unaccepting of LGBT as the UK gets. There's a reason I posted that link. It shows that a bit of common respect is often reciprocated, and somebody has to make the first move. I mean, you complain about other people digging in, but it seems pretty apparent you've dug some ditches of your own...

Yeah, see... that's not how it works. How it works out is that you have two disapproving parents who beat you and make youfeel awful for any perceived 'defects'. They kick you out of the house when you're 16. They and most of your family they want nothing to do with you, and because villages and small towns being villages and small towns, they're probably not a friendly place to begin with and you don't have any friends outside or within it.

Maybe you get lucky and manage to land some work and get to crash with someone, or get the benefit of the doubt from someone in a larger town over. Maybe a major city far enough away, and they get on with their life and cut off ties from that little village.

What you're talking about is pure nonsense. LGBTQ people didn't pick this fight. It's not 'ditches', it's simply someplace you never want to go back to. The problem is these rednecks make lives hell for all the people that can't simply move, and then they vote for people that try to make your life hell even after you've left.

6 pages

Saelune:

I dont let people hide behind a false shield of 'moderate'. A notably high number of people want to go 'I dont support Trump, but...'. It is sickening. People do this because they know they are wrong, but dont want to be right. I do also think this very topic has been beneficial, atleast as much as anything on this site can be. Maybe I am wrong, but we can never truly know the far-reaching effects of our actions.

And for the record, being a teacher doesnt make you a saint. Being a good teacher does, but that is easier said than done. I do hope you're a good one.

You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying anymore, are you? You said you had done more than you had I thought. I asked you twice to tell me what that was. You've given me nothing. I'm sorry Saelune, continuing this conversation with you is too goddamn frustrating.

And before anyone jumps on my back, I'm not the type of person who has a problem with discarding civility. I think discarding civility is a very good move if it's become a burden and not an asset. I have a problem with Saelune specifically, considering her idea of discarding civility has regularly included suggesting that we stage a violent uprising and pretending that wouldn't end with millions of civilians dead.

Catnip1024:

Dr. Thrax:

Catnip1024:
Do you know what else was effective? Working together with people you might have historical grievances against. The problem with burning your bridges at a drop of a hat is, people stop having any incentive to care about you.

And what exactly do minorities have to gain by trying to work with people who refuse to acknowledge them as people?

The old mining villages were about as unaccepting of LGBT as the UK gets. There's a reason I posted that link. It shows that a bit of common respect is often reciprocated, and somebody has to make the first move. I mean, you complain about other people digging in, but it seems pretty apparent you've dug some ditches of your own...

Don't let me disagreeing with Saelune get you thinking I'm going to let you off the hook. Why the shit does the abused minority have to be the one who extends the hand of friendship? Miners love to complain about how they get the raw end of it, why can't they be the ones to reach out to the LGBT community if that's how it works?

When you say civil discourse, who are we addressing?

Are the people you're talking to misinformed or just curious about what your values are? Is it a public debate where you're trying to change minds. Are you arguing in front of lawmakers to get something changed? Then, yeah. You need civil discourse. You need to articulate facts and not get all emotional and get on a high horse. That makes you look like an irrational ideologue with nothing of value to add to society.

Civility doesn't imply you shouldn't protest or march or defend people's well being. That's a totally different context. No Conservative on this forum, or conservative in general, is actively advocating for violence and bigotry in the way people are describing. Bringing up Ghandi, MLK, and Nazis is a complete distraction from whatever the actual point is.

Assume your interlocutor means well until ACTUALLY proven otherwise and treat people with respect.

Catnip1024:
The old mining villages were about as unaccepting of LGBT as the UK gets. There's a reason I posted that link. It shows that a bit of common respect is often reciprocated, and somebody has to make the first move. I mean, you complain about other people digging in, but it seems pretty apparent you've dug some ditches of your own...

Yes, but that's not entirely the way it works.

Homosexuality was illegal once. It was viewed as morally degenerate, disgusting, corrupting of others, and utterly unfit in society. It was perhaps tolerated amongst the upper classes as long as kept absolutely private. In those days, I am sure that homosexuals largely "respected" their communities and society, not least because failing to do so would see them face appalling abuse and legal sanction. Lack of respect only really went one way, and it was society that had to offer it to homosexuals. The mining communities were effectively throwbacks to those days after homosexuals had managed to claim legal acceptance and limited societal acceptance in more cosmopolitan parts of the country.

