Civility

[KT Shamim]

Frankly, I'm pretty concerned with how unruly our public discourse is becoming.

I think blaming "the media" is a cop-out, as they're only responsible for their content. We are responsible for our response to that content. We are also responsible for our acceptance of said content. I think, were we a more discerning public, we wouldn't have half of the problems that we do with information manipulation.

Bad ideas are bad ideas, and I'm a champion for discussing them, even to the point of raised voices. But civility and decorum go a long way in helping to change the minds of those you disagree with, especially on emotionally touchy subjects.

In logical and formal debate, the cardinal rule is to always address the idea being presented, and not the presenter, their baggage, or external, non-presented topics. Fallacies are always fallacies, even if you're filled with copious amounts of righteous indignation.

Well said.

[Qur'an 16:126] "Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in a way that is best. Surely, thy Lord knows best who has strayed from His way; and He knows those who are rightly guided."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just for the sake of this thread;

Fascism definition, a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Definition of Nazism (National Socialist)
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

You realized that this didn’t say anything about the KKK, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Passive (non)response in the name of direct hate is not at all what I'm talking about or arguing for.
I think it's a mistake to pretend the only two options in this conversation are complicity and extremism.
There's a ****-ton of middle ground between the two, which I think are vastly more important and prevalent in society, and cartoons like this casually brush over that in favor of the extremes, which only fuels the idea that there's only two options... It's a vicious cycle. And that's silly.

I guess I may have assumed badly, because I assumed that this thread was in response to the recent incident at the Red Hen Restaurant where Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service. Is this the sort of thing you’re arguing against?

For that minority population, I would agree.
But the majority of people who favor a given political ideology aren't solidified to the point of being in cahoots with organized hate groups. Which means they're reachable. And reachable people should be reached.

How much of a link constitutes “in cahoots?” Remember that Trump was endorsed by the KKK:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ba90418092b9

And I’d personally consider groups like Blue Lives Matter and the Tea Party to be organized hate groups. I think there’s a lot of hate in the modern Republican Party.

 

[Sunstone]

Insulting people or groups often enough has at its true goal -- not trying to change their behavior -- but to marginalize them in the eyes of others.

Fox is very good at that. If all you knew of Hillary Clinton was what you heard of her on Fox, you certainly would not want to be associated with her. The same goes for liberals in general.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yoda's ethnic?

Haven't you noticed that he's not caucasian?
He's Dagobahstanian.

 

[David1967]

You realized that this didn’t say anything about the KKK, right?

I know. I simply put these definitions in regard to the use of the terms Nazi, and Fascist. But here ya go.
Ku Klux Klan

1. U.S. History. a secret hate group in the southern U.S., active for several years after the Civil War, which aimed to suppress the newly acquired rights of black people and to oppose carpetbaggers from the North, and which was responsible for many lawless and violent proceedings.
2. Official name Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. a secret hate group inspired by the former, founded in 1915 and currently active across the U.S., especially in the South, directed against black people, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, foreign-born individuals, and other groups.

 

[atanu]

...
those to personal hatred, the real motivator.

That is the point, IMO. 'Hatred' or more specifically 'hatred of the other'. And will you agree that some -- such as the leader in USA and the leader in India -- embody to highest degree this very 'hatred of the other' (that to less or more extent guides all of us)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know. I simply put these definitions in regard to the use of the terms Nazi, and Fascist. But here ya go.
Ku Klux Klan

1. U.S. History. a secret hate group in the southern U.S., active for several years after the Civil War, which aimed to suppress the newly acquired rights of black people and to oppose carpetbaggers from the North, and which was responsible for many lawless and violent proceedings.
2. Official name Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. a secret hate group inspired by the former, founded in 1915 and currently active across the U.S., especially in the South, directed against black people, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, foreign-born individuals, and other groups.

I hope whatever point you're trying to make is obvious to you, but I have no idea where you're going at this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the point, IMO. 'Hatred' or more specifically 'hatred of the other'. And will you agree that some -- such as the leader in USA and the leader in India -- embody to highest degree this very 'hatred of the other' (that to less or more extent guides all of us)?

No argument here.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sorry. I must have missed this over the weekend.

I guess I may have assumed badly, because I assumed that this thread was in response to the recent incident at the Red Hen Restaurant where Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service. Is this the sort of thing you’re arguing against?

This kind of assumption is what I was referring to in my response to Lewis. I realize it may seem that directly topical, but it's not. As far as the thread goes, I'm speaking more towards the general breakdown of civility between individuals as they argue for one political side or another in any given scenario. I see people so caught up in their need to be right that they almost instinctively project a whole host of negative baggage onto their opponent, virtually rendering them deaf to what's actually being said. If we can't hear each other, how can we ever actually communicate and solve problems?

How much of a link constitutes “in cahoots?” Remember that Trump was endorsed by the KKK:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ba90418092b9

And I’d personally consider groups like Blue Lives Matter and the Tea Party to be organized hate groups. I think there’s a lot of hate in the modern Republican Party.

I think to be considered a hate group you have to directly plan and organize for the harm of others. While there may be some seedy motivations among members of those groups, I don't think you should lump them into the same class as groups like the Neo Nazis, KKK, or ACT, for example. (I will say that I attended a public Tea Party gathering maybe a week after a KKK march and I walked away feeling like they were White Nationalist Lite... It was incredibly odd and distressing.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think to be considered a hate group you have to directly plan and organize for the harm of others.

