Jesus overturned the money-lenders stalls, rational humanist icons like Dr Who ;) get seriously angry regularly. Is civility always appropriate?
(Usual rules. No kicking, biting, gouging or parliamentary/congressional language).
I guess you could go one step further: is peaceful resistence always appropiate?
If the voices of intolerance drown everything else which is the path to follow?
When you are competing for attention with the fanatic attention whores how can you call attention to a desirable behavior if the nasty one is the one followed by everybody else?
I think it is, usually. But, not always.
The example that comes immediately to mind for me is that yelling (or something similar) can be acceptable when attempting to commandeer attention when the opposing side is screaming. Find an opportune moment and yell just enough to stop them. Works, from my observation. Another instance is when absolutely nothing else has worked and you are trying to get someone to stop doing something.
Peaceful resistance is the best option unless they are using all-out lethal force, imo. And even then, context is what matters. Large numbers = media attention to your cause and that the Man does to protesters (like the Civil Rights movement and India's bid for independence). Smaller numbers, it's the best way not to get shot or arrested (or both). Lethal force used against protesters in large numbers (relative to the number of protesters) would make violent protestation ok with me.
I guess civility and/or peaceful resistence work by shame the other, but will not work if the offending side has no shame to begin with.
Hitler could not be shamed or contained leaving blunt force as the only viable alternative, but in grayer areas how can you 'motivate' someone like,say, Glenn Beck into civility?
There must be a way but it's a formidable challenge.
Ahh, but that's context isn't it? A bunch of 'race-traitor' (or whatever you want to call them) German women in Berlin thwarted Hitler when the Nazis attempted round up their Jewish husbands and half-Jewish kids. (http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/book/excerpts/denmark.php) Peacefully, too. The Nazis couldn't afford to crush the protests and eventually had to give in.
All right, in an instance like Beck civility won't work, will it? That I'll give, I think. But I certainly don't have to resort to verbal un-civility. Silence and a mocking, condescending expression might make him either talk himself into a hole so I can pin him there (where upon braggarts start to stutter) *or* make him just shut up.
The problem with the Nazi examples is that they switched from open to disguised methods. Euthanasia was also only stopped briefly and then started again but this time in secret (although anyone who wanted to know knew). Extermination camps were built in Poland, out of (direct) sight. There were even 'concessions' with the names of KZs, so people could pretend they were not living next to them. Unfortunately this "we don't show, so you can pretend not to see" tends to work very well in most places. The 'true' scandal of Abu Ghraib was that photos got out shattering that unspoken consent. What's worse though is that now torture has become acceptable enough for a majority, a significant part of which not even needing the euphemisms anymore (cf. recent polls* about what to do with the undiebomber).
Sorry, getting :offtopic:
*admittedly biased questions but the general tendency is there even subtracting that.
To give a proper answer to that question we would first need a for us common and definitive definition of the word Civility.
Personally I see civility as a behaviour thing, it's about playing by the rules, which is mostly a good thing, but one should keep in mind that rules change and different people have a different set of rules. If you arranged a match between a soccer team and a rugby team and then let both teams play according to the rules of their own game the the soccer team would be run over and the rugby team would stand out as rude and violent. However they where still playing by the rules their rules...
So as usual it is all about the context. ;)
IMHO civility is a good thing, on internet and in ordinary social situations, if you define it as avoiding to use rudeness, personal attacks and general shit flinging even when your opponent lower him or her self below that certain line.
Now on a greater scale It becomes much more difficult.
Sometimes people in a position of power use "let's be civil about this" as a way to quiet down opposition, to stop people from rocking the boat.
In that situation Civil Courage becomes more important. Being civil should never mean that you allow other to use you as a doormat, make you doubt your right to question things -loudly if need be, or that you shouldn't blow the whistle and make a wrongdoer stand by his/her actions.
Civility in War means following the Geneva convention: keep your prisoners of war safe and don't torture them, don't attack civilian targets like homes schools and hospitals, and don't use raping the female population as a strategic weapon.
I don't think "civility" is the answer against fundamentalism (religious, political or whatever), violence and general intolerance.