It was only because homosexuals had managed to be granted some respect from society that their support could be worth anything. Secondly, it was largely because the miners were in severe need that they took the support offered.

Saelune:
'You should try working with those you disagree with' said people who refuse to work with people they disagree with.

You want me to do something you wont do. That is textbook hypocrisy.

First, I'm not driving for change. Second, I can work with pretty much anybody - and the only reasons I don't get on with people is based on them as a person.

Something Amyss:
It's interesting to be told to reach out to people who are actively slapping us away, but that's the reality I live in.

And that's a statement which could have been said in the Miners strikes.

I'm not saying that it always works, but you might as well remain civil up until the point you start burning things.

erttheking:
Why the shit does the abused minority have to be the one who extends the hand of friendship?

Because it's the victim that needs to make amends for being so abusable, don't you know? It's the victim's fault they're being abused, so they're the ones that need to make the effort to stop the abuse, so they can't get upset about it because that just drives a wedge between victim and abuser.

This is legitimately what I hear anytime someone starts talking about "mutual respect" and saying that we just need to try to appeal to reason to people who won't see reason. Even after MLK we're still stuck on the problem of The Moderates.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Yeah, see... that's not how it works. How it works out is that you have two disapproving parents who beat you and make youfeel awful for any perceived 'defects'. They kick you out of the house when you're 16. They and most of your family they want nothing to do with you, and because villages and small towns being villages and small towns, they're probably not a friendly place to begin with and you don't have any friends outside or within it.

And you don't change the minds of small towns by being uncivil. You can complain about the injustice of it all, or you can be the better person.

erttheking:
Don't let me disagreeing with Saelune get you thinking I'm going to let you off the hook. Why the shit does the abused minority have to be the one who extends the hand of friendship? Miners love to complain about how they get the raw end of it, why can't they be the ones to reach out to the LGBT community if that's how it works?

The point is that someone has to extend the hand of friendship. Because as a result, it's now a better place for everyone than if they had all been prickly and stand-offish. You can't change what another group does, you can only change what you do.

Again, this isn't me preaching. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't in that situation. I'm pointing out a counter to the whole "civility gets people nowhere" thing of Saelunes.

Agema:
It was only because homosexuals had managed to be granted some respect from society that their support could be worth anything. Secondly, it was largely because the miners were in severe need that they took the support offered.

Noted, but surely you aren't attempting to imply that they have less acceptance in the modern US than the 1970s UK? They are recognised, their right to exist is legally protected and they have at least the organisational coordination and resources to do something comparable.

As for the second part - there are plenty of communities suffering across the US. Both in cities and outside of them. I'll admit it's not a strike situation, and therefore isn't something that a brief intervention can make a massive difference in. But I would still say the opportunity is there.

Again, I'm not saying it should be done or it would help the world if it was. I used this as an example of how civility and respect can bring about happier and more lasting change than riots.

Catnip1024:
Second, I can work with pretty much anybody - and the only reasons I don't get on with people is based on them as a person.

So how is me not wanting to appease bigots any different? They, as people, are shitty bigots, and you want me to go bend ass backwards to appease their immorality? Fuck that. They are wrong. They are the ones who have to adjust, and if they wont adjust, then we have no reasonable reason to include them.

You are telling me what is wrong is right, and you are telling me to move. No, Catnip. You move.

Catnip1024:
Noted, but surely you aren't attempting to imply that they have less acceptance in the modern US than the 1970s UK?

No, I'm certainly not. I'm more suggesting that civility requires sorts of baselines to be worth much - chiefly that the parties want to work together, where it greases the wheels of co-operation.

Civility can be an attempt by a socially dominant group to compel debate on their terms - largely because they have the ability to define civility. There is a certain point where injustice can go beyond a reasonable expectation that everyone be terribly nice and polite about it. Civility can in forms can be restrictive and exclusionary. If we think about manners, for instance, manners were to a certain extent ways for people to identify and shut out others: god forbid one might not know proper etiquette for a butter knife or has a glottal stop.

Catnip1024:
And you don't change the minds of small towns by being uncivil. You can complain about the injustice of it all, or you can be the better person.

Uh huh. You know how ridiculous it is to expect people to have a hive mind in relationship to all the intersectional complaints that LGBTQ+ people face in small population centres.

Please explain to me, exactly, how 'being civil' is possible for whena person has been driven out of them by social hatreds? It's not encumbent on people to pretend like we want to go back to that. We don't owe it to the world tomake people be better people, people should ownthemselves and become better people when they recognize their pivotal failings in terms of moral conduct and basic concepts of humanism.