Blue Lives Matter is a campaign to undermine efforts to reduce racially-motivated killings by police. The Tea Party - along with other groups - bear a large degree of the responsibility for the changes in policy that have resulted in the recent abuses by ICE. I think it's fair to say that both groups meet your qualification. Both have carried out organized campaigns that have resulted in real harm to others.

While there may be some seedy motivations among members of those groups, I don't think you should lump them into the same class as groups like the Neo Nazis, KKK, or ACT, for example. (I will say that I attended a public Tea Party gathering maybe a week after a KKK march and I walked away feeling like they were White Nationalist Lite... It was incredibly odd and distressing.)

Why not? Why can't we put them in the same class?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Blue Lives Matter is a campaign to undermine efforts to reduce racially-motivated killings by police. The Tea Party - along with other groups - bear a large degree of the responsibility for the changes in policy that have resulted in the recent abuses by ICE. I think it's fair to say that both groups meet your qualification. Both have carried out organized campaigns that have resulted in real harm to others.


Why not? Why can't we put them in the same class?

It was all super sensitive and hyperbolic to declare them racist back when they started "just because of a few." Even if the majority wasn't actively participating in displays of racism, they certainly weren't bothered by it enough to tone it down.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This kind of assumption is what I was referring to in my response to Lewis. I realize it may seem that directly topical, but it's not. As far as the thread goes, I'm speaking more towards the general breakdown of civility between individuals as they argue for one political side or another in any given scenario. I see people so caught up in their need to be right that they almost instinctively project a whole host of negative baggage onto their opponent, virtually rendering them deaf to what's actually being said. If we can't hear each other, how can we ever actually communicate and solve problems?

Speaking of baggage, it's important to remember that when the right calls for "civility," in addition to coming off as deeply hypocritical, it brings with it baggage of how black people who strove to be seen as equals with white people were described as "uppity," and how women who fought for their rights were described as "indelicate" or "unladylike."

Passivity and decorum protects the status quo, so calling for "civility" can be seen as endorsing existing injustices. As Martin Luther King put it, "freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." Fighting for justice requires a certain degree of incivility; operating only within the rules of an oppressive system will not stop oppression.

 

[fantome profane]

Just a general comment.

We do need more civility. We do need to be able to talk to each other and respect each other. But I also think we need to grow a thicker skin.

There are genuinely outrageous things being done and said, things we should be offended by. But I also see a great deal of fake outrage. People jumping on the slightest show of “moxie” by the opposing tribe and shouting about the uncivil behaviour and how society is disintegrating around us. It is akin to the floppers in professional soccer. The fake outrage, the snowflakes, the “floppers” do as much or more to prevent civil discourse that the real acts of rudeness.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh....civility vs. insincerity. Common sense vs. senseless imagination.
That would be nice....how do we get there ? Any more thoughts ?

 

[`mud]

Ohhhhh....another one...Truth vs. Lying A.holes

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Speaking of baggage, it's important to remember that when the right calls for "civility," in addition to coming off as deeply hypocritical, it brings with it baggage of how black people who strove to be seen as equals with white people were described as "uppity," and how women who fought for their rights were described as "indelicate" or "unladylike."

Did you see the thread where some guy throw a cup of liquid on a teen and stole the teen's Trump hat? Yes, we need more civility because that is not only theft it's assault.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

civility vs. insincerity.

I can assure you, one does not need to be insincere to be civil. Maybe because I "live with the enemy," but getting along with those of other view points isn't hard. It also tends to change more view points that throwing eggs at people.
Perhaps people should watch Accidental Courtesy to see how a little civility can go a long way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you see the thread where some guy throw a cup of liquid on a teen and stole the teen's Trump hat? Yes, we need more civility because that is not only theft it's assault.

It seems that there’s more to that story than the kid with the hat originally let on:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-whataburger-maga-attack-20180706-story.html

But another customer claims there’s more to the story, and that the group of teens made racially charged comments before the incident unfolded, KENS 5 reported.

The witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told KENS 5 that the teens in the video joked about “hanging blacks” and killing off minorities before they were targeted.

“They were talking about the Fourth of July hanging black people from trees that that would be the perfect party. Hopefully, with Donald Trump within the next few years, we can celebrate a white country, a real country without blacks. Maybe we can deport them to Africa,” the witness told KENS 5.

“They said they wanted it to be legal for white people to kill any other race for the Fourth of July,” he claimed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking of baggage, it's important to remember that when the right calls for "civility," in addition to coming off as deeply hypocritical, it brings with it baggage of how black people who strove to be seen as equals with white people were described as "uppity," and how women who fought for their rights were described as "indelicate" or "unladylike."

Passivity and decorum protects the status quo, so calling for "civility" can be seen as endorsing existing injustices. As Martin Luther King put it, "freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." Fighting for justice requires a certain degree of incivility; operating only within the rules of an oppressive system will not stop oppression.

It seems that there’s more to that story than the kid with the hat originally let on:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-whataburger-maga-attack-20180706-story.html

You're actually making SW's point about how incivility inspires more of the same.

The racist baggage you claim for civility doesn't exist...your post wrongly equates
treating others respectfully with passivity, silence, & oppression.
One could say that calls for righteous incivility come off as "deeply hypocritical"
since the current rampant abuse of others isn't even remotely fighting for justice..