Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 20 NEXT
 

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 ?

Ok, I'll clarify my statement. My family are very religious and conservative, and won't be budging on anything LGBT related anytime soon if at all. While reaction can vary, it seems like my family and other people from the church I went to go to the idea that LGBT groups and other minorities are uncivil in their approach. Kneel during the anthem, how uncouth, find a more appropriate time. Marching in the streets and show that you are a person and demand to be treated like one, can't they calm down and not be so loud. A person fights back bullies who pushed around a person constantly to the point where their life was in danger, don't stoop to their level. There are a lot of people who will act like any action taken no matter the context on what is happening to the person is wrong, and will say they should be more civil. There is no right move to do anything but do nothing and not show you exist or have problems to begin with.

As far as I can remember from reading the posts here, I don't feel anyone posting in this thread fits that bill. If you think an act may be going too far that's fine. However, there are a significant number of people who instead of facing the argument or problem head on, just use civility as a way to swipe away any and all arguments.

Saelune:

Hey, great for Germany that you aren't as anti-LGBT as the US.

I know it is different and believe me, it is really frustrating to read about it. And it is maddening not being able to do anything about it.

But this here is an international forum, not an US forum. How does you being rude to the international gaming community have anything to do with the situation of LGBTs in your country. The people who hurt you are not the people you can lash out against here.

You are trying to justify giving up civility with action of "the other side" but the people you are talking to are not this other side. Even other US citizens here are not really responsible for the problems you face or at least you can't be sure about that.

Super Cyborg:
As far as I can remember from reading the posts here, I don't feel anyone posting in this thread fits that bill. If you think an act may be going too far that's fine. However, there are a significant number of people who instead of facing the argument or problem head on, just use civility as a way to swipe away any and all arguments.

Thanks for the clarification, i really misunderstood your post. And i can understand your anger too.

Saelune:

runic knight:
snip

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.

I want to add that civility was attempted with Hitler. UK had an appeasement stance before WWII (give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone).

Nowadays, "appeaser" is a political insult in UK (I wonder why).

Satinavian:

Saelune:

Hey, great for Germany that you aren't as anti-LGBT as the US.

I know it is different and believe me, it is really frustrating to read about it. And it is maddening not being able to do anything about it.

But this here is an international forum, not an US forum. How does you being rude to the international gaming community have anything to do with the situation of LGBTs in your country. The people who hurt you are not the people you can lash out against here.

You are trying to justify giving up civility with action of "the other side" but the people you are talking to are not this other side. Even other US citizens here are not really responsible for the problems you face or at least you can't be sure about that.

I had to overrule my self opposed exile/lurking to comment on this.

While there's an obvious truth to this statement, it also rings false. The first reasons is that Germany, UK, Russia, France, Greece, and other countries are seeing rises in violence towards the LBGTQ community. This is a global thing. And secondly, It's not a national problem in any means, as I just showed. It's a people problem. And sadly, it's not even the problem of those who commit these crimes. It's the permissive neutral aspect.

Because in every situation, there are people who fight against it, there are people who don't agree with the situation but do not resist it in any way, and there are who are committing the issues. Some might think it's a three way split, But that isn't right. It isn't about numbers. It's about action.

Let's take the Fight Against, Don't agree but don't Act, and those who commit the issues and let's give them a party. Let's put these groups to Republicans. Hell, let's give it a real life spin. The Mississippi Senate Race.

While nothing has been proved yet, Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith has shown some racial-based missteps. Stemming from her lynching comments while she's running against Mike Espy, more is being uncovered about her seemingly white leaning history. From her posing with Confederate memorabilia to the modern day where she sent her daughter to an all-white school in 2013.

So say that modern Mississippian Republicans really aren't racist. They will be the "Don't Agree but Don't Act" category in our discussion. They vote for their money, or they vote tradition. Their family has always been Republican so they will always vote Republican. Even if they don't really vibe with any racial bias.

The problem is, that doesn't matter. Because their actions still aid those Republicans who hope to God Almighty that Hyde-Smith is a racist like them and that her lynching talk is just a hint that once in office, she'll do everything possible to get their state back to the White Path.

One can be neutral on Ice cream flavors or Television shows. That doesn't matter to the grand scheme of things. But you can not be neutral on Humanity and what affects them. People look towards the Majority to see if they can get away with something. And if the Majority doesn't speak out against the crimes you're committing... then it's no longer a crime.

One only needs to think about how TV helped civil rights actually be a thing. It showed the average white family finally the actual treatment of Black People who just wanted to eat at the same counter as them. Enough people had to have the uncomfortable conversation with their children of what the Black people were doing and what they were fighting for to deserve to be treated in such a manner. That got enough people to stand with Civil Rights.

Because the fact of the matter is... not all white people were savagely beating black people on a whim. Dragging them behind cars. Raping their women and lynching their men after cutting off their genitals. Most White People were neutral. They didn't commit the crimes, but they didn't stand up against it. And that neutrality helped the minority of them have complete power and autonomy over an entire group of people.

