CDZ The Abandonment of Civility

[Wilbur Right]

It's not that people have at any point not been civil, but rather that humanity brims with cacafuegos whose brutish upbringing belies their cognitive incapacity to bandy in verbal belligerence brainy and bilious bromides.

That's beautiful guy.

It merely calls one do it absent the linguistic equivalent of hircine odiousness.

You hate goats? Jk.

 

[Wilbur Right]

I figured that if I were going to take the time to pen a post, I may as well amuse myself while doing so.

99.9% of the posts on here never require that I crack a dictionary.

You I would hate to play Scrabble against. Thanks.

 

[320 Years of History]

I figured that if I were going to take the time to pen a post, I may as well amuse myself while doing so.

99.9% of the posts on here never require that I crack a dictionary.

You I would hate to play Scrabble against. Thanks.

You may lose; you may win. Either way, I'm a great gamester and either way, we'd both quite likely enjoy playing the game. Of course, everyone enjoys the game more when they win. LOL

I really enjoy Scrabble. Interestingly, while having a decent working vocabulary can aid one in that game, far more useful is knowing short high point value words that can be played in a defensive way to clog up the board, thereby constraining or severely limiting one's opponent(s) from dropping or building large high point value words. Or at least that sort of "closed board" strategy is the one I play most often. As a consequence, words like "bromide" aren't likely to appear after the first couple of turns; however, words like "qoph," "adz," "okapi, or "taxi" will, largely because there's no room to play seven-letter words like "bromide" even if that is the word sitting in one's opponent's tray(s).

A large working vocabulary is, on the other hand, very useful for precisely and clearly expressing one's thoughts, both denotatively and connotatively.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

There was a time in this country.

When?

I believe you asked whether I meant "cacafuego," but then the post in which you did so disappeared.

The answer, however, is "yes," albeit the plural of that noun. I thought it, along with "cognitive," a fitting foreshadowing of the alliterative cee theme I used in the following sentence. I can't say why...I've got a Bach fugue playing in the background, and that is what inspired the structural idea with which I began the post's word choice.

I figured that if I were going to take the time to pen a post, I may as well amuse myself while doing so. Accordingly, I toyed with writing a post that alliterated its way through the alphabet while expressing ideas topically akin to those in the passage from Rupert, but upon recalling the book, ambition succumbed to ennui and I instead quoted Pfeijffer. You'll note the vestige of the repeating pattern and where I discarded it at "desultory."

I figured that if I were going to take the time to pen a post, I may as well amuse myself while doing so.

Bravo. Why not amuse yourself? No one here is going to try to amuse you. Persuasive thought is well crafted and compelling thought. You know what people should do, when they are confronted with a word they were unfamiliar with (like cacafuego!)? They should thank the poster for expanding their vocabulary and by extension their world. Not castigate them for daring to use a thesaurus. What the hell do people think thesauruses are for? They exist to make expression more varied and entertaining, and therefore more persuasive.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The American people appear to have decided that civility is irrelevant.

Why Paul Ryan's Ode To Civility Is A Giant Fail

Are we abandoning diplomacy, both nationally and globally? Is the kind of ad hominem attacks which constitute 99% of the so-called discussion on this board becoming the norm of human communication?

Civility means behavior which reflects the values of civilization. How can we abandon these values so casually? These norms have evolved over thousands of years of human experiments in building and living in cities. Isn't their value obvious? Is the abandonment of civility likely to make the world a more violent or less violent place?

Which side of the political spectrum celebrates perversion, hates and mocks modesty, and gets their news from Comedy Central? If you guessed the left you're correct and their brand of politics is responsible for the once civil nature of political debate in this country being torn down.

It is necessary to fight fire with fire, whether those of us on the right like it or not. Generations went by and the right kept thinking the left just wants what we want, they just have a different opinion on how to get there. Well we should know by now they do NOT want what we want and it's time to unleash the beast.