It's like trying to reform a drug addict who doesn't want therapy. It will fail overwhelmingly more times than succeed... and even then, not as if some grand sociological change but rather in terms of individual people while the wider sociological ills still exist. These small towns are not merely one drug addict that needs therapy, it's a town full of people requiring therapy. What you're doing here is victim blaming. Maybe if black people didn't want to face institutionalized police abuses of powers, they should try to be civil.

Yeah, it sounds precisely that stupid to people who grew up in abusive households simply for being LGBTQ.

These small villages are literally toxic places to be LGBTQ. It will get them killed to an inordinate degree. Pretending like people as if have to respect that, or that people will somehow share some collective responsibility to pretend like they're at fault for those hatreds that drove them out, is fucking stupid.

People like me have no connections to these places. And not by choice, but by necessity. Pretending as if we can or must is a broken metric. Unless people legitimately want to get better, I don't have enough hours in the day.

The bitter fact of the matter is that the bestwe can hope for is laws to change before people, and then wait for some trickle down effect. There's too many broken families and towns to individually change, but by targeting change with laws hopefully we can chip away at entrenched hatreds. Because that's what they are ... entrenched hatreds. And hatred is already an irrational conception of the human condition. And trying to deal with it as if pretending it's reasonable or safe to do so on a personal basis is fucking absurd.

No. It's not safe. For my own emotional wellbeing I limit contact with my family. Every time I get the insinuation that 'well this time will be different' and I decide to meet with my parents, is the only times I've ever felt suicidal ideation. No other times. That's not my fault. I have been as civil as anyone could possibly ask of me ... and it leads me to feeling suicidally depressed. It is fundamentally healthier for me to not have to deal with them.

That's not my fault. And the insinuation that it somehow is is fucking cruel and exemplary of those social hatreds to begin with.

They're drug addicts that don't actually want to fix themselves. It is out of my personal power to do anything. That is the fact of it.

They are poisonous people that will kill me. It is like torture tearing away a person's will to survive. Everyone tells you the last group of people on Earth who will love you unconditionally, and they make your life a living hell. And then you get people like you pretending as if there is some golden mean of psychosocial dynamics that it's somehow my fault for why that is.

That it's somehow my fault they beat me. That it's somehow my fault that they made me homeless at 16. That it is somehow my fault that I find it impossible to connect with them. No. You're full of shit. The civility was never there to begin with. Healthy people do not act this way to their own offspring and neighbours, and once people actually internalize that--then and only then can there be meaningful 'civility'.

Catnip1024:
And you don't change the minds of small towns by being uncivil. You can complain about the injustice of it all, or you can be the better person.

I think there is some overlooking of the effects building positive associations can have. We are kinda trainable. So I would think that in some contexts giving people who may have presumptions about you a positive interaction can be a meaningful thing(I'm certain they've organised sporting events to facilitate positive experiences to tackle bigotry, and they had those police bbqs that I think are working with the same principle), without wanting to challenge any of the anecdotal horror stories presented in this thread.

I'm not entirely sure how a quote by a user accusing another forum-goer of being churlish really relates that well to the examples given or why it's a jumping off point though. I've not been here in a while. This is just a tucked away little corner of the internet, it's really not so important.

Catnip1024:
And you don't change the minds of small towns by being uncivil. You can complain about the injustice of it all, or you can be the better person.

You don't change the minds of small towns period. They're tight-knit enough communities that you won't change them, especially if you're an outsider. That's the reason many people like these small-town communities, unlike more urban areas, they don't change much, if at all.

The point is that someone has to extend the hand of friendship. Because as a result, it's now a better place for everyone than if they had all been prickly and stand-offish. You can't change what another group does, you can only change what you do.

You're assuming that one side being friendly makes everything "better" for everyone. You're assuming the opposing side doesn't abuse this kindness like they abuse us. The world doesn't work that way, and if you haven't been paying attention, the ones who oppose the LGBT+ community are right-wingers, who are notorious for abusing any kind of leeway you give them.

And by your own admission we can't change what they do, so what's the point in trying to befriend them? To "be the better person"? Fuck that, I'm a better person by default for not being a goddamn bigot. If being The Better Person means I have to invite toxic people into my life, then I'll gladly The Not Better Person, I'm still nowhere near as bad as they are.

