Is civility always appropriate?

[Opsa]

Oh, I love Quintin Crisp for his individuality.

As for civility, I think it is usually appropriate, and as Bob suggests it can sometimes take the form of humor as to disarm those who are taking themselves too seriously.

Yelling is also appropriate sometimes. If someone grabs my child (for instance), I am likely to yell, and I don't think others would justly criticize me for doing so. 

[Aggie]

I think civility is always appropriate, in normal daily human interactions, ESPECIALLY with uncivil people.  The contrast is wonderful, and tends to get to them - refusing to yell back denies them the pleasure of the screaming match, which IMHO many tend to thrive on.

I am not speaking about more extreme circumstances here (Darlica raises some good points re: Civil Courage), but am mostly considering dealing with uncivil people.  I tend to disagree with Bob that it's constructive to stoop to openly mocking / derisive behaviours (works both ways & could backfire). I do agree with the use of sarcasm / satire / humour, but this is often more delicious when delivered using dry wit in an apparently civil manner, especially if one can fire just slightly over the target's head.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I just wonder about those individuals that have a platform for intolerance (ie: Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc). Not too long ago after Mr Beck decided to claim that Obama was a racist there was an effort to shun the behavior by trying to force sponsors of his show to stop placing ads. A number of them complied but the popularity of the show went up because the host had been 'unjustly prosecuted' and the act generated sympathy.

In my mind this is one of those areas in which both free speech and the ways to handle such behaviors are tested. It is undesirable to transform the offending voices in martyrs, but on the other hand, unchecked they can pretty much get away with murder (swift veterans for truth anyone?).

Direct attacks seem counterproductive but how do you reach those who are consuming said speech uncritically? Some may respond to satire, some are simply lost (the conspiracy crowd for instance), but some may start believing the BS just by repetition.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

If he hadn't had such strange views for being a gay man (HIV a fad? Homosexuality a disease?) I would have liked him an awful lot. I still kind of like him, even still.

Re. HIV I think he was genuinely ignorant of what it was all about at the time he made the remark.

Re. homosexuality a disease....... it's hard to remember he lived most of his life with it being illegal and all the ignorance and hate that went with that. We had him to stay with us and so had the opportunity to see the man behind the public face. He was genuinely a frightened man and deeply scarred by his experiences. It gave me an even greater respect for what he achieved and who he was. We had loads of people stay with us, but none touched me so deeply. 

Point taken. And I have to admire someone with guts like he had.

I just wonder about those individuals that have a platform for intolerance (ie: Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc). Not too long ago after Mr Beck decided to claim that Obama was a racist there was an effort to shun the behavior by trying to force sponsors of his show to stop placing ads. A number of them complied but the popularity of the show went up because the host had been 'unjustly prosecuted' and the act generated sympathy.

In my mind this is one of those areas in which both free speech and the ways to handle such behaviors are tested. It is undesirable to transform the offending voices in martyrs, but on the other hand, unchecked they can pretty much get away with murder (swift veterans for truth anyone?).

Direct attacks seem counterproductive but how do you reach those who are consuming said speech uncritically? Some may respond to satire, some are simply lost (the conspiracy crowd for instance), but some may start believing the BS just by repetition.

Still think mocking silence is the best opportunity. Don't look cowed or arrogant. Just amused and mocking.

[pieces o nine]

Still think mocking silence is the best opportunity. Don't look cowed or arrogant. Just amused and mocking.

Quite right.
Iffen ye duzzint say nuffink, they can' quote ye out ov contecks.
An jest smylin hat sumwun rilly mad maykes 'em ... rilly madder.

[Aggie]

Still think mocking silence is the best opportunity. Don't look cowed or arrogant. Just amused and mocking.

Oooh, the smirk!  I'm good at those - are they civil?

[Griffin NoName]

amused? mocking? not civil in my book.

I put on a poe face (ie not giving anything away) and then turn up the corners of my mouth to obtain a polite openess, imbue my eyes with a slight glow of friendliness, switch my voice box onto the note about patronising, a sort of neutral concern soothing slur, and pronounce something informative but banal in the belief that this is civil. The secret is of course not to react to what comes at you. Professional skills help.

Could civility be inappropriate?

Say you just shot my father and I civilly asked you to help me dig a grave for him (I not being a party to the killing) ?

[Opsa]

I don't think that digging a grave for your father with his murderer would be considered civil behavior. If you were to do that, I would write it down to emotional shock, perhaps. It would be illogical. I don't know that there is a civil reaction to that sort of thing.

Civility is an appeal to the rationality of the other person, in a way. It is a keeping of the peace.

Say my father had gone berserk somehow, and opened fire on a school or something, and a policeman had shot him dead. My emotions might make me scream and cry and curse the officer, but if I understood that it was the only way to get him to stop, I would hope that I would be understanding to the policeman, even in my grief. I would hope I would find the grace to be forgiving.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Civility is an appeal to the rationality of the other person, in a way. It is a keeping of the peace.

Aye, an' that's the rub:  some folk simply do not possess a single iota of rationality.  Hannity comes quickly to mind.  These sort, literally, haven't a single shred of decency, rationality or even a slight modicum of morality.