There is no such thing as the "left". There is no such thing as the "right". There are merely hundreds of millions of people who hold varied, nuanced views on all issues. What if someone agrees with you on every single issue on the earth except one. Does that make them part of the liberal menace? Don't you know anyone who disagrees with you about anything? I find that hard to believe. Exactly how much do you permit others to drift from your concept of ideological purity before they become your enemy?

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

Now that's what a real American thinks. That is civility.

I hope you do not mind me focusing on your assertion that the right and left do not exist? Because I once believed that as well, I was a hardcore libertarian and I boiled it down to indivualism vs. collectivism. Anyway, regardless of your valid point that there are millions of people with nuanced views on the issues...everyone falls either in the right or left category...because the motivations for taking a position are different, and the motivations matter.
A right winger will, for example, support the end of the drug war...because he or she sees it as a waste of tax dollars and also because prohibition has never worked to society's benefit. A left winger supports the end of the drug war because he or she is a drug addict and a libertine...they just don't want to get in trouble with the law for doing drugs. There is no moral or objective reason aside from their selfish reasons.

All left wingers are drug addicts and libertines? Wow. Insanity is inherently uncivil, and all hyper-partisans are insane. Truly sad. You're obviously not an idiot, but you seem to have zero regard for fact and reason. Your arbitrary groupings of all of humanity are childishly silly and simplistic. If you lean slightly right then your views on drugs are based on reason and if you lean slightly left then they are based on moral turpitude? How can you possibly believe in such absurdity?

I was speaking in general, what motivates the individuals whose most important issue is drug legalization.

Does that clear it up? Basically I was only speaking on people who have it as a major plank in their personal politics. Both right and left.

Not saying ALL left wingers are drug addicts. Lol

There are exceptions, but that doesn't disprove the rule.

I was speaking in general, what motivates the individuals whose most important issue is drug legalization.

Why? Why are you trying to speak to the motivations of millions of people? Why do you feel yourself qualified to do so? Especially when your assumptions are absurd on their face. Oh, it's not all liberals who feel that way, you chuckle. Really? Wow. What percentage of liberals hold their views on drugs because they're addicts or libertines? I'll answer for you. You have no freaking idea. You're just blowing nonsense out of thin air, based entirely on your own emotional predilections. Anyone who claims that one side of the political divide is honorable and the other morally bankrupt is a child.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know what people should do, when they are confronted with a word they were unfamiliar with (like cacafuego!)?

Yes, I do know what they should do. Look up the word in a dictionary.

Not castigate them for daring to use a thesaurus.

Did someone ridicule me for using that word (or some other one)? I didn't notice that anyone did. (Perhaps the person is on my ignore list? That'd be a good reason why I didn't notice.)I saw only Wilbur Right's remark and it didn't strike me as chiding.

What the hell do people think thesauruses are for? They exist to make expression more varied and entertaining, and therefore more persuasive.

I suspect many people think thesauruses exist to foster to visitors to their home the appearance that the homeowner may actually consult one from time to time. LOL Those of us who do use one, however, are unlikely to keep it on a shelf and more likely to keep it in a desk drawer so as not to have to keep getting up to fetch it. LOL

Thesauruses are essential for folks who get writer's block from time to time. Of course, a lot of folks don't know what "writer's block" is. "Writers block" is when one has something to say and knows a few ways to say it, but none of them quite convey the tone and meaning one has in mind. In such cases, a thesaurus is essential. What "writer's block" is not includes:

1. lacking words to accurately convey the entirety of one's thoughts --> that's called illiteracy, even when it's not complete illiteracy.
2. having no idea what to write about a given topic --> that's called not knowing what one is talking about.
3. failing to convey the entirety of one's thoughts --> that's called slovenly writing.

A thesaurus isn't much good in any of those situations. Writers and thinkers, strong and weak, at various times find themselves afflicted with the third malady. On rare occasions good writers may suffer the first, but only when they find themselves doing the second. The thing is that keen thinkers don't put themselves in the position of doing the second, so they don't much exhibit the first.