Again, this isn't me preaching. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't in that situation. I'm pointing out a counter to the whole "civility gets people nowhere" thing of Saelunes.

You are preaching. "Someone has to extend the hand of friendship, minorities would do better if they tried to befriend their abusers."

No, nobody has to extend any kind of friendship to anyone who would hurt them. This line of thinking is what gets people killed. I do not have to try and be friends with someone who doesn't think I should be able to marry, or adopt, or even live. Why would I? They have already made it very clear they do not like me and trying to pursue some kind of relationship is, quite frankly, rude. If I've made it clear I do not want to be friends with someone, them trying to pursue a friendship anyway is rude. I would rather put my effort into befriending someone who actually likes me for who I am.

This milquetoast "We need to appease our opponents" bullshit is why we're stuck where we are politically.

Again, I'm not saying it should be done or it would help the world if it was. I used this as an example of how civility and respect can bring about happier and more lasting change than riots.

Stonewall. A series of riots and violent demonstrations after police raided a gay club, which is considered to be the pivotal event leading up to the LGBT rights movement. Without Stonewall as a jumping point the LGBT+ movement would likely not be what it is now.

Violence has its uses. It should not be the go-to tool to solve every problem, but when civility fails - and it has - what other recourse do people have? Just like the riots after cops gunning down black people, the system has failed them, the only way to make themselves heard is by violence. And it makes people uncomfortable because it pushes the reality of a broken nation forward and people would rather keep their heads in the sand than confront this reality.

Catnip1024:
I'm not saying that it always works, but you might as well remain civil up until the point you start burning things.

How about until tjhey're curb stomping you? Because I've been the repeat victim of hate crimes, and telling me to remain civil oir lecturing me on one instance it worked (and ignoring the context behind it) comes of as, at its most charitable, incredibly tone deaf.

Noted, but surely you aren't attempting to imply that they have less acceptance in the modern US than the 1970s UK? They are recognised, their right to exist is legally protected and they have at least the organisational coordination and resources to do something comparable.

We're protected on paper, but does that mean we're actually protected?

I live in Verm ont, for example. I've been violated in some of the most LGBT-friendly communities on the East Coast. Cops tend to not care. I was sexually assaulted even,. by a cop, when attempting to report a sexual assault. I've been put in the hospital for being "queer" and the cops didn't want to do anything. There are steps you can take, but there's only so far you can practically go.

My straight friends? They're surprised this goes on in their town, in the state that has so frequently been the butt of every fake civil rights joke in American pop culture. Straight people across the countryare surprised to hear these stories, because once we gained legal recognition of any sort, they got to past themselves on the back, fly a big "mission accomplished" banner, and go home. But you know who my numerous stories don't tend to surprise? Other LGBT Americans. Why? Because it's happened to them, or a loved one or someone else close to them. Because it happens all the time and nobody talks about it because the stigma is still there. Speaking up can get you hurt, cost you your job, get you killed.

I had a transwoman I hated sleep on my couch for six months because she was fired when she was outed as trans. Her boss also roughed her up. We have legal protection in this state for sexuality and gender identity, and still she was put out on the street. Straight people like to tell me that there are laws protecting us, that we are recognised--exactly what you did--but they're not living on the other side of tracks. The side where the law doesn't actually care. The side where we still experience violence, even from law enforcement. This is how it works in America when you're a minority, something I hate having to explain because it involves touching on things I'd rather not remember. It involves painful memories for me and the people I've known. Some of those people are people I've buried.

Is it worse than miners in the UK? Well, you had it pointed out to you the desperation of that situation and don't seem to be interested in that, but I know people who were alive during Stonewall who say it's worse here than it was in the 60s and 70s. I'm too young to know that, but AIDS blew up in the 80s and radically changed the tone towards LGBT individuals, so I could see it being true.

It is, however, completely unsurprising that you would look at the laws that don't protect us and decide that we're definitely better off now than we were then.

I don't know if you've ever been on the other side of the equation, but your responses lead me to think not. They sure sound like someone who has never experienced this sort of thing, but then I was recently lectured by a black dude who apparently does know better, so even experience isn't a guarantee of empathy. It sucks to be on this siude of things, in part because it's just tiresome being lectured on how good we have it, or the proper time for us to not be civil. It's especially so because, for us "civility" is often the third bear's porridge: if we're even one degree too hot, then we're written off because we're angry or hostile or some other word that gives straight people the sads and an excuse to disengage, but if we're even one degree too cold we're written off because we're not emotional enough and clearly lying.