IMHO the answer is Civil Courage, which doesn't really exclude the use of violence or foul language, but civil courage is also to open up to strangers or open your homes for those in need, to question your own view of the world.
In short to stand up for those more vulnerable than you, no matter religion, colour of skin, ethnicity or sexual orientation for that matter.
I must say that I am siding with Swato and Darlica here.
Civility as in keeping a reasonable level of discourse and trying to act in a generally respectful and open manner is something I am all for. However, when we come to the subject of civility as following the dominant rules of discourse and not upsetting things, it gets a bit more murky. Stopping mudslinging in a political campaign is fine, but stifling criticism of the actioons of public figures is not.
Playing by the rules is fine, but when those rules are stacked against you and designed to keep you down, you have no choice but to either accept your opression or resist and break the rules. And sometimes, that might mean that you have to use violent methods to defend yourself. While non-violent protest is fine, and a method that I personally much prefer, sometimes violence might be the only way out. To tell someone that they cannot take action to defend themselves when they are living under attack smacks of both hypocrisy and holier than thou paternalism - c f various do-gooders who only wanted/wants to bring charity to "pauvres honteaux", decent, god-fearing (and authority-fearing) poor who know their place.
I sometimes feel that our current society's focus on non-violent and well-behaved protest is also due to a lack of historical knowledge, and later compromises and agreements, aimed at promoting the status quo. How many have heard about all the other indian resistance groups against the british occupation, the ones that were opposed to Gandhi and his peculiar agenda (for example, his concept of social justice for casteless did have it's limits)? How many today know that one of the big arguments for female suffrage used by the US suffragettes was that if suffrage was granted to black men, but not white women, it would mean that black men ruled over white women -a completely untolerable and immoral position, according to several leading suffragettes.
A very interesting discussion of morality and resistance is Robert Williams' book "Negroes with Guns", about his experiences in the civil rights movement in the USA in the fifties, and how he helped african families in the US South to organize armed resistance groups against Ku Klux Klan lynch mobs.
I'll chime in, likely re-stating what others have already said.
Civility works well, if all sides are willing to take part.
If, on the other hand, you have one or more sides who somehow think "compromise" is spelled with only 4 letters, and refuse to entertain any point of view other than their own?
Who, routinely, presume that there are but two points of view, encompassing all? Theirs and the exact opposite of theirs (as they imagine the exact opposite might be).
To those sorts of folk, civility is a complete waste of time, energy and voice. A fine example comes to mind, in the form of a creationist: Demsky. Even when forced in a courtroom to admit that what he's pushing is wrong, the very next time he appears in public, he pushes the same disproved arguments, as if he'd never admitted he had been wrong previously.
Civility does not work on his sort, because his sort has the appearance of civility, while his actual behavior is anything but.
I think the only recourse, aside from simply ignoring him, is to resort to uncivil action; chiefly, behaviors that are derisive, mocking and so forth. Or, better, humor. Scathing sarcasm, and such.
I think that humor can sometimes get past artificial barriers that nothing else will. Take the success of The Daily Show, as an example. It uses humor to side-step the normal process, and in reality, is often quite scathing in it's criticism of various politicos. If the show had taken a serious tone, it would've been cast down long before now. But, utilizing the media of humor, it can say what it says, and get away with it.
Obviously, even scathing humor is insufficient to stop the likes of Beck and his cronies. If history is to teach us any lessons, that is.
At times, the only recourse is violence.
As Spock once quipped:1 "If all the logical choices are exhausted, the only logical thing to do, is something illogical." In some instances, the only recourse is to lock someone up, or worse-- end their very lives.
So, most of the time, civility Just Works.
Most of the rest of the time? Humor can be an effective substitute.
Violence, as usual, is an ultimate last resort.
We are apes, after all. Civilization is a very, very thin veneer. At the best of times.