 

[320 Years of History]

Bravo. Why not amuse yourself?

Thank you. I can't find any good reason not to. LOL

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Which side of the political spectrum celebrates perversion, hates and mocks modesty, and gets their news from Comedy Central? If you guessed the left you're correct and their brand of politics is responsible for the once civil nature of political debate in this country being torn down.

It is necessary to fight fire with fire, whether those of us on the right like it or not. Generations went by and the right kept thinking the left just wants what we want, they just have a different opinion on how to get there. Well we should know by now they do NOT want what we want and it's time to unleash the beast.

There is no such thing as the "left". There is no such thing as the "right". There are merely hundreds of millions of people who hold varied, nuanced views on all issues. What if someone agrees with you on every single issue on the earth except one. Does that make them part of the liberal menace? Don't you know anyone who disagrees with you about anything? I find that hard to believe. Exactly how much do you permit others to drift from your concept of ideological purity before they become your enemy?

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

Now that's what a real American thinks. That is civility.

I hope you do not mind me focusing on your assertion that the right and left do not exist? Because I once believed that as well, I was a hardcore libertarian and I boiled it down to indivualism vs. collectivism. Anyway, regardless of your valid point that there are millions of people with nuanced views on the issues...everyone falls either in the right or left category...because the motivations for taking a position are different, and the motivations matter.
A right winger will, for example, support the end of the drug war...because he or she sees it as a waste of tax dollars and also because prohibition has never worked to society's benefit. A left winger supports the end of the drug war because he or she is a drug addict and a libertine...they just don't want to get in trouble with the law for doing drugs. There is no moral or objective reason aside from their selfish reasons.

All left wingers are drug addicts and libertines? Wow. Insanity is inherently uncivil, and all hyper-partisans are insane. Truly sad. You're obviously not an idiot, but you seem to have zero regard for fact and reason. Your arbitrary groupings of all of humanity are childishly silly and simplistic. If you lean slightly right then your views on drugs are based on reason and if you lean slightly left then they are based on moral turpitude? How can you possibly believe in such absurdity?

I was speaking in general, what motivates the individuals whose most important issue is drug legalization.

Does that clear it up? Basically I was only speaking on people who have it as a major plank in their personal politics. Both right and left.

Not saying ALL left wingers are drug addicts. Lol

There are exceptions, but that doesn't disprove the rule.

I was speaking in general, what motivates the individuals whose most important issue is drug legalization.

Why? Why are you trying to speak for the motivations of millions of people? Why do you feel yourself qualified to do so? Especially when your assumptions are absurd on their face. Oh, it's not all liberals who feel that way, you chuckle. Really? Wow. What percentage of liberals hold their views on drugs because they're addicts or libertines? I'll answer for you. You have no freaking idea. You're just blowing nonsense out of thin air, based entirely on your own emotional predilections. Anyone who claims that one side of the political divide is honorable and the other morally bankrupt is a child.

Because in general, they show universal traits. Are you one of these people that believes everyone is special or something?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

You're a snarky little one, EO. Your snark is louder than your bark..your bite is probably weaker. Lol

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Jesus you sound like my wife...Civility as a nation has always been to the betterment of certain races or groups and determent to minorities....If you feel the need to low blow a poster then please do, just don't be a continual perpetual mouth machine and whine constantly about which whey the wind blows..... See I donn't need to feel superior by whipping out my 29 cent word thesauruses...Just be casual, and not all inflated ego, Dude...
P.S.......Insults by reverse logic are nothing new....

You're not so bad.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sorry, I couldn't resist rating your post "funny". You say you judge people as individuals, then make a claim like "it's mostly liberals who abuse the "funny" rating". Really? Your proof of this? These strange attacks on large groups of people are the death of civility. Accepting everyone as an individual and not indulging in group character assassination is the road to rationality and civility.