It's especially bad because the people who gewt to define what civility is are often the same people in our faces, shouting for our deaths, threatening us, firing us, assaulting us...or people who are somehow okay with the disparity here. I gfet it...you said yourself you're not here to change things, bu this is an awful thing to preach when "civility" is used to enforce this disparity. I don't have the luxury of "burning it all down" or whatever, because I can get murdered by the cops and nobody will care for the crime of sticking my head out.

There's a reason Saelune made this topic, and it is largely valid.

Something Amyss:
Snip

Looking at some more recent threads and just stuff in general this year, I am definitely not surprised the shit you and others have to deal with being LGBT. Case in point, the article the escapist made where the writer talked about how gaming helped her learn she was a transgendered person, and most of the comments were about how this was inserting politics into gaming, and that was the more tame stuff, where the worst was outright condemning her. Then there was the outrage of The Last of Us 2, where a kiss got people riled up, and that for some reason we can't have lesbians make out unless it be considered pandering. If that is how the public as a whole reacts, beneath the surface must truly be hell for all of you.

Heck, that article and the kiss is basically what can be considered civil, just letting the existence of LGBT people be shown like it's normal and people freak out about it. Like I posted earlier, to those who ask for civility only consider silence to be civil, and by silence not doing anything to show the problem. We (as in me and most other white cis males) are way too fragile and even the slightest suggestion of wrong doing makes us defensive. So our reflex is to tell others they are complaining too much and silence any possible problem to keep ourselves comfortable. God forbid we feel even the slightest discomfort while you and other persecuted groups go through hell each day.

For those wondering why I lump myself with the other problem people, it's because I still have a long ways to go to rid myself of a lot of biases I built up over the first 25 years of my life and only in the last 3 have I understood that I was wrong. That and I sure ain't any type of ally who goes out and actually does anything to help in any meaningful way.

Super Cyborg:
Heck, that article and the kiss is basically what can be considered civil, just letting the existence of LGBT people be shown like it's normal and people freak out about it. Like I posted earlier, to those who ask for civility only consider silence to be civil, and by silence not doing anything to show the problem.

Rubbish.

None of them asking for civility in this thread are asking for silence. You are right in that those two examples were civil. But if you dig out those comment setions you will find that it is completely different poeple complaining about those.

Catnip1024:
The point is that someone has to extend the hand of friendship. Because as a result, it's now a better place for everyone than if they had all been prickly and stand-offish. You can't change what another group does, you can only change what you do.

Again, this isn't me preaching. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't in that situation. I'm pointing out a counter to the whole "civility gets people nowhere" thing of Saelunes.

So you can't change what a group does, but you should be extra special nice to the people who want to shock you into not being gay in the hopes that maybe they'll stop thinking your existence is an abomination of god. Hey, I have an idea. Between lying down and being a doormat and constantly spamming how we should have a violent uprising that we totally have a plan for. Somewhere in there, there's an idea that's actually workable. Because, historically speaking, there aren't many movements where people gained civil rights by asking nicely. Or do you think ancient Christians should've just been nicer to the Romans who on again, off again persecuted them? Jews should've just been nicer to the Christians who persecuted them in the Middle Ages? Blacks should've been nicer to white people who beat them for having the audacity for sitting at the counter in the 60s?

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say you're a white, heterosexual male. Because only people who have never faced a day of persecution in their life talk about how the oppressed need to do all the work and the dominant power needs to just lie back and let the minority meet them all the way. And that is what you're advocating. Even if you don't mean to, it's what you're advocating.

So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

Well, it's usually not considered that mod-friendly to start a load of (mostly) weak threads and then never, ever contribute another word of debate to them. On the other hand, I'm inclined to be relatively lenient, because if no-one starts threads then nothing gets discussed...

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

I didn't see a problem with him. He wasn't really breaking any rules from what I saw.

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

Most if his threads are simply closed but one is outright deleted. And that particular topic and how it was presented in addition to his usual habbit of opening and abandoning thread and the fact that he posted so many this time and the fact that some of his earlier threads already got closed with a moderator warning ... i am not too surprised.

Marik2:

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

I didn't see a problem with him. He wasn't really breaking any rules from what I saw.

He was just weird. I never really had anything to add to his threads, because half the time it was 'I like Star Trek' and the other half it was 'Blue isn't real, change my mind'
Like he wasn't a troll account, 'cause he did post, its just...non sequitors. Just nonsense.