______________________
1 in the original series, the episode, "Spock's First Command" (I think that's the name..) The episode where Spock is in command of a shuttle with some crew, on a dangerous planet. Okay, that's still too general-- the planet had giant rock-throwing apes, who beat on the grounded shuttle. There was some problem with the transporters, naturally. They lost some fuel, due to something or other, and only had low-planet orbit. Spock, taking a gamble, dumped the rest of the fuel, igniting it in a flare, allowing the Enterprise to lock-on, and teleport everyone to safety. The comment was at the end. McCoy's response? "In a pig's eye. You just can't admit you acted on your feelings." Spock, "There's no cause to be insulting."
Quentin Crisp was always civil.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 02, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
Quentin Crisp was always civil.
Never heard of him, but a quick perusal of Wiki is enlightening.
:)
Edit: linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Crisp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Crisp)
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 02, 2010, 11:45:29 PM
Quentin Crisp was always civil.
Yes, even as a Naked Servant... ;)
I do however think that a lot of people found him immensely rude for just existing.
Quote from: Darlica on January 03, 2010, 09:38:10 AM
I do however think that a lot of people found him immensely rude for just existing.
It was also unfortunate when he described HIV as a "fad"......... but he went on to learn otherwise.
:offtopic:
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.
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on January 03, 2010, 09:56:19 PM
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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 03, 2010, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on January 03, 2010, 09:56:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on January 05, 2010, 05:53:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe
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. :D
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on January 05, 2010, 11:09:55 PM
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? ;)
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) ?
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.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 06, 2010, 04:12:10 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 06, 2010, 08:52:43 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 07, 2010, 09:51:29 PM
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.
Find out where he eats (is there a FOX canteen?) and bribe the prersonnel to put a laxative into his meals every time he crosses certain lines as far as mendacity is concerned. Occasionally switch to anti-laxatives.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 07, 2010, 09:51:29 PM
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.
I guess, growing up around fundamentalists, I'm more cynical than dear Opsanus.
If such as Hannity have any rationality left, it is buried so very deep, that it is akin to a seed, buried in concrete: no amount of watering is gonna germinate that seed, not until the concrete is broken or at least, cracked.
Walking away is an option, I suppose.
But that simply leaves the work of undoing Hannity's evil to someone else.
Society, being what it is, there are times when the *only* recourse is an action you'd otherwise view as uncivil.
Is war ever civil? Hardly.
In the case of the Hannity's of the world, who's very methodology is based on uncivil discourse? Your options are limited, and none of them are civil, if you wish to undo the evil he's causing.
Sometimes, the only way to get water to that seed-- is with a jackhammer or dynamite.
If you'd rather not, that's commendable; but eventually someone's gotta go in there with a backhoe or something....
++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 08, 2010, 09:32:41 AM
Find out where he eats (is there a FOX canteen?) and bribe the prersonnel to put a laxative into his meals every time he crosses certain lines as far as mendacity is concerned. Occasionally switch to anti-laxatives.
There ya go.
:ROFL:
But all that will do is cause him to spout more crap! ;D
How do we get him to think rationally?
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on January 08, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
I guess, growing up around fundamentalists, I'm more cynical than dear Opsanus.
This. I live with people who are, in some ways, fundementalists and rational discourse with them on their fundie topics is like talking to a wall. I don't even try at home, but elsewhere I use the tactics I mention elsewhere and find it effective.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 08, 2010, 05:40:47 PM
But all that will do is cause him to spout more crap! ;D
How do we get him to think rationally?
They are rational people, on any count that doesn't involve their fundie views. On those topics, nothing but a good verbal dressing down and/or the school of experience is going to do anything, imo.
Quote from: Agujjim on January 07, 2010, 05:58:58 AM
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
This. I prefer polite debate but am not opposed to getting muddy. I refuse to be anything but civil in everyday life.
Y'aaarrrggggghhh an inspiration to us all, m'dear Scrib!
Excuse my poirate!
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 07, 2010, 09:51:29 PM
Sometimes the most civil thing we can do is walk away.
