CDZ The Abandonment of Civility

[Mac1958]

A form of 'civility' is inherent in proper use of language. For precision and clarity, one needs to speak with some objectivity. That necessitates the avoidance of immediately inflammatory and pejorative expressions. Morality and ethics are almost apart, another subject. They will affect the use of language, but not necessarily effect it.

Objectivity and moderation, sadly, seem to be considered negatives at this time -- at least by those who are controlling the conversation with their volume and anger. Civility essentially equates to capitulation.

And even more problematic is the fact that many on the ends consider themselves perfectly objective. Their perceptions are distorted by their ideology, but of course they don't see that.
.

 

[Searcher44]

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?

I like your approach, tying interpersonal civility in with international diplomacy, one can imagine the scaling upwards and realize that the importance of maintaining civility increases as the venue gets larger. If civility is lost among neighbors it may result in a black eye and a long held grudge. However if we abandon civility (in the form of diplomacy) among nations, as you allude, it can end with the most dangerous consequences for humans possible, war. And in our age of nuclear weaponry we have to approach war more rationally than at any other time in history. We don't have the luxury of Clausewitzian-like philosophizing about war being merely the continuation of diplomacy "with other means". That would be hubristic gambling with the future of our species.
Now for the bad news. America for the last +/-70 years has virtually abandoned international diplomacy. If it feels there is some national interest at stake no matter where in the World it has assumed the right to use War to impose it's desired solution upon even democratically elected regimes. Usually there was maintained some semblance of secrecy, some cover story to hide the raw truth of hegemony. There are dozens of examples from every corner of the world. From the overthrow of an Iranian government to install the puppet Shah, to the horrors of training and arming the Contra death squads. Of course with 9/11 and the Bush Doctrine all pretense became unnecessary. The new national motto - "Yer either with us or agin us" seemed to be accepted by a large majority of the population. That fake drawl in the quote is meant to convey my contempt of this American arrogance. The old joke that war is god's way of teaching Americans geography was never funny, or true. 88% can't find Afghanistan on a map. Among those with highschool or less 10% couldn't locate the U.S. Understandable, if you have to maintain 900 military bases around the World, a good education is a bridge too far. The painful thing to those of us who are admirers of the American Ideal is that the citizens seem so willing to abandon that Ideal or trade it for some fake notions force fed by a corporate compliant media. By the time people of my age were twenty we had probably read at least 100 books. I wonder what a person that age today would say. It'll get even worse as the roots of high stakes testing go deeper and memorizing facts just long enough to check off an answer on a test becomes more important. Anyway, Americans seem to accept war as a way of life and I've heard a lot of them disdain "diplomacy" like it was kind of effeminate. The Republican candidates biggest debate was which one of them was more belligerent and who wanted to be the first one to punch Putin in the face. God help us all.

 

[Divine Wind]

To fully understand whether or not we are [abandoning civility], we would need to know where civility comes from; nature or nurture.

I disagree. To figure that out, one need only know that civility at some point existed, whether it exists now, and whether it's prospects for existing in the future are diminishing, increasing or holding steady. Where civility -- morals, standards and ethics -- come from isn't necessary to know.

Knowing where morals, ethics and standards come from may inform one on what tactical and strategic modalities might abate or speed civility's decline, preservation or flourishing, but that it. You noted after all that the question is whether we're abandoning civility. That means that what to do about it if we are or are not isn't pertinent.

I think it's very important to understand the roots of all human behaviors and institutions. I think the notion of abandonment is important. How can we do so this casually? How can we abandon something which has evolved over such a long period of time? One of the other posters mentioned Chivalry and Courtly Love as antecedents to modern concepts of civility, and they are. They are two points on the timeline, which stretches back to the earliest human social groups. Their purpose has always been simple, to prevent us from killing one another. It's crazy to abandon it. Viewing it though the perspective of history could help people understand just what it is they are abandoning and just how valuable it is.

Nature loves balance. Whatever changes are happening, if they go too far, they will inevitably rebalance themselves.

 

[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?