This essentially brings us back to the whole reason for this thread. Civility is my bread and butter. That's who I am in my soul. Yet I don't know if I'd be that way if I was white. I was raised to mind my tone, because I'm not allowed to yell like the white children. They are individually acting out and that's bad parenting. If I act out, it's indicative of my entire race and I'm making it worse for everyone. If they get in the face of a cop, they might be shouted down. If I get in the face of a cop, I'm another black guy with demon eyes that a cop HAD to shoot because they feared for their lives. I would probably love the option to be rude, but I'm inviting my justifiable death if I do it to the wrong person.

And everyone knows that. People don't understand what it is like to have to live a life where you must bite down every feeling because you know the wrong step can make you a statistic and you'd have one part of the population saying that it was a crying shame but what did I expect would happen for mouthing off, and another part of the population telling my friends and family that it served me right for being uppity and not knowing my place. And having only the last segment of the population understand that I was killed for just being human.

For forum members like Lil Devil, Saelune, Amyss, Forthcoming, along with others including myself, This world seems like a tantamount Handmaid's Tale that is being written out before us in real time. And those less affected are telling us to be civil about it. To be less rude. To watch the uptick of Hate Crimes Soaring and removing of civil rights, and keep a stiff upper lip about it because others don't seemingly want to be bothered about it.

And a lot of the time, we're met with statistics and claims that it's not that bad yet. Like for some reason, we're supposed to await for the Roving Purge Gangs to get at our door to voice distress instead of being alarmed that no one seems to mind that the foundation for the Purge is being set up before our eyes.

This last statement isn't directed to you, Satinavian, but if people can honestly look at the growing threat towards fellow human beings and then proceed to use their 'uncouth' panic as reason to stay neutral... Well, they need to get their humanity examined.

CaitSeith:

I want to add that civility was attempted with Hitler. UK had an appeasement stance before WWII (give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone).

To give some credit to Chamberlain, he played a poor hand very well. There was simply no way that the UK could have meaningfully opposed Germany in the late-30's, since it had disarmed its army almost completely after WW1 and were still suffering from the depression. So with an anemic arms industry and army, and an ally (France) that was adamant about not taking any offensive action, seeing as how its military doctrine was purely defensive and its manpower pool direly shallow due to WW1, the UK could do very little but stall while it gathered strength. If anything, the fact that the UK stood up for Poland and honored their commitment to join them in a war against Germany shows that Chamberlain had realized that he could no longer appease Hitler, even if it meant the UK going to war half-baked.

As an aside, I am also pretty annoyed with the fact that civility in this thread is used interchangeably with cowardice, timidity and appeasement. One can be perfectly civil while fighting viciously for what one believes and one can be an appeasing coward while being brutish. FDR was entirely civil towards Germany up until 1941, but he made no compunctions in dealing harshly with them. Likewise Ghandi was entirely civil towards the British Empire, while encouraging peaceful but forceful protests and being outspoken about just how he felt about their treatment of Indians.

Gethsemani:

As an aside, I am also pretty annoyed with the fact that civility in this thread is used interchangeably with cowardice, timidity and appeasement.

Well, in past threads some members' arguments seemed to boil down to that the only acceptable civility from minorities is appeasement and invisibility; because no matter how civil the protests are, as long as they are visible, they are unacceptable.

So give a definition to civility and what good it does in desperate times. And if the later is "so the other side doesn't have more ammo", don't even bother (that side's alternative facts are as efficient as such ammo).

Saelune:
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.

Somehow, I don't think more people calling Hitler "dumb" would have done the job either...

ObsidianJones:
I had to overrule my self opposed exile/lurking to comment on this.

While there's an obvious truth to this statement, it also rings false. The first reasons is that Germany, UK, Russia, France, Greece, and other countries are seeing rises in violence towards the LBGTQ community. This is a global thing. And secondly, It's not a national problem in any means, as I just showed. It's a people problem. And sadly, it's not even the problem of those who commit these crimes. It's the permissive neutral aspect.

Russia has even a worse reputation than the US. The numbers for Germany fit exactly that I already quoted (different article, same source) which is really low even after the rise and most of the rise is attributed to the refugees who manage to be responsible for between 1/6 and 1/12 of all homophobic crimes (depending on source) while being only roughly 1% of our residents. Britain had some strange spike of attacks on minorities after the Brexit vote. And while i am not sure about developments in Greece and France, i can assure you that every country has its very own cultural dynamics regarding homosexuality. It is really not a global thing, it is a couple of nasty local things.

And a lot of the time, we're met with statistics and claims that it's not that bad yet. Like for some reason, we're supposed to await for the Roving Purge Gangs to get at our door to voice distress instead of being alarmed that no one seems to mind that the foundation for the Purge is being set up before our eyes.

This last statement isn't directed to you, Satinavian, but if people can honestly look at the growing threat towards fellow human beings and then proceed to use their 'uncouth' panic as reason to stay neutral... Well, they need to get their humanity examined.

I won't say to you it isn't bad. Because it is bad. It is so bad i had a hard timne believing it.

For most of my life a black American was for me just some American who happened to be black. I didn't think that the experience differed significantly from a white American. When i eventually did watch the Cosby show, it did show me only a family in a strange foreign land. And i didn't understand half the episodes because of missing cultural context about american school life and stuff. The thought that it was somehow important that the family was black or that it was unusual that black people were shown as well-off lawyers/physicians never crossed my mind.