Satinavian:

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

Most if his threads are simply closed but one is outright deleted. And that particular topic and how it was presented in addition to his usual habbit of opening and abandoning thread and the fact that he posted so many this time and the fact that some of his earlier threads already got closed with a moderator warning ... i am not too surprised.

What was the thread?

Silentpony:

Satinavian:

Silentpony:
So I guess the Captain went crazy last night and got himself banned?

Most if his threads are simply closed but one is outright deleted. And that particular topic and how it was presented in addition to his usual habbit of opening and abandoning thread and the fact that he posted so many this time and the fact that some of his earlier threads already got closed with a moderator warning ... i am not too surprised.

What was the thread?

Something about Iran. At this point I can't tell if Captain was just a bot or a...

EDIT: OK. I'm going to risk it and say it: maybe Captain was a troll.

Silentpony:
What was the thread?

It was about how the US should've bombed the hell outta Iran, or in Capt's words "Gone Battlefield 3 on them".

Marik2:
I didn't see a problem with him. He wasn't really breaking any rules from what I saw.

Maybe, but he made 7 threads in the past 48 hours with either low-to-no discussion value, and he abandoned each thread faster than Zontar when he can't score any "Gotcha!"s. He was effectively spamming the forum with new threads with absolutely zero intent to discuss anything, even in the ones where his thread title was a question.

Dr. Thrax:
It was about how the US should've bombed the hell outta Iran, or in Capt's words "Gone Battlefield 3 on them".

I'm convinced that he's John Bolton just testing the waters on public opinion.
Only thing that makes sense.
Also, those few pictures of some urban women in Iran wearing western clothes in the 1960s-1970s really weren't representative of the way the majority of Iranians lived. Also the Shah was a bad hombre.

CaitSeith:

BreakfastMan:

CaitSeith:

The reversal of the immigrant families separation policy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/donald-trump-sign-executive-order-ending-family-separation/9892042

Was that reversal really gained by insulting trump? That is the claim that Saelune is making.

Not merely Trump, but also the Homeland Security Secretary among others.

From what I saw, what people did wasn't "insult" them. Unless you count yelling at them over dinner or blocking their parking garage "insulting", which I don't.

BreakfastMan:

CaitSeith:

BreakfastMan:

Was that reversal really gained by insulting trump? That is the claim that Saelune is making.

Not merely Trump, but also the Homeland Security Secretary among others.

From what I saw, what people did wasn't "insult" them. Unless you count yelling at them over dinner or blocking their parking garage "insulting", which I don't.

Insulting means anything that disagrees with your opinion. Didn't you get the memo

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:

Satinavian:
Most if his threads are simply closed but one is outright deleted. And that particular topic and how it was presented in addition to his usual habbit of opening and abandoning thread and the fact that he posted so many this time and the fact that some of his earlier threads already got closed with a moderator warning ... i am not too surprised.

What was the thread?

Something about Iran. At this point I can't tell if Captain was just a bot or a...

EDIT: OK. I'm going to risk it and say it: maybe Captain was a troll.

I'd say bot. Many of his statements in the same thread were contradictory,

Edit

Satinavian:

Super Cyborg:
Heck, that article and the kiss is basically what can be considered civil, just letting the existence of LGBT people be shown like it's normal and people freak out about it. Like I posted earlier, to those who ask for civility only consider silence to be civil, and by silence not doing anything to show the problem.

Rubbish.

None of them asking for civility in this thread are asking for silence. You are right in that those two examples were civil. But if you dig out those comment setions you will find that it is completely different poeple complaining about those.

Macy's Day parade might want to have a word with you. There were many people who took offence at two women kissing

trunkage:
Macy's Day parade might want to have a word with you. There were many people who took offence at two women kissing

I wrote explicitely about people calling for civility in this very thread and people commenting on the recent editorial on transgender and the kiss in Last of Us 2.

How has the reaction of even other idiots to some event on the other side of the globe anything to do with it ? It doesn't.

Super Cyborgs claim was "Like I posted earlier, to those who ask for civility only consider silence to be civil, and by silence not doing anything to show the problem." And that is not only wrong but actually insulting. This is the thread about civility. So what Super Cyborg did was calling out me, erttheking, Breakfastmen, Gethsemani, BastardofMenbourne, JamesStone and others as people who actively want to silence LGBT.

Do you really think that whatever happened at Macy's Day parade (won't google what exactly it was) proves his point about posters in this forum ?

