On civility, or the occasional lack thereof.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Cross-posted to Conservatalk


With the death of Mr. Brietbart there's been a lot of talk about civility in modern politics.

Personally I don't think that "civility" is much of an issue. Hyperbolic Vitriol has been apart of this nation's political dialogue since it's inception and Mr. Brietbart's tactics were simply the continuation of a long and proud american tradition.

That said, at what point should we become concerned?

Obviously, there is a huge gap between heated words and tossing people into ovens and I’d hope that we'd all come to our collective senses before things got that out-of-hand but I find myself wondering just how hard it would be to convince this idiot along with his 200+ cheer-leaders that sending cops door to door to arrest anyone bearing a certain socio-political label is not only OK but a good idea?

Is there a problem or am I just being paranoid?

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

That dude needs a break. And a church.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It's actually quite amazing what simplistic fundamentalist logic the politically-obsessed will succumb to, all the while thinking they're rational, non-fundamentalist, reasonable people. This is because they don't go to church, and don't learn the lessons of excessive fundamentalism. It just never occurs to them that they're fundie whackos like the next fundie whacko.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's much easier to be outraged at what someone says than what they do.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Paranoid? Maybe if your sense of internal security is skewed by a single guy ranting on a web site.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

260 guys actually but hey...

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

It's always the other guy who goes too far.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Very true. Its the subjective nature of the human condition coupled with a blindness to blind spots.

But that guy was obviously trying to push boundaries.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Just like how a person whose pastor is directly tied with ongoing mass murder is much less worth fearing than somebody whose neighbor was an ex-terrorist. Mass murder of teenagers in Nigeria? That's Aw-right. Saying "God Damn America" instead of "God will burn this heathen country of fags and Commies"? That's just terrible.

When It Gets Worse Than This, We Might Need to Act

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Note the link in the OP ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that incident in 1861-5 where the losing side of an election decided to contest it with armed force, lost, and has vehemently ever since denied that it was about losing an election more than anything else, while the winning side turned a gambit intended to close the war quickly into an ultimate moral advantage, disguising that it was dragged into that kicking and screaming.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I think there would be a problem if:

• his opinions were not balanced by a conservative thinking the same thing of "libruls"; and
  
• this imbalance emboldened the majority of potty mouths to escalate their uncivil language into action.

We must be allowed to unburden ourselves verbally on occasion, provided we always leave ourselves open to the possibility that we could be wrong.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The idea of Americans being the leaders in the amity, goodwill, and neighborly co-existence sweepstakes is so much bourgeois foolishness. We should be concerned when we start resorting to our ancestors' ideas of peaceable discussion on taboos: either massive pogroms or socially acceptable crowd murders. Or alternately when one of our Congressmen nearly beats another one to death in the chambers on national TV and people say "Hit 'em again." At that point store up the canned food, stack up on water and generators, and wait on the civil war to pass by and thus try to live through it hoping both sides leave you alone.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

There's too much hate in the world. We all get angry but there's a point where the anger should be set aside.

That said, somebody ranting on a website and typing an ironically hilarious laundry list of invective (reminds me a bit of the list of adjectives in the back of the Call of Cthulhu roleplaying game) is best ignored.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Oh that's definitely over the top.

I wonder, could you find this a bit funny if he said "And Democrats are three times worse!" at the end, ala South Park. Now, tell the truth... :-)

at what point should we become concerned?

When our leaders and pundits do it, its of cause for concern. What a blog does it, less so, but still a concern.


Is there a problem or am I just being paranoid?

That instance is indeed problematic, but its clearly intended to be so.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I wonder, could you find this a bit funny if he said "And Democrats are three times worse!" at the end, ala South Park. Now, tell the truth... :-)

Maybe a little. ;)

But assuming the author is sincere, I find his de-humanization of political opponents to be a worrying sign. As I asked in the OP "at what point should we become concerned?"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Well, I think there's a reasonable time to get concerned. Civility has definitely been a human problem, in the human spheres, for a long time. But seriously, when was the last time this shit happened:

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

De-Humanization leading to widespread violence?