I like your approach, tying interpersonal civility in with international diplomacy, one can imagine the scaling upwards and realize that the importance of maintaining civility increases as the venue gets larger. If civility is lost among neighbors it may result in a black eye and a long held grudge. However if we abandon civility (in the form of diplomacy) among nations, as you allude, it can end with the most dangerous consequences for humans possible, war. And in our age of nuclear weaponry we have to approach war more rationally than at any other time in history. We don't have the luxury of Clausewitzian-like philosophizing about war being merely the continuation of diplomacy "with other means". That would be hubristic gambling with the future of our species.
Now for the bad news. America for the last +/-70 years has virtually abandoned international diplomacy. If it feels there is some national interest at stake no matter where in the World it has assumed the right to use War to impose it's desired solution upon even democratically elected regimes. Usually there was maintained some semblance of secrecy, some cover story to hide the raw truth of hegemony. There are dozens of examples from every corner of the world. From the overthrow of an Iranian government to install the puppet Shah, to the horrors of training and arming the Contra death squads. Of course with 9/11 and the Bush Doctrine all pretense became unnecessary. The new national motto - "Yer either with us or agin us" seemed to be accepted by a large majority of the population. That fake drawl in the quote is meant to convey my contempt of this American arrogance. The old joke that war is god's way of teaching Americans geography was never funny, or true. 88% can't find Afghanistan on a map. Among those with highschool or less 10% couldn't locate the U.S. Understandable, if you have to maintain 900 military bases around the World, a good education is a bridge too far. The painful thing to those of us who are admirers of the American Ideal is that the citizens seem so willing to abandon that Ideal or trade it for some fake notions force fed by a corporate compliant media. By the time people of my age were twenty we had probably read at least 100 books. I wonder what a person that age today would say. It'll get even worse as the roots of high stakes testing go deeper and memorizing facts just long enough to check off an answer on a test becomes more important. Anyway, Americans seem to accept war as a way of life and I've heard a lot of them disdain "diplomacy" like it was kind of effeminate. The Republican candidates biggest debate was which one of them was more belligerent and who wanted to be the first one to punch Putin in the face. God help us all.

There's no question that this civility/diplomacy issue is style over substance. Our actions, such as the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government, are much more important than the diplomatic tone we used when we lied about it. That detached, diplomatic BS actually serves a purpose, however, in this insane world. Trump's being so incendiary threatens global stability.

A term which has recently come back to us from the Watergate era translates roughly to "rat copulation". It referred to the "dirty tricks" squad run by Donald Segretti and friends. All campaigns have some variation on this, and Ted Cruz recently reminded us of how such things usually work. Dirty tricks operatives plant dirt, and the candidate stays off to the side looking presidential. Trump has eliminated that pretense, and gone so much farther. Leaks about Hubert Humphrey and prostitutes, about Muskie and insults of Canada, all that pales when compared to accusing Raphael Cruz of killing Kennedy. Trump plants the story in the National Enquirer, then quotes the story. Bush/Cheney did something similar, but they used the NY Times. Trump is his own "rat copulator". He doesn't try to look presidential and detached. He doesn't care, nor do his lumbering herd. Even though it's style, it's is an enormous change to how we conduct our business and interact with the rest of the world. A huge step backwards for globalization.

 

[oldsoul]

There is no such thing as ‘political correctness’

Find one person, just one, in the last 5 years that has made a bigoted, racist, or sexist comment on national telvision that still has their job in the media. No such thing as "political Correctness" indeed. I would dare say there are a few people from the Mizzou campus that would tell a very different tale indeed.

 

[320 Years of History]

d one person, just one, in the last 5 years that has made a bigoted, racist, or sexist comment on national telvision that still has their job in the media.

I suspect there are no such persons; however, I am certain there are none because the network, program producers, and/or sponsors insisted the person be let go as a means of demonstrating the extent to which the sentiments the speaker expressed are not theirs. Are there less emphatic means of making that known to the public? Of course there are, but apparently the network et al felt those methods insufficient to the nature of the repugnance and reprobation they wanted to express.

 

[Wilbur Right]

This thread has been the best example of civil discourse I have read in some time. Nice job all involved.



How's that for civil?

I was taught the "Golden Rule" as a kid. The idea of do unto others as they HAVE done unto you always made sense. To me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Civility begins with the poster, not the other side being nice to a poster.

If you can't take what you dish without crying, posting in USMB is probably not an emotionally healthy event for you.

 

[candycorn]

Respect is earned, civility is given.

#1 problem with America right there.

Respect should be given.
Dis-respect should be earned.

 

[there4eyeM]

Respect is earned, civility is given.

#1 problem with America right there.

Respect should be given.
Dis-respect should be earned.