Sorry, Opsanus, but here I must disagree with you. As Sibling Zono and others have stated, that is tantamount to giving them a walk-over victory. To continue with the Hannity/US Neo-con mafia example, they have repeatedly shown that they are perfectly willing to do anything, up to and including starting war on falsified pretexts, in order to further their own goals. To simply walk away from them and let them continue uncheckered is, in my opinion, an abrogation of your responsibilities towards your fellow humans. Civil and rational discourse only works when there is a willingness to be civil and rational on the other side of the table, too.
The trade union I am active in does a lot of work with "illegal immigrants" ( the very idea that a person can be illegal by virtue of existing is something I consider utterly perverse). A lot of these people work here in Sweden in shitty jobs, with no security whatsoever, exploited by ruthless employers who always have the easy option of calling the immigration authorities if the paperless people are too troublesome, won't have sex with the restaurant owner's son, get injured on the job or simply don't feel like paying them even their shit wages. When dealing with this kind of employers, civility simply is not an option. A nice little chat and an appeal to their humanity would just end with Carlos, Maria and Jesus in police custody, perhaps having been severely beaten up by the employer's thugs beforehand.
While I do agree with you that we ought to and have to strive for a society where civility, humility and rationality are respected, I am firmly of the opinion that we are forced to use some decidedly un-civil methods in order to get there -or else we will just get steamrollered. By all means walk away from some petty intrigue behind the office coffee machine, but there are times when you simply have to make a stand and get both your hands and ideals dirty.
Quote from: Lindorm on January 08, 2010, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 07, 2010, 09:51:29 PM
Sometimes the most civil thing we can do is walk away.
Sorry, Opsanus, but here I must disagree with you. As Sibling Zono and others have stated, that is tantamount to giving them a walk-over victory. To continue with the Hannity/US Neo-con mafia example, they have repeatedly shown that they are perfectly willing to do anything, up to and including starting war on falsified pretexts, in order to further their own goals. To simply walk away from them and let them continue uncheckered is, in my opinion, an abrogation of your responsibilities towards your fellow humans. Civil and rational discourse only works when there is a willingness to be civil and rational on the other side of the table, too.
The trade union I am active in does a lot of work with "illegal immigrants" ( the very idea that a person can be illegal by virtue of existing is something I consider utterly perverse). A lot of these people work here in Sweden in shitty jobs, with no security whatsoever, exploited by ruthless employers who always have the easy option of calling the immigration authorities if the paperless people are too troublesome, won't have sex with the restaurant owner's son, get injured on the job or simply don't feel like paying them even their shit wages. When dealing with this kind of employers, civility simply is not an option. A nice little chat and an appeal to their humanity would just end with Carlos, Maria and Jesus in police custody, perhaps having been severely beaten up by the employer's thugs beforehand.
While I do agree with you that we ought to and have to strive for a society where civility, humility and rationality are respected, I am firmly of the opinion that we are forced to use some decidedly un-civil methods in order to get there -or else we will just get steamrollered. By all means walk away from some petty intrigue behind the office coffee machine, but there are times when you simply have to make a stand and get both your hands and ideals dirty.
What can I sat to this well-worded post?
But... :thumbsup:
Oh, and :beer:
;D
I agree. There are times when we have to take action.
I could have been clearer. Walking away is reserved for the occasional closed-minded, close-eared, distraction-factoid-shouting powerless bigot who is making a point of not listening, anyway. Not for people who really need to hear the other side.
I do believe in non-violence, however. Martin Luther King was very good at not walking away while also not contributing to a hateful scene. To me, that is more powerful than hitting back, and takes much more courage. Hitting back is just reacting.
I would like to ask how you feel about the following scenarios:
1) Two opposing people get in a brawl and wind up killing each other. How do you think this helps the cause of each side?
2) Two opposing people get in an argument. One speaks in shouts and threats, one speaks like a rational person. Mr. Shout winds up killing Mr. Talk. How do you think this helps the cause of each side?
There are no right or wrong answers, just opinions.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 09, 2010, 04:18:36 PM
2) Two opposing people get in an argument. One speaks in shouts and threats, one speaks like a rational person. Mr. Shout winds up killing Mr. Talk. How do you think this helps the cause of each side?