It took a long time after learning English and actually reading English sources to understand that you still have severe race issues. And it took even longer to understand how bad those really are. It is not something i thought even possible in a modern first or second world country. Even after hearing throughout my youth how Americans are all evil capitalistic imperialists who want to enslave/kill us all.

So... it is bad.

Now, what to do ?
I don't think a violent uprising would work. And i am not sure it would make a better situation even if you won. Because nearly every successful violent revolution leads to purges and revolutionaries becoming dictators.

You could try to win elections. That is hard because your political system is fucked up. Would giving up civility help you win elections ? I don't think so. The voter segments you want to appeal to do like civility and you can't present yourself as a credible alternative to the rightwingers by copying them.

There is still the option of peaceful revolution. But here civility is not only helpful, it is utterly crucial. A peaceful revolution only works if you look like innocents and gouvernment officials/troops opposing you look like criminals. The easiest way for your enemies to make it impossible to achieve anything via civil disobedience is to provoke you to do something that allows for portraying you as threat.

----------------

So, your situation is shitty. But i am utterly convinced, giving up civility will only make it even worse.

And it is not like the US is inclined to follow any foreign pressure so i am even less powerful to change your situation than you are.

CaitSeith:

So give a definition to civility and what good it does in desperate times. And if the later is "so the other side doesn't have more ammo", don't even bother (that side's alternative facts are as efficient as such ammo).

Will you define desperate times, then? As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I believe there comes a time when civility and discourse must be abandoned. However, it is very important to know when that time is and not let fear guide you into overreaction before then. As distasteful as it might seem, the moderates are a significant majority in modern Western democracies and when you drop the pretense of civility you also drive them away. Hence why it is so important to retain civility for as long as possible, not to avoid feeding the other side, but to retain the chance of swaying indecisive, undecided and indifferent people to your side.

My contention is not with the idea of dropping civility and discourse. My contention is with the notion that now is that time in the USA or the western world in general. Especially coming on the heels of midterm elections that saw the Republicans swaying (and outright losing) in some of their traditional strongholds, because moderates are getting fed up with their increasingly aggressive actions and rhetoric.

CaitSeith:

Saelune:

runic knight:
snip

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.

I want to add that civility was attempted with Hitler. UK had an appeasement stance before WWII (give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone).

Nowadays, "appeaser" is a political insult in UK (I wonder why).

That has definitely been a major reason why I am so adamant about the flaws of 'civility'.

Gethsemani:

Will you define desperate times, then?

Losing your human/citizen rights, being separated from your kids without knowing if you'll ever see them again, getting shot by the people who should be protecting you, getting crippled as the goverment decides to cancel your medical treatment. Take your pick, and add to that you have been civil and active for 3 years without result.

Satinavian:
Russia has even a worse reputation than the US. The numbers for Germany fit exactly that I already quoted (different article, same source) which is really low even after the rise and most of the rise is attributed to the refugees who manage to be responsible for between 1/6 and 1/12 of all homophobic crimes (depending on source) while being only roughly 1% of our residents. Britain had some strange spike of attacks on minorities after the Brexit vote. And while i am not sure about developments in Greece and France, i can assure you that every country has its very own cultural dynamics regarding homosexuality. It is really not a global thing, it is a couple of nasty local things.

The problem with statistics is that they are gathered by humans.

If a person who has biases gathers information that affects their biases, they will probably bury it. Via dismissing the allegations or mislabeling the offense. Even though we are seeing spikes in reporting, the truth is we don't know the actual numbers due to misclassification, fundamental bias, or Victims' fear of not being heard.

When the new laws leave avenues to be under reported, such as we see in the UK's Data Collection in Recording and Their Legislation of Hate Crimes, we see why some numbers seem lower than what people report.

There is currently a disparity in the law regarding different types of hate crimes. Perpetrators of racially and religiously motivated hate crimes can be charged with specific offenses such as racially or religiously aggravated harassment or assault. However, perpetrators of homophobic hate crimes are charged with an existing offense such as assault, and the homophobic motivation is taken into account during the sentencing process.

To fully understand whether it's a global problem or a few nasty local things, we will have to look at every countries laws based on Hate Crimes, and whatever loopholes they allow to underreport. And frankly, I think that's a great idea. It will give us all a much more accurate account of what's going on.

I won't say to you it isn't bad. Because it is bad. It is so bad i had a hard timne believing it.

For most of my life a black American was for me just some American who happened to be black. I didn't think that the experience differed significantly from a white American. When i eventually did watch the Cosby show, it did show me only a family in a strange foreign land. And i didn't understand half the episodes because of missing cultural context about american school life and stuff. The thought that it was somehow important that the family was black or that it was unusual that black people were shown as well-off lawyers/physicians never crossed my mind.

It took a long time after learning English and actually reading English sources to understand that you still have severe race issues. And it took even longer to understand how bad those really are. It is not something i thought even possible in a modern first or second world country. Even after hearing throughout my youth how Americans are all evil capitalistic imerialists who want to enslave/kill us all.

So... it is bad.

Now, what to do ?
I don't think a violent uprising would work. And i am not sure it would make a better situation even if you won. Because nearly every successful violent revolution leads to purges and revolutionaries becoming dictators.