No fundamental disagreement; I think the sentiment is that in civility there is the basis of 'respect' and that more than that is to be earned. Personally, I respect others until their actions or words teach me that they are not respectable. Example, respecting cultures is generally proper, but a culture that subjugates people is beneath respect.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

If you cannot conceive of anything, of any issue, which is non-partisan, which does not pertain to political ideology, then what is left? What is the point of anything? If you want war, if you want society to tear itself to pieces, then civility is certainly a minor issue. Civility is for people who don't want conflict to get out of hand. Civility, my extraordinarily single-minded good man, is a NON-PARTISAN issue. If you can't see that, then, wow.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of person are you? Do you know no one who holds a single "liberal" notion? Do you hate "liberals"? Do you want to kill them? What do you have to do to qualify as a "liberal"? Score less than 100% on some kind of test which is apparent to no one but you?

Let me try to offer you an alternate view of reality. Humanity falls along a spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Most people are in the middle. They hold many positions which could be called liberal and many which could be called conservative. Do you hate people who lean slightly left?

It has been my experience that some of the very LEAST liberal people often call themselves such, and so I would say there is little understanding of liberal principles all the way around. 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.

I think we are experiencing a paradigm shift when it comes to left and right, liberal and conservative, myself. In some instances, such as the left's knee jerk defense of Islam, it is actually the left leading the assault against liberal values as it aligns itself with the most powerful force that seeks the destruction of the secular humanism upon which liberalism rests.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

??? You can't be serious....The left wing is the bastion of "if you want to believe, think or do X, that's fine and have at it, but you can't do it to the extent that it constrains others' ability to think and do Y." Contrast that with the right wing paradigm that says, "We believe A and if what you want to do, think or believe, B, differs, and if there's the slightest chance that somebody might do B, which is an act or thought we deem inappropriate, you can't do it, and we're going to legislate to penalize you if you do B."

• Left wing --> live and let live.
• Right wing --> live and let live so long as one lives the same way we do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

If you cannot conceive of anything, of any issue, which is non-partisan, which does not pertain to political ideology, then what is left? What is the point of anything? If you want war, if you want society to tear itself to pieces, then civility is certainly a minor issue. Civility is for people who don't want conflict to get out of hand. Civility, my extraordinarily single-minded good man, is a NON-PARTISAN issue. If you can't see that, then, wow.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of person are you? Do you know no one who holds a single "liberal" notion? Do you hate "liberals"? Do you want to kill them? What do you have to do to qualify as a "liberal"? Score less than 100% on some kind of test which is apparent to no one but you?

Let me try to offer you an alternate view of reality. Humanity falls along a spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Most people are in the middle. They hold many positions which could be called liberal and many which could be called conservative. Do you hate people who lean slightly left?

It has been my experience that some of the very LEAST liberal people often call themselves such, and so I would say there is little understanding of liberal principles all the way around. 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.

I think we are experiencing a paradigm shift when it comes to left and right, liberal and conservative, myself. In some instances, such as the left's knee jerk defense of Islam, it is actually the left leading the assault against liberal values as it aligns itself with the most powerful force that seeks the destruction of the secular humanism upon which liberalism rests.

Your experience is subjective, anecdotal, and wrong.

Liberals have been accurately, consistently, and faithfully following liberal principles since the founding Era:

Pragmatism

Respecting and defending the rights of all citizens

Acknowledging settled and accepted Constitutional case law

Respecting and acknowledging the rule of law.

Liberals oppose authoritarianism, intolerance, and demands for absolute conformity to policies predicated on ignorance, fear, greed, bigotry, and racism.

Conservatives, for the most part, are advocates of authoritarianism, intolerance, and demand for absolute conformity to conservative doctrine and dogma – seeking to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law, measures intended to disadvantage transgender Americans, and the right’s hostility toward Muslim Americans are but a few examples of conservative authoritarianism and intolerance.

Indeed, that liberals defend the rights of Muslim Americans from attack by the right is both consistent with the fundamental tenets of liberalism and the original understanding and intent of the Establishment Clause and its jurisprudence.

Moreover, to oppose through the political and legal process conservatives’ efforts to enact measures hostile to the rights of American citizens – measures repugnant to the Constitution as a fact of law – manifests as neither ‘authoritarianism’ nor ‘intolerance’ on the part of liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'The left wing is the bastion of "if you want to believe, think or do X, that's fine and have at it, but you can't do it to the extent that it constrains others' ability to think and do Y."'

True.

Liberals correctly understand that no right is ‘absolute,’ that the Constitution authorizes government to place reasonable restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

That is not the case with conservatives, who, for the most part, seek to place unlawful restrictions on citizens’ rights for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to no proper legislative end.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

??? You can't be serious....The left wing is the bastion of "if you want to believe, think or do X, that's fine and have at it, but you can't do it to the extent that it constrains others' ability to think and do Y." Contrast that with the right wing paradigm that says, "We believe A and if what you want to do, think or believe, B, differs, and if there's the slightest chance that somebody might do B, which is an act or thought we deem inappropriate, you can't do it, and we're going to legislate to penalize you if you do B."