Context is everything, if those two guys are in a regular bar with witnesses and all Mr. Shout would likely go to jail and/or have to assume the consequences of his actions.
But if Mr. Shout is in a position of power and/or has no witnesses
he may perfectly get away with it.
One cannot underestimate the likelihood of an opponent using force successfully.
Quote from: Opsanus tau
2) Two opposing people get in an argument. One speaks in shouts and threats, one speaks like a rational person. Mr. Shout winds up killing Mr. Talk. How do you think this helps the cause of each side?
Putting this scenario into the
Faux News et al v. Planet Earth context, Mr. Shout will dance onto his studio set, the next day and all days thereafter, swinging his clasped hands above his head in victory, as the mostly white, mostly ill-informed, hand-picked studio audience screams its approval. They will cheer that a limp-wristed, panty-waisted, egg-headed, elistist, reality-based, liberal moonbat got his --
oh yeah! -- and gloatingly threaten others that it's 'better Red* than dead' in today's America. They will repeat,
ad nauseum, that a Tremendous Victory for Truth, Justice, and the Amurkin Way has been won. Horribly, they may even give a shout out to JC for 'anointing' their Mandated Cause. Competing Mr. Shouts will alternate between sycophantic public praise and furious private resentment that they didn't think of trying this themselves.
:'(
Anyone attempting to point out that a crime was committed will be shouted down for hating America first, of taking the event out of context, and for violating Mr. Shout's -- and by extension, Mr. Shout's entire television and radio audience's -- Constitutional Right to Free Speech.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Red = Red State, of course.
Not the fascist-liberal-socialist-communism it used to mean.
Quote from: pieces o nine on January 10, 2010, 07:10:50 AM
Anyone attempting to point out that a crime was committed will be shouted down for hating America first, of taking the event out of context...
Wait, I've seen that one before, when was it? Oh yes, when the constitution and the Geneva convention were violated to remove habeas corpus and torture suspects, in Guantánamo and abroad....
>:( >:( >:(
Okay, let's try a third scenario:
) Mr. Shout and Mr. Talk get into a disagreement, which becomes a fight. Mr. Talk kills Mr. Fight. How do you suppose that will play out?
That is a loose-loose scenario, Mr. Talk will loose either by letting Mr. Shout get away with it or by silencing him forcefully, which I guess is the point, after certain level of nastiness civility becomes an abstract concept with not much use aside from the civil one's sanity/self image.
Being not confrontational myself I much rather walk away in many cases but the reality is that it isn't possible, nor desirable all the times.
---
The trick here is how exactly can you drown a voice in the less violent way possible and without generating sympathy for the objective. Those in the authoritarian side do so by dehumanizing their victims so that shouting, playing dirty, and getting forceful doesn't generate sympathy ("they're less than human for being/think different therefore they had it coming"). When you have higher standards such tactics aren't viable.
The only thing that I consider functional in certain cases is something similar to what the Patriot Guard Bikers do at funerals, which is peaceful but with an intrinsic threat of force. Gandhi and M.L. King understood that and used it, but you need large numbers, a good organization and the conviction from the participants that if things get ugly they can't run.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on January 12, 2010, 01:54:46 AM
Those in the authoritarian side do so by dehumanizing their victims so that shouting, playing dirty, and getting forceful doesn't generate sympathy ("they're less than human for being/think different therefore they had it coming").
YES! This is why we must not dehumanize our enemies, either. We have to keep things in perspective, even when we disagree. When we just call Hannity a nazi jerkface, we are not winning an argument, just as he is not really winning an argument by calling us naive communists or whatever names he can dish out. Only his followers will think he's won, but they will think this even as they follow him off the side of a cliff. Who cares who they think wins?
It's content that needs to be addressed, not the person spouting it.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
It's content that needs to be addressed, not the person spouting it.