You could try to win elections. That is hard because your political system is fucked up. Would giving up civility help you win elections ? I don't think so. The voter segments you want to appeal to do like civility and you can't present yourself as a credible alternative to the rightwingers by copying them.

There is still the option of peaceful revolution. But here civility is not only helpful, it is utterly crucial. A peaceful revolution only works if you look like innocents and gouvernment officials/troops opposing you look like criminals. The easiest way for your enemies to make it impossible to achieve anything via civil disobedience is to provoke you to do something that allows for portraying you as threat.

----------------

So, your situation is shitty. But i am utterly convinced, giving up civility will only make it even worse.

And it is not like the US is inclined to follow any foreign pressure so i am even less powerful to change your situation than you are.

A peaceful revolution sounds nice. I'm not asking for a violent uprising. I don't want anything of the sort. I rather be able to talk and show logic to get a peaceful revolution in our world.

But I don't think humanity has ever truly seen its ilk affecting long term change. I would love it to. I would love for intelligence and discussion to win the day. I would love for the votes of people to be equally represented. But when we try for peaceful, those in power continue to take our voices away. Then the question has to become "what's next"?

I don't know if you've paid attention to my posts, but even with people I dislike, I tend to keep it as civil as possible. In fact, my self exile was due to me wanting to rip apart a poster here due to their backwards thinking. Instead of yelling and cursing, I took time off. Time off that I still might need.

But yes, I believe in Civility above all else. But I can. I'm 6'2. I'm 210 lbs. I've practiced several forms of martial arts in my life, including bladed and blunt weapons. I'm learning to use a firearm. And I have the psychological advantage of being apart of one of the most feared groups in all of the World.

In an one on one scrap, I have favorable odds. I won't win every fight, and everyone can get lucky on one day.

But more to the point, I believe in Civility because I have to. I'm 6'2. I'm 210 lbs. I've practiced several forms of martial arts in my life, including bladed and blunt weapons. I'm learning to use a firearm. And I have the societal disadvantage of being apart of one of the most feared groups in all of the World. I can't tell you how many times I couldn't strike back because no one would believe a fat little white kid would dare punch at me when I towered over them, and no one would listen that because people think like that, it's the very reason WHY they can get away punching me.

I have to use civility as a social shield. Because of perceptions, no matter the battle, people are always going to think I was in the forefront of it, egging it on. I have to moderate my tone because even if a white person is yelling at me, my black voice is going to ring louder in people's ears and it will askew accounts of what happened. I'm not being hyperbolic about this.

And it's draining.

It's draining always having to be the bigger man because if you don't, you're probably going to get shot and people are going to say I deserved it for daring to not have my emotions on control all the time. Because I need to be civil, no one else. Becausae Saelune needs to keep herself under control so people can take her seriously. So Lil Devil isn't showing herself to be a whiny female minority with a chip on her shoulder.

We have to keep it together so a system that is wronging us doesn't extend its authority and power to smack us back down. And our fellow citizens are either championing the fight with us even though they are apart of the privileged, says that it sucks but they can't do anything, or actively enjoys us being subjugated. And by my count, that's only a third of our fellow citizens who actually truly care.

I ask you, why do we have to remain civil when an entire system proceeds to treat us in the most uncivil way... and asks us to smile about it?

Gethsemani:

CaitSeith:

So give a definition to civility and what good it does in desperate times. And if the later is "so the other side doesn't have more ammo", don't even bother (that side's alternative facts are as efficient as such ammo).

Will you define desperate times, then? As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I believe there comes a time when civility and discourse must be abandoned. However, it is very important to know when that time is and not let fear guide you into overreaction before then. As distasteful as it might seem, the moderates are a significant majority in modern Western democracies and when you drop the pretense of civility you also drive them away. Hence why it is so important to retain civility for as long as possible, not to avoid feeding the other side, but to retain the chance of swaying indecisive, undecided and indifferent people to your side.

My contention is not with the idea of dropping civility and discourse. My contention is with the notion that now is that time in the USA or the western world in general. Especially coming on the heels of midterm elections that saw the Republicans swaying (and outright losing) in some of their traditional strongholds, because moderates are getting fed up with their increasingly aggressive actions and rhetoric.

Do not let fear guide you to complacency either.

Any moderate who can be scared away from doing what is right was never a good person. A good person does good for the sake of doing good. If moderates must be pandered to before they are willing to do what is right, then they are not good people.

Gethsemani:

CaitSeith:

I want to add that civility was attempted with Hitler. UK had an appeasement stance before WWII (give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone).

To give some credit to Chamberlain, he played a poor hand very well. There was simply no way that the UK could have meaningfully opposed Germany in the late-30's, since it had disarmed its army almost completely after WW1 and were still suffering from the depression. So with an anemic arms industry and army, and an ally (France) that was adamant about not taking any offensive action, seeing as how its military doctrine was purely defensive and its manpower pool direly shallow due to WW1, the UK could do very little but stall while it gathered strength. If anything, the fact that the UK stood up for Poland and honored their commitment to join them in a war against Germany shows that Chamberlain had realized that he could no longer appease Hitler, even if it meant the UK going to war half-baked.