Of course you did.

You did so to mock me and display derision in this thread purporting to be about civility.

My mentioning the authoritarians of the right doesn't bother you at all. Any mention of the authoritarians of the left, and your defense mechanisms spring into action and any hint of civility disappears.

I didn't say I wasn't mocking you. Clearly I am. Civility doesn't mean that you don't recognize, oppose and fight against thoughtlessness. I am not mocking conservative by doing this, I am mocking you. FWIW, I reject utterly your notion that authoritarianism is only on one side. Both sides of the so-called ideological divide indulge in these stupid betrayals of reason. If you said everyone abuses the "funny" rating, I'd be right with you. When you claim it is one side and not the other, you have abandoned civility and fact for insult and assumption, and I am completely absolved of any responsibility to be civil to you. You are a hyper-partisan, and I assure you I loathe such stupidity more than any of the clowns on this board hate their so-called ideological opposites. You cannot be a hyper-partisan and civil at the same time. Frankly, I don't think you're capable of understanding that simple fact. Hyper-partisans deal only with groups and do nothing but project hateful assumptions on that group. Rational people deal with individuals. I would like to deal with you as an individual, but you won't let me. I have never made sweeping generalizations about conservatives or liberals. Anyone who makes statements like "conservatives do this" or "liberals do that" is a lazy, sloppy thinker.

Wow Quite the long personal attack and you do not appear to have read a single thing I have said.


Evidently the word civility means something completely different to you that's any dictionary defines it.

Red:
Was it really? I'm not sure you know a personal attack looks like.

Yes, of course it was.

Left wing authoritarians are no different in nature than right wing authoritarians.

Why he made that into such an insulting diatribe is known only to him, but when I said that authoritarians exist on both sides of the political spectrum, to claim I said they only exist on one is incorrect.

The only question is whether or not this was intentional so as to try to justify the personal attack.

I'm not sure this will be worth the effort, but I will try to reset our exchange, which has yet to rise to the level of a discussion.

Your initial comment on authoritarianism and dogma was here, in which you said:

As the left has become more and more dominated by authoritarianism, intolerance and demand for absolute conformity of thought, it has moved further and further away from liberalism.

It is important to understand that this comment was interjected into this annoying, all too common screed about how liberals are the source of all evil. This led me to conclude that you were supporting BRIPAT's hyper-partisan assertions. That was the conclusion that 320 reached as well, and he responded to that specific quote so I didn't bother to do so, as he said pretty much exactly what I would have said. C_Clayton_Jones also clearly concluded that you were claiming that liberals were more authoritarian than conservatives. If it was not your intention to support BRIPAT's hyper-partisan post, then you should have made that clear. Hyper-partisanship is a cancer on this board, and a cancer on civility.

You then follow that up with an absurd comment about how leftists "abuse the funny button far more often than righties".

This is a tendency FAR more prevalent among the authoritarian leftists than it is the righties

Again, if your intention was not to appear to be a hyper-partisan lunatic, then this was not a good way to demonstrate it. I asked you here to offer the slightest proof of your claim, which on the face of it seems incredibly stupid to me. You have yet to do so. You cannot do so. How could you? You appear to suffer from a far too common ailment, an inability to distinguish between what you do know and what you don't know. You seem to think that your completely anecdotal perception is the truth. Why?

So if you are not a hyper-partisan psycho, then you have so far done a crackerjack job of imitating one. Is this a personal attack on you? Not really. It's an attack on these two statements, which you have yet to explain to any of the people who have reacted to them.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You know what people should do, when they are confronted with a word they were unfamiliar with (like cacafuego!)?

Yes, I do know what they should do. Look up the word in a dictionary.

Not castigate them for daring to use a thesaurus.

Did someone ridicule me for using that word (or some other one)? I didn't notice that anyone did. (Perhaps the person is on my ignore list? That'd be a good reason why I didn't notice.)I saw only Wilbur Right's remark and it didn't strike me as chiding.