• Left wing --> live and let live.
• Right wing --> live and let live so long as one lives the same way we do.

I don't play the game of politics like a child does -- by lining up the good guys against the bad guys, thus investing all the heroic qualities in one group and the dastardly in the other.

I am far too experienced and knowledgeable for that. The right also has its authoritarians, of course, but let's not pretend that political correctness is anything but an authoritarian belief system, and a very illiberal one at that.

This thread is about civility, however, and so I will simply point out the lack of civility on display when those with extremely rigid belief systems mock the postings of others by selecting the "funny" option when the posting is obviously serious. This is a tendency FAR more prevalent among the authoritarian leftists than it is the righties, and has occurred in this thread about civility in a section supposedly civil.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

??? You can't be serious....The left wing is the bastion of "if you want to believe, think or do X, that's fine and have at it, but you can't do it to the extent that it constrains others' ability to think and do Y." Contrast that with the right wing paradigm that says, "We believe A and if what you want to do, think or believe, B, differs, and if there's the slightest chance that somebody might do B, which is an act or thought we deem inappropriate, you can't do it, and we're going to legislate to penalize you if you do B."

• Left wing --> live and let live.
• Right wing --> live and let live so long as one lives the same way we do.

I don't play the game of politics like a child does -- by lining up the good guys against the bad guys, thus investing all the heroic qualities in one group and the dastardly in the other.

I am far too experienced and knowledgeable for that. The right also has its authoritarians, of course, but let's not pretend that political correctness is anything but an authoritarian belief system, and a very illiberal one at that.

This thread is about civility, however, and so I will simply point out the lack of civility on display when those with extremely rigid belief systems mock the postings of others by selecting the "funny" option when the posting is obviously serious. This is a tendency FAR more prevalent among the authoritarian leftists than it is the righties, and has occurred in this thread about civility in a section supposedly civil.

Pardon me, for I didn't realize the context of the discussion drove down as far as the techy, bilious and/or petulant remarks total strangers make in response to others (and the umbrage "the others" take as a result) in venues like public discussion forums. Obviously, the mise en scène can include that, but I thought we were discussing decorum's departure in the larger milieu of political and social discourse, such as the vulgar remarks the GOP presumptive nominee has made over the course of his candidacy. I wonder if given your closing sentence above I should take to heart its theme and consider inferring from it that he too may be a leftist more so than a conservative as he purports? Hmmmm...just one more thing to ponder....

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

??? You can't be serious....The left wing is the bastion of "if you want to believe, think or do X, that's fine and have at it, but you can't do it to the extent that it constrains others' ability to think and do Y." Contrast that with the right wing paradigm that says, "We believe A and if what you want to do, think or believe, B, differs, and if there's the slightest chance that somebody might do B, which is an act or thought we deem inappropriate, you can't do it, and we're going to legislate to penalize you if you do B."

• Left wing --> live and let live.
• Right wing --> live and let live so long as one lives the same way we do.

Horseshit.

Have you ever heard of campus speech codes? Have you heard of "safe zones?" Have you noticed how people's lives are ruined because they said something politically incorrect?

 

[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?

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

If you cannot conceive of anything, of any issue, which is non-partisan, which does not pertain to political ideology, then what is left? What is the point of anything? If you want war, if you want society to tear itself to pieces, then civility is certainly a minor issue. Civility is for people who don't want conflict to get out of hand. Civility, my extraordinarily single-minded good man, is a NON-PARTISAN issue. If you can't see that, then, wow.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of person are you? Do you know no one who holds a single "liberal" notion? Do you hate "liberals"? Do you want to kill them? What do you have to do to qualify as a "liberal"? Score less than 100% on some kind of test which is apparent to no one but you?

Let me try to offer you an alternate view of reality. Humanity falls along a spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Most people are in the middle. They hold many positions which could be called liberal and many which could be called conservative. Do you hate people who lean slightly left?

It has been my experience that some of the very LEAST liberal people often call themselves such, and so I would say there is little understanding of liberal principles all the way around. 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.

I think we are experiencing a paradigm shift when it comes to left and right, liberal and conservative, myself. In some instances, such as the left's knee jerk defense of Islam, it is actually the left leading the assault against liberal values as it aligns itself with the most powerful force that seeks the destruction of the secular humanism upon which liberalism rests.