As an aside, I am also pretty annoyed with the fact that civility in this thread is used interchangeably with cowardice, timidity and appeasement. One can be perfectly civil while fighting viciously for what one believes and one can be an appeasing coward while being brutish. FDR was entirely civil towards Germany up until 1941, but he made no compunctions in dealing harshly with them. Likewise Ghandi was entirely civil towards the British Empire, while encouraging peaceful but forceful protests and being outspoken about just how he felt about their treatment of Indians.

1941 was way too late for dealing with Germany, and honestly, it wasn't even for the right reasons. Even I like to glorify US involvement in WW2, but it wasn't actually to do the right thing. The US interred innocent Japanese-Americans, and the US abused Jews too. But I don't want to wait for '1941' and for some sort of Pearl Harbor to trick the rest of the world to do what is right. They must do it now, and they need to do it for the sake of what is just and fair.

Over 16 million people were horrifically murdered before the world did the right thing...for the wrong reasons.

You hate civility being equated to cowardice. I hate that standing up for myself makes people view me as an uncivil extremist. And I really fucking hate being blamed for identity politics when I am the victim of them, and I reeeeeeeally fucking hate being told to be nice to my abusers. I am right, and am being told I am wrong. I am shoved into the mud and told to be grateful for the honor.

ObsidianJones:
When the new laws leave avenues to be under reported, such as we see in the UK's Data Collection in Recording and Their Legislation of Hate Crimes, we see why some numbers seem lower than what people report.

There';s also the issue of visibility when it comes to LGBT groups and similar. When someone gets attacked for being gay or bi or trans, it's not guaranteed that it'll even be known that's why. The survivors are less likely to report that they were attacked for sexuality or gender identity, and the dead...well, the dead can't talk. I don't know about elsewhere in the world, because I only live in the US, but I imagine the same is true out there: it can be hard to tell if the targets are targeted for sexuality/gender identity when the worrds used to describe us are so frequently used as insults. Even something as simple as "gay" can signify an insult, and people throw around stronger language ("faggot"for example) to...anyone they don't like.

I was being attacked for being words equivalent to "gay" by the time I was five and I didn't know what those words actually meant by that point, but I could gather the inference that they were BAD. Growing up, I developed a more refined understanding of why I didn't want to be identified by these terms: it could cause problems with the exact authorities one might report to.

These numbers are often on the low side. In part because of reporting loopholes, in part because somebody along the line doesn't care, but also in part because you're an invisible minority who can be attacked under the guise of the same words someone might shout in any bar fight. It gives everyone plausible deniability, and that gives a lot of people shelter (well, how can you PROOOOOOOOOOVE they were gay? Can you PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE that the attack was otivated?) and even allies go into the "thought crime" territory.

Some of this does double back into the territory other folks encounter, too. We are very slow to call white people terrorists. Even a guy like Dylan Roof, who wrote a racist manifesto and told one of the people at his church he was doing it to protect the white race, leads people to go "woah woah woah woah...how do we know his actions were racially motivated?" while we assume a Muslimis a terrorist and that a terrorist is a Muslim if we don't know their ethnicity/religion (because "Muslim" and "Arab" are often interchangeable). There's so much benefot--much given potentially without malice--that such actions become normal and nobody thinks about them, and while I don't know that things aren't better elsewhere, my skeptic sense starts tingling hen people start talking about how this doesn't happen there. Because I hear that in the US, too.

Gethsemani:

CaitSeith:

I want to add that civility was attempted with Hitler. UK had an appeasement stance before WWII (give him what he wants and he'll leave us alone).

To give some credit to Chamberlain, he played a poor hand very well. There was simply no way that the UK could have meaningfully opposed Germany in the late-30's, since it had disarmed its army almost completely after WW1 and were still suffering from the depression. So with an anemic arms industry and army, and an ally (France) that was adamant about not taking any offensive action, seeing as how its military doctrine was purely defensive and its manpower pool direly shallow due to WW1, the UK could do very little but stall while it gathered strength. If anything, the fact that the UK stood up for Poland and honored their commitment to join them in a war against Germany shows that Chamberlain had realized that he could no longer appease Hitler, even if it meant the UK going to war half-baked.

Also noteworthy that "before WW2" is either "before the UK (and others) declared war on Germany" or "two days before". The end of appeasement was the start of WW2.

Also, for a few months nothing much happened in the West, and then very quickly the Third Reich extended itself to the English Channel. The UK (et al) had good reasons for not wanting to fight Germany.

Saelune:
Any moderate who can be scared away from doing what is right was never a good person. A good person does good for the sake of doing good. If moderates must be pandered to before they are willing to do what is right, then they are not good people.

While I totally agree that someone who needs to be pandered to to be a good person isn't (and almost certainly won't be even if pandered to), I disagree that good people can't be frightened into inaction. Though there are times when people are legitimately frightened into inaction because they've done nothing until it was too late due to apathy.

Thaluikhain:
Also noteworthy that "before WW2" is either "before the UK (and others) declared war on Germany" or "two days before". The end of appeasement was the start of WW2.

Also, for a few months nothing much happened in the West, and then very quickly the Third Reich extended itself to the English Channel. The UK (et al) had good reasons for not wanting to fight Germany.