Yes and no, if the person is a psychopath with an agenda that can impact many the person needs to be addressed too. The question is how to address him/her without helping him or betraying our principles.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
It's content that needs to be addressed, not the person spouting it.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to address the content when you are noticeably outside of the vast majority of a particular pundit's target audience, and are instead firmly identified as a target. Moderates who despise the pundit's methods and manners but share some of their general opinions or ideological alignments are still likely to get into the 'us vs. them' mentality if the target fights back. You may get through to the most rational with rational discussion, but the majority of people who idolize irrational hate-spew don't tend towards rational discussion, methinks.
What can have some impact is shunning by the moderates nominally on the same side of the fence of any given pundit. Radical Islam, for example, seems to feel justified by criticism by The Great Satan, but there seems to be an increasingly vocal rejection of extremist attitudes by moderate Muslims (at least here), both average citizens and religious leaders. When the audience the attention-hogs are supposedly playing to starts turning away, it gets their attention.
I suppose this ties into civil responsibility - in addition to standing up to our opponents, I believe it's our responsibility to look at those who supposedly share some or all of our values but are conducting themselves poorly, and let them know that while they are free to speak for themselves, they DO NOT speak for us when they speak in such a manner.
Hmm... looking for examples...
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 11, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Okay, let's try a third scenario:
) Mr. Shout and Mr. Talk get into a disagreement, which becomes a fight. Mr. Talk kills Mr. Fight. How do you suppose that will play out?
I'm jumping back page to catch up and respond...
Did you ever see Ralph Bakshi's
Wizards?(http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/Wizards_poster.jpg/200px-Wizards_poster.jpg)
Do you remember the (nearly) last scene? :) :-\ :(
A real-life topic over here: The Deutsche Bahn currently has what comes close to a total breakdown of service* as a result of 'saving money' (in order to increase the bottom line for the intended move to the stock market). The Bahn leadership more or less refuses to even admit that there is a problem at all and/or that snow and frost in winter are totally unprecedented (echoing the Bush administration's 'nobody could have predicted' despite a quite recent direct written warning).
The Bahn obviously bets on the civility of the passengers (or that the uncivility only affects the lowlings that drive the trains, the conductors and the personnel at the stations). I wonder, if something would change if some of the bosses got waylaid by angry passengers and severly beaten and their luxury cars sabotaged.
*I can at the moment add at least an extra hour daily for my way to work and home and the line I use is one of the less affected ones.
Isn't your journey normally 2 hours? Does that mean you are spending 6 hours travelling each day?
Quote from: pieces o nine on January 13, 2010, 06:10:20 AM
Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 11, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Okay, let's try a third scenario:
) Mr. Shout and Mr. Talk get into a disagreement, which becomes a fight. Mr. Talk kills Mr. Fight. How do you suppose that will play out?
I'm jumping back page to catch up and respond...
Did you ever see Ralph Bakshi's Wizards?
(http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/Wizards_poster.jpg/200px-Wizards_poster.jpg)
Do you remember the (nearly) last scene? :) :-\ :(
Love that movie. I even loved the final scene.
Although some claim the wizard was hypocritical in the very end, to his beliefs.
Me? I'm a Heinlein-esque pragmatist: use the tools you need, in the situation you find yourself in. If life's at stake? Use whatever you need. Whereas I respect Ghandhi, I do not intend to follow in his footsteps, nor emulate him.
:)
I think the wizard was like Heinlien's ideas as well: survival can justify many things. You can always apologize later...
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 13, 2010, 07:39:13 PM
Isn't your journey normally 2 hours? Does that mean you are spending 6 hours travelling each day?
Nearly. Normally it's 2
1/
4 in each direction. Due to construction work (that in the end is expected to reduce the time by up to 20 minutes) there is an added 10 minutes (per direction) for most of this year. Now the weather (and lack of maintenance) come on top of that with 20-40 minutes extra (this morning only 10 though, yesterday it was 37). So my travel time goes from 4.5 hours each day to up to 5
3/
4.
The regular timetable change meant an extra hour in the office per week to make up for the losses, the last few days it was one per day.
I am not the only one to propose to declare one of the railway cars to be part of the UBA, so the time wasted in the train could be counted as work (and many commuters actually do some work, so it would be even appropriate to a degree).