Your attitude is completely incomprehensible to me. You seem to think that these concepts of political ideology define humanity. If the current political reality teaches us anything, it's that these questions of ideology mean nothing to most people. You've been co-opted by political manipulators, who have convinced you that you are taking part in a war against people who hold ideas you disagree with. People who have convinced you that anyone who disagrees with you is part of an evil plot to destroy the world. You seem to see the world as some kind of a James Bond movie plot, with Ernst Stavro Libtard as the evil, criminal mastermind. How do you reconcile this fantasy with the real world? In the real world people hold nuanced views. They can be pro-choice Republicans or pro-gun rights Democrats. If someone has an almost completely pure conservative viewpoint, but believes in one liberal idea, are they your enemy?

What always strikes me as funny is the insistence that liberals are hypocrites because they hold conflicting ideas. Everyone holds conflicting ideas. We are but frail, fallible humans. Yes, people who excuse the primitivism of the Arab countries and ignore the fact that under any other circumstances they would be condemning similar actions by someone else are being contradictory. So? That's human nature, not liberal nature.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Libs like you are whining because you're finally getting a dose of what you've been dishing out for over 100 years.

Get used to it because a lot more of it is coming your way.

Here we have the enemy of civility. The real enemy of civility is, of course, thoughtlessness. A lack of a real philosophical underpinning to a person's life. Instead, some adopt this bizarre, knee-jerk hyper-partisanship which too often substitutes for thought in the US.

Civility is abandoned by the foolish. They know what it is. They've been told all their lives that they don't have it. That they are uncouth or white trash or rednecks. They either were not raised with a respect for civility or else they consciously decided to abandon those teachings. Hard to see how they could. If their parents and grandparents taught them properly they would insist that people be treated exactly as they would have their own parents and grandparents be treated. To abandon that principle makes the world a crass, vulgar place, for everyone, liberal or not. It makes the world a crass place for their own parents and grandparents. Where's the logic in that?

Libs like you only talk about "civility" when you are the receiving end of the lash. I've never seen any of you complain when liberals are dishing it out, and they do so frequently. "Civility" is just leftwing propaganda technique designed to get their opposition to shut up. Any right winger who buys into it is a sucker.

If you cannot conceive of anything, of any issue, which is non-partisan, which does not pertain to political ideology, then what is left? What is the point of anything? If you want war, if you want society to tear itself to pieces, then civility is certainly a minor issue. Civility is for people who don't want conflict to get out of hand. Civility, my extraordinarily single-minded good man, is a NON-PARTISAN issue. If you can't see that, then, wow.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of person are you? Do you know no one who holds a single "liberal" notion? Do you hate "liberals"? Do you want to kill them? What do you have to do to qualify as a "liberal"? Score less than 100% on some kind of test which is apparent to no one but you?

Let me try to offer you an alternate view of reality. Humanity falls along a spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. Most people are in the middle. They hold many positions which could be called liberal and many which could be called conservative. Do you hate people who lean slightly left?

It has been my experience that some of the very LEAST liberal people often call themselves such, and so I would say there is little understanding of liberal principles all the way around. 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.

I think we are experiencing a paradigm shift when it comes to left and right, liberal and conservative, myself. In some instances, such as the left's knee jerk defense of Islam, it is actually the left leading the assault against liberal values as it aligns itself with the most powerful force that seeks the destruction of the secular humanism upon which liberalism rests.

Your attitude is completely incomprehensible to me. You seem to think that these concepts of political ideology define humanity. If the current political reality teaches us anything, it's that these questions of ideology mean nothing to most people. You've been co-opted by political manipulators, who have convinced you that you are taking part in a war against people who hold ideas you disagree with. People who have convinced you that anyone who disagrees with you is part of an evil plot to destroy the world. You seem to see the world as some kind of a James Bond movie plot, with Ernst Stavro Libtard as the evil, criminal mastermind. How do you reconcile this fantasy with the real world? In the real world people hold nuanced views. They can be pro-choice Republicans or pro-gun rights Democrats. If someone has an almost completely pure conservative viewpoint, but believes in one liberal idea, are they your enemy?

What always strikes me as funny is the insistence that liberals are hypocrites because they hold conflicting ideas. Everyone holds conflicting ideas. We are but frail, fallible humans. Yes, people who excuse the primitivism of the Arab countries and ignore the fact that under any other circumstances they would be condemning similar actions by someone else are being contradictory. So? That's human nature, not liberal nature.

Goodness, you ascribe so many errant notions to me that I believe you when you say you find me incomprehensible.

I'm finding I'm rather less inclined to believe you in terms of civility, however.