What the hell do people think thesauruses are for? They exist to make expression more varied and entertaining, and therefore more persuasive.

I suspect many people think thesauruses exist to foster to visitors to their home the appearance that the homeowner may actually consult one from time to time. LOL Those of us who do use one, however, are unlikely to keep it on a shelf and more likely to keep it in a desk drawer so as not to have to keep getting up to fetch it. LOL

Thesauruses are essential for folks who get writer's block from time to time. Of course, a lot of folks don't know what "writer's block" is. "Writers block" is when one has something to say and knows a few ways to say it, but none of them quite convey the tone and meaning one has in mind. In such cases, a thesaurus is essential. What "writer's block" is not includes:

1. lacking words to accurately convey the entirety of one's thoughts --> that's called illiteracy, even when it's not complete illiteracy.
2. having no idea what to write about a given topic --> that's called not knowing what one is talking about.
3. failing to convey the entirety of one's thoughts --> that's called slovenly writing.

A thesaurus isn't much good in any of those situations. Writers and thinkers, strong and weak, at various times find themselves afflicted with the third malady. On rare occasions good writers may suffer the first, but only when they find themselves doing the second. The thing is that keen thinkers don't put themselves in the position of doing the second, so they don't much exhibit the first.

Did someone ridicule me for using that word (or some other one)? I didn't notice that anyone did. (Perhaps the person is on my ignore list? That'd be a good reason why I didn't notice.)I saw only Wilbur Right's remark and it didn't strike me as chiding.

I guess it's an ignore situation. That's why I never use it, it tends to make holes in conversations. I completely understand why people use it, though. The comment in question was by Moonglow, as follows:

See I donn't need to feel superior by whipping out my 29 cent word thesauruses

29 cents! I'm definitely shopping at the wrong bookstores. Unfortunately, Moonglow's language skills are such that I don't think a thesaurus would help. Remedial English classes and learning how to use spell check would seem to be more called for.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You're a snarky little one, EO. Your snark is louder than your bark..your bite is probably weaker. Lol

How dare I be snarky to someone who asserts nonsense without the slightest proof? Liberals hold their views on drugs because they're addicts and libertines! No, no, I didn't meant that! I only meant some of them! I know that because... it came to me in a dream!! Yeah, good conversation. Bark bark, bite bite.

 

[320 Years of History]

Moonglow's language skills are such that I don't think a thesaurus would help. Remedial English classes and learning how to use spell check would seem to be more called for.

You know, in "The Relation of Spelling Ability to General Intelligence and to Meaning Vocabulary" J. David Houser showed that spelling skill and intelligence are strongly correlated in grammar and middle school age students. Subsequently, other individuals have posited that spelling isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence, but that spelling skill benefits cognitive organizational skills. For dyslexics inparticular, it's clear that poor spelling isn't an indicator of cognitive ability. Einstein, for example, was a poor speller, and some folks have speculated he was dyslexic, though it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure whether he was. What is widely agreed is that keen spelling well is not an indicator of intelligence and that nobody is a perfect speller all the time.

We’re told in the era of Facebook and Twitter nobody cares about grammar and spelling. Don’t believe it. In the global conversation made possible by the Internet, the easiest way to tell the smart folk from the knuckleheads is how often they make seemingly ignorant mistakes. Ignoring that little squiggly underscoring is, IMO, one manifestation of the height of, well, ignorant errors. LOL

While nobody has formally explored it, I thus posit that ignoring the little squiggly underlining beneath misspelled words is in fact a sign of stupidity and perfunctoriness, regardless of whether one spells well or not: slovenly for obvious reasons, and stupid because the orthographical errors make one appear inept, hence the recommendation to never have a misspelled word in a resume or proposal or anything else one submits for consideration by others. It's just imprudent to deliberately and daily depict oneself as a dolt.