Well, at least that's the start of WWII in Europe

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that WWII really started on July 7, 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. But then we get into the problems of definitions.

CM156:
Well, at least that's the start of WWII in Europe

Europe, and in parts of the world that were colonies of, or otherwise allied with the belligerent powers. Making it a world war, rather than a local one.

Mind you, could say the same about some pre WW1 conflicts.

Saelune:
1941 was way too late for dealing with Germany, and honestly, it wasn't even for the right reasons. Even I like to glorify US involvement in WW2, but it wasn't actually to do the right thing. The US interred innocent Japanese-Americans, and the US abused Jews too. But I don't want to wait for '1941' and for some sort of Pearl Harbor to trick the rest of the world to do what is right. They must do it now, and they need to do it for the sake of what is just and fair.

FDR opposed Nazi-German as early as 1935, when they tried to play the US into shrinking their war reparations. More pertinently, FDR was quick to assure aid to the UK in 1938 and the entire Lend-Lease program was established in 1939 as a way for the US to support the UK, even though a majority of its people did not wish for intervention. The Lend-Lease program also allowed the US to get its arms industry going, which was a huge boon come 1942 and the US needing to raise an entire army from almost nothing, as the US had done the same mistake as the UK and almost completely disarmed following WW1. What FDR did was not enough to prevent WW2, obviously, but he and his compatriots in US politics did a lot to sway US opinion of both Japan and Germany (remember that oil embargo against Japan, aimed at stopping their war in China?) to enable active military intervention.

One can argue that no one outside of Germany or Japan could have prevented WW2, but FDR decided to remain civil and compromise with his political opponents in the US as to enable the US to intervene earlier and in more ways prior to the US actually getting attacked. That's not nothing and it is undoubtedly more then he'd gotten if he'd decided to dismiss the entire Republican party as Nazis for not wanting to fight the actual Nazis.

Saelune:
You hate civility being equated to cowardice. I hate that standing up for myself makes people view me as an uncivil extremist. And I really fucking hate being blamed for identity politics when I am the victim of them, and I reeeeeeeally fucking hate being told to be nice to my abusers. I am right, and am being told I am wrong. I am shoved into the mud and told to be grateful for the honor.

I think you're uncivil because your go-to solution around here has been to call people Nazis when they disagree with you. So let me be clear: I am not telling you to sit down and take it. I am telling you that you need to be smart about what you do. The urge to retaliate in kind is strong, but it is unlikely to be the best course of action, considering we live in representative democracies. Which ties into this:

Saelune:

Any moderate who can be scared away from doing what is right was never a good person. A good person does good for the sake of doing good. If moderates must be pandered to before they are willing to do what is right, then they are not good people.

Who cares if they are good persons? I mean, I'd love for everyone to be, but that's not how reality works. What's important is not if they are good or bad or in between. What matters is that these are the people we have to influence in order to safe guard the rights we've been given, whom we must sway to our side to make further progress. It is not about pandering to them, it is about communicating with them in ways they appreciate, much like that old saying "Speak Latin with priests and English with peasants". They are people who react negatively to violence, to hateful and aggressive rhetoric and demands of immediate change placed upon them. So if we want them on our side (and we do, since they are the people that win elections), we need to present ourselves in ways that they will think positively of. It is simple realpolitik, in that we can gain more by clenching our teeth, bear the injustice and keep eloquently explaining why we deserve our rights and why the other side are hateful bigots, without ever raising our voices or insulting anyone, especially not the people whom we need to support us.

Because if we decry them, what's to stop them from turning on us? If we are obnoxious, hateful, demanding and impatient, why should they stick with us? Even if they think we are right, very few people stick by anyone who repeatedly denigrates them. We need to be civil because we need allies, and we need them even from groups that normally don't care for our problems.

Saelune:

You hate civility being equated to cowardice. I hate that standing up for myself makes people view me as an uncivil extremist. And I really fucking hate being blamed for identity politics when I am the victim of them, and I reeeeeeeally fucking hate being told to be nice to my abusers. I am right, and am being told I am wrong. I am shoved into the mud and told to be grateful for the honor.

No one's ever told you to be nice to abusers. They've been saying you're so quick to make everyone your enemy you miss label people as abusers. People might be apathetic and willing to listen to you if you show them some respect. But since you label everything a Nazi it's safe for someone to assume you're a stereotypical "irrational liberal" like Antifa.

If you just drop the victim complex and act like a decent human being you might convince people to make some changes in this country and route out the real bigots. So far, wallowing in self pity and making more enemies hasn't gotten you anywhere constant arguments and 7 pages of people telling you you're off base.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

You hate civility being equated to cowardice. I hate that standing up for myself makes people view me as an uncivil extremist. And I really fucking hate being blamed for identity politics when I am the victim of them, and I reeeeeeeally fucking hate being told to be nice to my abusers. I am right, and am being told I am wrong. I am shoved into the mud and told to be grateful for the honor.

No one's ever told you to be nice to abusers. They've been saying you're so quick to make everyone your enemy you miss label people as abusers. People might be apathetic and willing to listen to you if you show them some respect. But since you label everything a Nazi it's safe for someone to assume you're a stereotypical "irrational liberal" like Antifa.