Or, you could move closer to your office... ;)
Do you have wifi in the train?
If you mean internet or phone access, forget it. One dead spot after the other. One could as well be in the central Sahara or Amazon rain forest.
No move while I am on 1 year fixed-term contracts. Also I get the travel expenses back for at least last and this year. I would get no money for rent.
Depends on what your time is worth, I suppose. I make a point of living walking distance (5 min now) from the office. I drive plenty for field work, but that's highway miles.
For that long of a commute, you might as well move close and get a second part-time job to pay the rent. :P My days are that long at the moment, but at least I'm getting paid handsomely for the OT.
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 14, 2010, 01:45:57 PM
Also I get the travel expenses back for at least last and this year. I would get no money for rent.
Set up home on the train?
See some posts above, making the trains official parts of the agency has been a long time proposal ;)
Or living in the office.. ;)
I've been thinking a lot about this recently...
Hypothetical questions are interesting but they remind hypothetical.
When I think about real life situations and what "virtues" I rank highest in the people that surrounds me civility doesn't rank very high. Honesty does and so does the ability to stand by ones word even if it ends up a bit uncomfortable, when push comes to shove civility is just polish.
Not that polish isn't important, it is, it greases the hubs and cogs of social life, but it isn't solid, it's nothing to hold on to then the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.
One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.
:-\
Quote from: Darlica on January 17, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.
Yes, I hate people who are for example, seething with anger, and say nasty things with great civility. But..... I am unsure whether that then renders them uncivil?
Is the following statement uncivil?
"In my opinion purple people shouldn't have the right to vote in this country."
In fact I would say that some of the more dangerous people are quite polite and civil.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 17, 2010, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Darlica on January 17, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.
Yes, I hate people who are for example, seething with anger, and say nasty things with great civility. But..... I am unsure whether that then renders them uncivil?
That's my way. The more angry I am at somebody the more 'polite' my choice of words is*. Don't let me refer to you as 'honorable', especially not when the word is slightly (but not too strongly) emphasized (or with the definite article in front). ;D
*until the moment of explosion
I know what you are talking about Swato.
As I interact with strangers every day in my work and in a situation where I don't just represent my self but also the company I'm working for I have to be polite, hence I'm all; excuse me would you please... or excuse me would you be so kind to...
It's easy to be polite, it's usually not an effort, it comes naturally and it makes things go much smother. Sometimes the politeness is really heartfelt and sometimes I have to fight a little with myself to keep the cool but usually it is just a phrase. I can not say that I am really sorry to interrupt someone who is holding the doors of a train ready to departure because the want to finish their conversation with a pal but doesn't want to get on the train for example.
I get a lot of shit (I can't really find a better word) thrown at me if not every day so at least every day, people with bad morning temper who just missed the train tend to take it out on the nearest uniform and that's me. I do wish they could be a bit more civil and first and foremost think first shout later.
Civility or even over-politeness is a tool for me when I have to handle these people, I might behave very respectfully but that has very little to do with what might go on in my head at the moment.
I do respect all people, all living things at a basic level but to be fair, if someone gives me a bucket full when I don't deserve it, when I had nothing to do at all with whatever caused their eruption I feel more respect for a pill-bug than for them. :-[
Zono, the most dangerous people are usually not only polite, they can be quite charming too. Manipulative.
Quote from: Darlica on January 18, 2010, 06:50:24 PM
I know what you are talking about Swato.
As I interact with strangers every day in my work and in a situation where I don't just represent my self but also the company I'm working for I have to be polite, hence I'm all; excuse me would you please... or excuse me would you be so kind to...
It's easy to be polite, it's usually not an effort, it comes naturally and it makes things go much smother. Sometimes the politeness is really heartfelt and sometimes I have to fight a little with myself to keep the cool but usually it is just a phrase. I can not say that I am really sorry to interrupt someone who is holding the doors of a train ready to departure because the want to finish their conversation with a pal but doesn't want to get on the train for example.
I get a lot of shit (I can't really find a better word) thrown at me if not every day so at least every day, people with bad morning temper who just missed the train tend to take it out on the nearest uniform and that's me. I do wish they could be a bit more civil and first and foremost think first shout later.