They are the same sort of 'non-think' that the crowd had, in The Life of Brian:
______________________

FOLLOWERS: A miracle! He is the Messiah!
SIMON: Well, he hurt my foot!
FOLLOWERS: Hurt my foot, Lord! Hurt my foot. Hurt mine...
ARTHUR: Hail Messiah!
BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah!
ARTHUR: I say You are, Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
FOLLOWERS: Hail Messiah!
BRIAN: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!

GIRL: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.  <<<<--------
BRIAN: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
FOLLOWERS: He is! He is the Messiah!
______________________

How can you deal with the non-think, above?

Brian, no matter what he said, could not win.    Every single thing he said, was immediately turned into an advantage for the crowd.  Every thing.

The only thing Brian could do, is what he eventually did:
______________________

BRIAN: F*** Off.
______________________

But, alas, even this was not enough....
______________________

FOLLOWERS: How shall we f*** off, Oh Lord?
______________________

There are times, there are people, for whom civility simply does not work.

Period.

Your options then fall to:

1) violence/war/aggression.
2) ignoring them-- typically does not work, if they've got enough sheep-followers, and may be dangerous.  John Kerry, anyone?
3) try to censure them-- but, this typically only makes them stronger, in the eyes of their sheeple.
4) find a way to discredit them in the eyes of their followers. 

#1 always works, but is apt to have undesired residual effects.  C.F. Stalin, Hitler for historic examples.

#2 rarely works for national-level figures.  John Kerry tried this method, and it cost him dearly.  He's never recovered.

#3 rarely works, especially in a free-speech society.  Nixon tried it this way, a bit.  Never was successful, and eventually cost him his entire power-base.

#4 To make this work, you have to be willing to wallow in the same sort of mud that your opponent is wallowing in.   Remember the old, but true adage about wrestling with pigs, and the making of sausage, and politics.

Attempting to remain civil to someone who is uncivilized?  You will lose, if they have a presence larger than you, or if the venue is one of their choosing.  For, someone who is uncivilized, but has a following, likely has the following because they are uncivilized.  (C.F. NASCAR fans... <eyeroll> )  Attempting to counter those sorts with civility, will only feed the fires in the minds of their fans.   

So, I applaud the likes of Jon Stewart, who is ofttimes uncivil to the likes of Hannity, et al, but is helping to offset their effects.   At least Stewart never claims to be a real news show....kudos for honesty, if not civility.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But Jon Stewart doesn't lie, and his show rarely takes things really out of context. Both he and Colbert are quite fair IMO and have no qualms in taking a democrat to the same ropes as a repug.

Mocking may not be a nice behavior/civil in certain context but regarding public discourse it is as civil as it can be. Going further would imply using the same smear tactics the opposition uses. In fact it is expected from those guys not to use them because they would lose credibility.

Being completely cynical and Machiavellian in this case, smear tactics would have to be used by figures without a reputation to guard.

[Griffin NoName]

After reading all that, I am glad I live somewhere where civility can be achieved simply by putting on a tie*.


*I think civility is a male domain. Ladies don't sweat, they glow.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

amused? mocking? not civil in my book.

I put on a poe face (ie not giving anything away) and then turn up the corners of my mouth to obtain a polite openess, imbue my eyes with a slight glow of friendliness, switch my voice box onto the note about patronising, a sort of neutral concern soothing slur, and pronounce something informative but banal in the belief that this is civil. The secret is of course not to react to what comes at you. Professional skills help.

Like Bob said, if your presence isn't as large as your opposite's, you're going to get squashed--at least in the eyes of anyone around at the time. Mockery--within bounds--can be the most effective weapon against it, if you're interested in winning the fight.

[Aggie]

I suppose I don't necessarily picture the application of civility as occurring in a public arena, debate-style, against a firebrand*, just my imagination, or is this a Amrikan thing?  but moreso in everyday interpersonal interactions.  So I start with the premise of keeping conflict minimized when interacting with a stranger / new acquaintance, rather than presupposing conflict and civiling the way out of it.

_{*We certainly get exposed to fewer virulent pundits up here}

[Opsa]

I may be wrong, but I respectfully disagree with my dear sibling Bob. I may not know much about Hannity, but the humanity in me wants to believe that he must have some iota of rationality in him, somewhere. He just gets a lot of attention and money out of spouting things that sound irrational to us. It's his job.

If I was unfortunate enough to be involved in an argument with him, I would simply try to state my point. If he took what I said (should I be allowed to utter it at all) and twisted it around to make his point seem stronger, that's his bad. I might be upset with him for doing so, but showing my annoyance, or waging any kind of war through aggression, censure, or discrediting would be playing his game and running the risk of looking like an idiot to the idiots who follow him.

Sometimes the most civil thing we can do is walk away.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I may not know much about Hannity, but the humanity in me wants to believe that he must have some iota of rationality in him, somewhere.

There are two possibilities with people like him:
a) He is rational and is making an act to please the network, the party, and his fringe viewers. The obvious consequence of this is that he doesn't care one bit. He speaks evil and he knows it. Hardly an endorsement.
b) He is irrational by nature and was hired because of it (that seems to fit Glenn Beck). A poisonous cobra has more common sense.

In both cases there is no excuse. So far those guys have been able to get away with slander, doctoring reality, and plain falsehoods and the civil method hasn't got us anywhere. To me is frankly frustrating because no 'civil' method seems to work with them, and the worse part is that I have many doubts that uncivil methods would work either without creating something akin to a state of terror.

I want to believe that in a generation they will be less than a footnote but with such powerful godfathers they may keep going for a long time.