If you just drop the victim complex and act like a decent human being you might convince people to make some changes in this country and route out the real bigots. So far, wallowing in self pity and making more enemies hasn't gotten you anywhere constant arguments and 7 pages of people telling you you're off base.

Catnip did.

Catnip1024:
Okay, let's do this.

Saelune:
And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...
And now they want civility?

A good, a nebulous "they" to blur the lines between people you disagree with and irrational arseholes everyone disagrees with.

Civility is a tool of oppression. Civility is what those in power demand of those not in power, for civility helps them stay in power. Civility keeps people from calling out others for their misdeads. Civility worse yet, being used to oppress by people who neglect their own civility.

Being massively impolite is the tool of oppression, by that definition. Krystalnacht wasn't very civil, for instance.

The Stonewall Riots were not civil, but they were effective.

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 you are saying it too.

You are telling the victims to be decent human beings when their abusers aren't. That is unfair.

Gethsemani:

I think you're uncivil because your go-to solution around here has been to call people Nazis when they disagree with you..

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Seanchaidh:
People like Betsy DeVos don't deserve to have nice, uninterrupted dinners in fancy restaurants.

Neither? And it's beyond disingenuous to suggest so? Maybe the Nazi positions are the ones that attack a person's right to exist? Maybe policy changes that have gratuitous and measurable body counts are different from a typical decision about when to repair a road?

My point is that Saelune has made it clear multiple times that disagreeing with her or having a different position is a vote for Trump, therefore Nazi.
So logically whatever position she takes, the opposite HAS to be the Nazi point of view. No subtlety, no in-between, no room for disagreement, just black vs white. One or Nazi.

You're believing the twisted BS of right-wingers here, Pony.

I disagree with all Nazis. So if someone is a Nazi, then I inherently disagree with them. You're getting the cause and effect in the wrong order.

I don't think Dr.Thrax, Seanchaidh, you, or erttheking are Nazis, and we all definitely disagree on some big things.

Saelune:

And you are saying it too.

You are telling the victims to be decent human beings when their abusers aren't. That is unfair.

Listening skills are valuable...

The point of the post was, in the context of this particular public social interaction we're having at this moment, assume the people you are speaking with have good intentions. If seems like someone is suggesting we condone violence or taking away someone's rights, that is your own paranoia talking to you. Take your fear and anxiety, throw it in a box, and evaluate reality for a moment.

ObsidianJones:
To fully understand whether it's a global problem or a few nasty local things, we will have to look at every countries laws based on Hate Crimes, and whatever loopholes they allow to underreport. And frankly, I think that's a great idea. It will give us all a much more accurate account of what's going on.

Yes, reporting is a political issue here. But it is complicated as there are both claims of underreporting and of overreporting. And it is not even clear which kind of numbers our politicians want. The reason is our multitude of parties and the various groups they support and their relations to each other. That is less an issue with LGBT but it is an issue with racist or religious hate crimes where people regularly argue about the numbers.

I think our police tries to be accurate most of the time and that their numbers are among the more reliable. But our police is quite different from your police anyway.

A peaceful revolution sounds nice. I'm not asking for a violent uprising. I don't want anything of the sort. I rather be able to talk and show logic to get a peaceful revolution in our world.

A peaceful revolution is nice.

But to be honest, it is also quite scary. When it is happening you can never be actually sure that it stays peaceful. You do your protests (demonstrations, symbolic acts, whatever) from which you are fully aware that those in power really don't like it and would punish you instantly if you were alone or only a few people. And you can only hope that it works, that the gouvernment not suddenly decides you all belong into prison. That your numbers stay high enough that there is no crackdown. That both your comrades and the policemen/guards/soldiers observing you keep their cool. And that it stays peaceful in the other towns too.

But if it works, it is really worth it.

I don't know if you've paid attention to my posts, but even with people I dislike, I tend to keep it as civil as possible. In fact, my self exile was due to me wanting to rip apart a poster here due to their backwards thinking. Instead of yelling and cursing, I took time off. Time off that I still might need.

I did pay attention and i do like your posts. They are a valuable contribution to the forum bringing a new perspective. Also i tend to take them for the truth.
The latter is not true for those posters who seem to provoke and escalate all the time. If someone who flings unfounded accusations all the time, always tries to put a spin on stuff, ignores arguments and derails threads gives a personal account of something that i can't easily check and that just so happens to support his political agenda, i start of extremely sceptical. Now the posters whom i would hardly believe anything are not in this thread.

I ask you, why do we have to remain civil when an entire system proceeds to treat us in the most uncivil way... and asks us to smile about it?

Yes, it is unfair. And i see how that can be draining.

And i don't think you should just take it and smile. I hope you find a way to change it. I just think you need to uphold civility to do so successfully. Civility does not mean to not complain, it doesn't even really mean to not show your anger.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:

And you are saying it too.

You are telling the victims to be decent human beings when their abusers aren't. That is unfair.

Listening skills are valuable...

The point of the post was, in the context of this particular public social interaction we're having at this moment, assume the people you are speaking with have good intentions. If seems like someone is suggesting we condone violence or taking away someone's rights, that is your own paranoia talking to you. Take your fear and anxiety, throw it in a box, and evaluate reality for a moment.