Satinavian:

trunkage:
Macy's Day parade might want to have a word with you. There were many people who took offence at two women kissing

I wrote explicitely about people calling for civility in this very thread and people commenting on the recent editorial on transgender and the kiss in Last of Us 2.

How has the reaction of even other idiots to some event on the other side of the globe anything to do with it ? It doesn't.

Super Cyborgs claim was "Like I posted earlier, to those who ask for civility only consider silence to be civil, and by silence not doing anything to show the problem." And that is not only wrong but actually insulting. This is the thread about civility. So what Super Cyborg did was calling out me, erttheking, Breakfastmen, Gethsemani, BastardofMenbourne, JamesStone and others as people who actively want to silence LGBT.

Do you really think that whatever happened at Macy's Day parade (won't google what exactly it was) proves his point about posters in this forum ?

bastardofmelbourne shouldn't be on that list.

Also this topic is about civility in general, not just on this site.

You getting offended cause people fighting for LGBT people is insulting to you is proving my point by the way. If you really care about LGBT rights, instead of being offended and insulted, you should maybe re-evaluate how you go about being an ally to LGBT people.

You shouldn't be unwilling to look things up if you plan to argue about it.

Saelune:

You getting offended cause people fighting for LGBT people is insulting to you is proving my point by the way. If you really care about LGBT rights, instead of being offended and insulted, you should maybe re-evaluate how you go about being an ally to LGBT people.

I am not insulted by people fighting for LGBT rights. But i am immensely insulted by people clling me anti-LGBT.

You shouldn't be unwilling to look things up if you plan to argue about it.

I didn't want to argue about it. trunkage brought it up and i said that it really doesn't have anything to do with my post.

But if you want to discuss it : People complaining about that kiss are idiots and bigots. Also Americans are prude and have strage hangups concerning PDAs in addition to latent homophobia. I am regularly surprised what is not considered "appropriate for children" on your side of the pond. Or what makes the news as supposedly outrageous. Even the few cultural exports we bring to the states get censored severely "for the children" showing different cultural sensibilities. A kiss between women in a festival parade aimed to a huge extend at children here would never get such comments or news coverage. Those women would probably have to be naked to even get a controversy started.

Not sure what is more to say about that.

I can't say i really understand the cultural situation of homosexuals in the US very well. But i know it actually is different from the situation in Germany. We have our own history of homosexuals and homophobia and that is different.

As you might know, the Nazis killed gays in concentration camps and tried to "cure" lesbians. After the allies won, they made sure that the surviving gays stayed in prison to serve their full sentences. Communist East Germany (GDR) gets rid of the Nazi laws concerning homosexuality in 1950 (Western Germany (FRG) seems to have other priorities and just doesn't apply them). But it stays illegal in both Germanies along the lines of the older Imperial German Laws from 1871 until 1968/1969 (Again, it is earlier legal in the GDR but there an age of consent of 18 is enforced while the FRG has no age restriction for homosexual acts per se).
That is done basically as a side effect of the huge 68-movement that changed many aspects of German society and law.

We didn't have the Stonewall riots or anything similar at all. There were some violent clashes with the 68ers but only about completely other parts of politics. There was not much desire to keep homosexuality forbidden anyway or to enforce the existing laws because of the NAZI past. The change here had been done when your Stonewall riot happened so you can't even say it was an important influence. The German homosexuals didn't earn their legal rights by fighting the police. They got their rights by aligning with other groups fighting other injustices, helping them and getting help in return. Most of those groups are nowadays seen favorable, but some aren't.

2001 we get some strage compromise conserning gay marriage. It is not really gay marriage but very similar in most legal consequences.

2017 Full gay marriage. Done by a conservative gouvernment. Without much debate actually. Without riots. Without big demonstrations/strikes/whatever. How did that happen ? Because Merkel is really good at paying attention to reports about the general mood of the population and doing stuff people want regardless what party doctrin says.

Since 1969 homosexuals lived in the open. People got to know them as gay. Population became ok with gay marriage. So much so that even the conservatives wanted it. It probably also helped that Germany in general trust science and several decades of openly living homosexual couples with children from one sid proved that there really is no harm for the children. Which always was and is the main argument against gay marriage.

So we never had any gay related riots. No political concession to homosexuals that they have fought for alone. No important anti-gay crime (no murdered prominent gay, no shooting in gay bars ect.) that made waves and lead to change.