Civility or even over-politeness is a tool for me when I have to handle these people, I might behave very respectfully but that has very little to do with what might go on in my head at the moment.
I do respect all people, all living things at a basic level but to be fair, if someone gives me a bucket full when I don't deserve it, when I had nothing to do at all with whatever caused their eruption I feel more respect for a pill-bug than for them. :-[
Zono, the most dangerous people are usually not only polite, they can be quite charming too. Manipulative.
Reading your post, nodding to myself: 'yes, yes-- I have often to do that myself-- unctuously polite in the face of great stupidity'.
And I was struck with two thoughts:
Returning angry words with very polite demeanor can be most satisfying in a way; you may indeed be seething beneath the surface, but remaining cool and polite in the face of red-faced, spittle-flying actions can be worse than yelling in return--- and by worse, I mean the same as "heaping hot coals on their heads". (to use a biblical snippet).
Which made me flash onto a statement traditionally attributed to Jesus, regarding turn the other cheek. I suddenly re-thought that, and now wonder if it has not been miss-translated all this time.
Looking at it from a different perspective, returning cool politeness in the face of red-faced screaming is far more effective, than responding scream-for-scream. It's not about being meek and sheep-like. It's more about being a [metaphorically speaking] really, really big dog, who never really has to bark loudly, or even growl much. A look, a slight 'grr', an almost bored 'I'm watching you-- be careful' look. This can be far more effective, and yes-- 'hurtful' to the person yelling than yelling-back could ever be.
Perhaps, *that* is what was meant by 'turn the other cheek'? Not a meek, sheep-like cowering, but a strong, 'I'm-so-above-this-I-refuse-to-stoop-to-your-level' attitude. The big-dog, 'I can take your petty rantings all day long-- they are beneath me barely noticing' attitude.
Hmmm.
A sort of cold-revenge, if you will.
Just some idle musings...
I try to be polite. After all, it costs nothing.
But my patience does have limits. Then I'm usually sarcastic.
Used to work as a bouncer. Politeness, politeness, politeness, violence.
Quote from: Swatopluk on January 18, 2010, 08:44:21 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 17, 2010, 09:45:12 PM
Quote from: Darlica on January 17, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.
Yes, I hate people who are for example, seething with anger, and say nasty things with great civility. But..... I am unsure whether that then renders them uncivil?
That's my way. The more angry I am at somebody the more 'polite' my choice of words is*. Don't let me refer to you as 'honorable', especially not when the word is slightly (but not too strongly) emphasized (or with the definite article in front). ;D
*until the moment of explosion
Ditto. Though I tend say something (or many things) scathingly after I've lost it.
Quote from: Pachyderm on January 18, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
I try to be polite. After all, it costs nothing.
But my patience does have limits. Then I'm usually sarcastic.
Used to work as a bouncer. Politeness, politeness, politeness, violence.
;D
I think, in the context of the Civility Project, the idea is not to stop intolerance and other examples of vile speech completely, but to just tone down the level of ass-hattery, which at least promotes the calm exchange of ideas (even if they are vile). It won't solve the issues, generally, but it's a good first step.
I wonder, when faced with rampant, ranting, red-faced ass-hattery, what the results of simply saying "Please be civil if you wish to continue this discussion" to the ass-hat in question would be?
Quote from: Agujjim on January 19, 2010, 06:02:05 AM
I think, in the context of the Civility Project, the idea is not to stop intolerance and other examples of vile speech completely, but to just tone down the level of ass-hattery, which at least promotes the calm exchange of ideas (even if they are vile). It won't solve the issues, generally, but it's a good first step.
I wonder, when faced with rampant, ranting, red-faced ass-hattery, what the results of simply saying "Please be civil if you wish to continue this discussion" to the ass-hat in question would be?
In an actual face-to-face? I've no idea. In on-line forums? They usually step up the uncivil ranting and ravings...
Of course, one always has to remember the most powerful tool of all: total ignore-ment.
:)