Check your privilege.

Saelune:
You are telling the victims to be decent human beings when their abusers aren't. That is unfair.

I'm not sure if that choice of words was intentional but I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Yes, even under attack you should remain a decent human being.

Not submissive, not passive, not uncomplaining, not even necessarily pacifistic or civil. But yes, decent.

Unless you'd rather excuse yourself from the burden of basic decency and adopt the same harmful or immoral methods that you criticise your opponents for?

Gethsemani:

I think you're uncivil because your go-to solution around here has been to call people Nazis when they disagree with you..

Saelune:

I disagree with all Nazis. So if someone is a Nazi, then I inherently disagree with them. You're getting the cause and effect in the wrong order.

I don't know why, but this exchange kinda reminded me of this weird dramatization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPa1wikTd5c

Whatever you agree or not with this portrayal (once your mind recovered from the "WTF did I just watch" phase); just for the sake of argument let me ask you: what could Saul Salzman have said in order to change Jackie Jackson's mind?

Saelune:
Check your privilege.

Black. Bi-sexual. Non-Christian. Lives in the south.

Try again.

Agema:
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.

No. Civility is an attempt to compel debate. Without civility, you have none, just meaningless bile and rhetoric. Sure you may "win", but at the end of it you are all arseholes. You can compel change through civility. You can compel change through violence. You can't convince people through violence, though.

Sexual Harassment Panda:
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.

Well, this is my problem. I whole-heartedly agree with you - there are numerous good examples, and civil interaction makes the world a better place (even the oppression people are giving as examples of civility is heavily uncivil in itself). But peeps round here have a tendency to twist things. It's my own fault for having the audacity to disagree, to be fair.

Something Amyss:
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.

In life, civility works wonders. There comes a time where it has to stop. But to your example there - being uncivil is more likely to make people want to curb stomp you. The bully mentality is after a reaction, after all. If you need to resort to violence, resort to violence. But there's no point inflaming matters before that point.

As the Panda pointed out, there are dozens of examples of projects to improve community relations. Just because you've had bad personal experiences doesn't make them less valid, or change the overall point that if you go around being intentionally uncivil in general people will be less inclined to care.

And as for the "who are you to talk..." angle, you have no idea who I am or what I've been through. So maybe lay off the "you can't possibly understand" unless you are willing to appreciate that it can be applied against any person on any subject ever.

Shadowstar38:

Listening skills are valuable...

The point of the post was, in the context of this particular public social interaction we're having at this moment, assume the people you are speaking with have good intentions.

OK. Let's just say that a specific person shows a lack of good intentions at mid-discussion. Then what?

Gethsemani:
As an aside, I am also pretty annoyed with the fact that civility in this thread is used interchangeably with cowardice, timidity and appeasement.

You know what? That kind of sums up a lot of the disagreement I'm having with people here, better than I could have put it.

CaitSeith:

Shadowstar38:

Listening skills are valuable...

The point of the post was, in the context of this particular public social interaction we're having at this moment, assume the people you are speaking with have good intentions.

OK. Let's just say that a specific person shows a lack of good intentions at mid-discussion. Then what?

Assume they articulated themselves poorly or lack awareness. Clarify things. Throw them a life line. When you actually get to the heart of an idea, there's a point where you can't make something malicious sound good no matter how hard you try. Then you can voice an objection on moral grounds and just kind of bugger off.

Shadowstar38:

Saelune:
Check your privilege.

Black. Bi-sexual. Non-Christian. Lives in the south.

Try again.

Then why do you so vehemently defend the right? Even looking back on your past posts you very clearly defend the right and oppose 'left-wing SJW's'. Why?

Catnip1024:

Agema:
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.

No. Civility is an attempt to compel debate. Without civility, you have none, just meaningless bile and rhetoric. Sure you may "win", but at the end of it you are all arseholes. You can compel change through civility. You can compel change through violence. You can't convince people through violence, though.

So by that logic, it is the right's fault for ruining the discussion with their lack of civility.

Shadowstar38:

CaitSeith:

Shadowstar38:

Listening skills are valuable...

The point of the post was, in the context of this particular public social interaction we're having at this moment, assume the people you are speaking with have good intentions.

OK. Let's just say that a specific person shows a lack of good intentions at mid-discussion. Then what?

Assume they articulated themselves poorly or lack awareness. Clarify things.

And if the clarification reveals lack of good intentions? What to do when they want to discuss again? Keep assuming good intentions despite any evidence of the contrary?

Saelune:
Then why do you so vehemently defend the right? Even looking back on your past posts you very clearly defend the right and oppose 'left-wing SJW's'. Why?

If someone's doing something stupid, I'm opposed to it regardless of the source of stupidity. If someone has a valid point, the point stands as valid regardless of the source. That's not "defending" a side. That's called being reasonable. It just so happens that this site leans left so I need to take time to get people to actually evaluate themselves.

CaitSeith:

And if the clarification reveals lack of good intentions? What to do when they want to discuss again? Keep assuming good intentions despite any evidence of the contrary?

No. Then you call it out as bullshit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 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