I'd say that the most recent case in the US would have been the various riots in 68 associated with the civil rights movement.

In the world one just has to look at any given tuesday in Afgahnistan or sub-saharan Africa.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Funny, I hear this or worse coming from right wing talk radio and blogs all the time. Apparently it's so unusual coming from the left that it gets noticed.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is probably a conservative pretending to be a liberal. It is like the way that the political right seeded anti-war demonstrations with agitators to work up the crowd to a violent pitch.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

[Citation Needed]

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but while I've heard progressives described as stupid, dangerous, ammoral, misguided, delusional, etc... I've never heard them described as being sub-human by anyone other than the Westboro Bapist "god hates fags" types.

Even if you are correct, and conservatives are just as bad are you really arguing that 2 wrongs make a right?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I've always found that claim to be overblown. The left seems to love seeking out examples of a few off posts and then distort and publicize it.

Look at Rush for instance, according to many he actually claimed all women who use birth control are sluts who should be required to post their sex vids online... and yet he didn't say it. Meanwhile Ed Shultz last year went on a tirade where he called Laura Ingraham a slut and no one batted an eyelash.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would phrase it another way, we should be concerned if we get to approving of these two patterns of the old America again:

http://www.resist.com/updates/2011/Oct_11/TakeYourChoice-Bilbo.pdf (http://www.resist.com/updates/2011/Oct_11/TakeYourChoice-Bilbo.pdf)

^People calling for segregation of the races and banning things like interracial marriage again and this one:



^People posing under bodies murdered by mob violence, faces exposed to the cameras, knowing they will never, ever be punished.

This is when we realized that we have indeed reclaimed "traditional family values" of the old days, such as when school shootings, car bombings, mass movements of racist thugs marching through the capital, pogroms, mob violence, and outright calls to avoid "Amalgamation" were the ordinary products of civilized discourse. The idea that America was ever some uniquely pacific, happy place is one of the most evil and vulgar twists on the whole concept of the Last, Best Hope of humankind, to quote Abraham Lincoln.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I agree that this particular individual is a problem. His supporters should be hospitalized and forced to take brain damaging pharmaceuticals lest they be violently assaulted.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Even if we put aside the issue of whether we need to become concerned (and I'd argue that, yes, the dehumanization can be taken too far and lead to violence), the question remains about whether civility is something we should strive for in order to be effective in the first place. Heck, we're having this very same debate right now in some parts of the athiest community. Case in point: the absurd (and offensive, imo) billboard put up by American Athiests (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/08/kylie-doesnt-get-it/). It's sparked a debate between folks like PZ Myers (who is always very much in favor of being shockingly confrontational) and others who think a more civil and respectful tone and message is required. Obviously, this is a very blatant case of going too far: no one's going to see that billboard and think "Gee, maybe those athiests are right!" They're all going to think: "Geez, athiests are assholes!" The message has been lost entirely.

I think there's some room for confrontation, strong words and even outright mockery when appropriate. But I think that it can EASILY cross a line, and you only need to look at PZ Myers getting into one of his slug fests with some religious people on Twitter to see things get ugly, fast. And at the end of it all, you have to ask: was ANYONE convinced of anything there? What did it actually accomplish?

There's nothing more obnoxious than a tone troll coming in and trying to play "Gee, why can't everyone play NICE", but there's something to be said for the EFFECTIVENESS of civility. At the very least, it doesn't raise the defenses reflexively, and leaves open the possibility of a conversation.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would say that the question is "what are you trying to accomplish?" and "what do you need to accomplish it?". Sometimes a carrot is called for, at other times a stick.

The problem as I see it is that in the case above, poilitical opponents are not people to be argued with but enemies to be hated, feared, and destroyed. Doesn't matter if they're polite about it or not, the attitude itself is toxic.