Our homosexual communities basically stayed civil all the time. And people just agreed eventually that their demands were reasonable.

Of course there still exists homophobia. But i tried to google crime statistics and only found a total of 27 cases of assault reports for the first half of the year of 2017. Which according to the article is an alarming rise attributed to the near eastern refugee influx that suppesdly is driving gay voters to the anti-immigration extreme right nowadays. I didn't come over any homophobic murder more recently than 1990 (which coincidently was done by Poles)

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.

Satinavian:

Saelune:

You getting offended cause people fighting for LGBT people is insulting to you is proving my point by the way. If you really care about LGBT rights, instead of being offended and insulted, you should maybe re-evaluate how you go about being an ally to LGBT people.

I am not insulted by people fighting for LGBT rights. But i am immensely insulted by people clling me anti-LGBT.

You shouldn't be unwilling to look things up if you plan to argue about it.

I didn't want to argue about it. trunkage brought it up and i said that it really doesn't have anything to do with my post.

But if you want to discuss it : People complaining about that kiss are idiots and bigots. Also Americans are prude and have strage hangups concerning PDAs in addition to latent homophobia. I am regularly surprised what is not considered "appropriate for children" on your side of the pond. Or what makes the news as supposedly outrageous. Even the few cultural exports we bring to the states get censored severely "for the children" showing different cultural sensibilities. A kiss between women in a festival parade aimed to a huge extend at children here would never get such comments or news coverage. Those women would probably have to be naked to even get a controversy started.

Not sure what is more to say about that.

I can't say i really understand the cultural situation of homosexuals in the US very well. But i know it actually is different from the situation in Germany. We have our own history of homosexuals and homophobia and that is different.

As you might know, the Nazis killed gays in concentration camps and tried to "cure" lesbians. After the allies won, they made sure that the surviving gays stayed in prison to serve their full sentences. Communist East Germany (GDR) gets rid of the Nazi laws concerning homosexuality in 1950 (Western Germany (FRG) seems to have other priorities and just doesn't apply them). But it stays illegal in both Germanies along the lines of the older Imperial German Laws from 1871 until 1968/1969 (Again, it is earlier legal in the GDR but there an age of consent of 18 is enforced while the FRG has no age restriction for homosexual acts per se).
That is done basically as a side effect of the huge 68-movement that changed many aspects of German society and law.

We didn't have the Stonewall riots or anything similar at all. There were some violent clashes with the 68ers but only about completely other parts of politics. There was not much desire to keep homosexuality forbidden anyway or to enforce the existing laws because of the NAZI past. The change here had been done when your Stonewall riot happened so you can't even say it was an important influence. The German homosexuals didn't earn their legal rights by fighting the police. They got their rights by aligning with other groups fighting other injustices, helping them and getting help in return. Most of those groups are nowadays seen favorable, but some aren't.

2001 we get some strage compromise conserning gay marriage. It is not really gay marriage but very similar in most legal consequences.

2017 Full gay marriage. Done by a conservative gouvernment. Without much debate actually. Without riots. Without big demonstrations/strikes/whatever. How did that happen ? Because Merkel is really good at paying attention to reports about the general mood of the population and doing stuff people want regardless what party doctrin says.

Since 1969 homosexuals lived in the open. People got to know them as gay. Population became ok with gay marriage. So much so that even the conservatives wanted it. It probably also helped that Germany in general trust science and several decades of openly living homosexual couples with children from one sid proved that there really is no harm for the children. Which always was and is the main argument against gay marriage.

So we never had any gay related riots. No political concession to homosexuals that they have fought for alone. No important anti-gay crime (no murdered prominent gay, no shooting in gay bars ect.) that made waves and lead to change.

Our homosexual communities basically stayed civil all the time. And people just agreed eventually that their demands were reasonable.

Of course there still exists homophobia. But i tried to google crime statistics and only found a total of 27 cases of assault reports for the first half of the year of 2017. Which according to the article is an alarming rise attributed to the near eastern refugee influx that suppesdly is driving gay voters to the anti-immigration extreme right nowadays. I didn't come over any homophobic murder more recently than 1990 (which coincidently was done by Poles)

So maybe instead of being offended, you should realize that the US is not Germany. Remember the Pulse shooting?

Hey, great for Germany that you aren't as anti-LGBT as the US. But it still really sucks for LGBT people here in the US. LGBT people in the US could not rely on civility to get the rights we deserve, and many we still don't have. We can still be fired/kept out of work for being LGBT.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 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