CDZ The Abandonment of Civility

[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.

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?

The fundamentalists of the left are mirror images of the fundamentalists of the right.

The only difference is that political correctness has replaced religion as that which cannot be questioned.

 

[Elvis Obama]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

The fundamentalists of the left are mirror images of the fundamentalists of the right. The only difference is that political correctness has replaced religion as that which cannot be questioned.

Yes. The behaviors are so similar that the ideology is almost irrelevant.
.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Elvis Obama]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? 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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

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.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Take abortion as another example. It's not very popular with

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.

Do you believe that it just might be possible that there is a time for authoritarianism and a time for libertarianism(as in more liberty, not party or specific philosophy)?

 

[Moonglow]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

There was a time in this country.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

LOL How droll. LOL

 

[Moonglow]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

There was a time in this country.

When?

 

[320 Years of History]

The Abandonment of Civility

When have humans ever been civil?

There was a time in this country.

When?

The answer is since time immemorial. 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. Rather than taking cues from cultured characters, common folk curry to conversation quintessential not to Katharine and Cary, but instead to desultory plebian vulgarity uttered by the likes of polissons like Bart and Snookie. The problem is, IMO, less one of incivility and more that of the bulk of society having become banal.

Lion In Winter, The (1968) -- (Movie Clip) It's What I Live For​

Those among you who have read Rupert: A Confession will know what I mean...For those of you who have not read it....

[I've taken some editorial license and paragraphed Pfeijffer's prose so that you dear reader aren't confronted literally by an unbroken wall of text.]

The art of the insult is a skill that few can master. Most people yell out a few vulgar and insulting names, adopt an angry look, and think that’s the end of it. But, like every art, it requires highly specific skills and talents, and many people underestimate that. First of all, the most successful insult requires the creation of an unbridgeable distance. Raising your voice has the opposite effect in this respect. The most likely scenario is that the object of your insults will reciprocate using the same weapon, resulting in a faceoff between two bellowing baboons in which both appear equally ludicrous. It’s better and more humiliating when your opponent decides not to let himself be drawn into a volume contest and quietly leaves. Idiots are tempted to see this retreat as a victory, but the opposite is true. It’s the superior retreat of the laureled man of battle whose eye is turned to matters of greater importance than a skirmish with a gang of barbarians who challenge him with pathetic war-cries on a strategically unimportant hill.

In order to create an unbridgeable distance, one should not insult with the blunt power of the sword but with the inimitable elegance of the brush. The man who speaks with the mild and soft voice of civilization instantly swipes the weapons from his opponent’s hands—every angry word counts as proof of the other’s helpless inferiority.

Some of the best insulters I know accompany their piercingly soft sentences with superior ironic smiles. Although they generally achieve a satisfying result with this, I’m of the opinion that there’s danger in this facial expression. Irony is an essential ingredient of the successful insult, it’s true, but the most effective form of irony is like a low-flying stealth bomber that remains invisible to enemy radar. It is better to offend with an open expression of politeness, friendliness, and charity.

The most important thing is that the true insult shows creativity; it can’t just be a random string of references to excrement and sexual organs. And just as the best style is quotable, the best insult has an aphoristic quality that does not just insult the victim but also, as an ultimate humiliation, renders him superfluous, so that the brio of the formulation of the insult outlasts the name of the victim. The renowned critic, Woulter Parr, was a master in this.

The last paragraph of his review of one of K. Horvath’s plays engraved itself in my memory after a single reading:

This is no play to be lightly shoved aside, but one that deserves to be thrown with great force. The stage set was lovely, but the actors kept standing in front of it. It was a performance in which all of the actors clearly and intelligibly articulated their lines, alas. Kitty Becker, in the lead, exploited the whole range of emotions from A to B. One would have to have a heart of stone not to watch her suicide at the end of the play without bursting out laughing.

I never forget a face, but in the case of Kitty Becker I’m happy to make an exception. Giving Hands is the type of play that gives failure a bad name. The only original idea about art ever to come from Ms. Horvath’s pen had to do with her superiority as a writer in relation to writers greater than she. First God created the idiots. That was just practice; afterwards he created Ms. Horvath. It was an act of mercy that God allowed Mr. Habold Sicx and Ms. Horvath to marry, thus making two people unhappy instead of four.​

Everything is always easier on paper, that is true—and I realize that now as I stand here before you gasping out my confession without the aid of the written word—but the ad hoc insult without an audience, man to man in the street, ought to respect the same principles. One often assumes one should be able to get straight to the point for that, and that’s a talent you either have or you don’t. This is only partly true.

The spontaneous insult is an art, and, up to a certain point, one can learn any art. It’s the same with the lethal martial arts I have become familiar with. A person who isn’t intimidated by one’s opponent, and who regards every lunge as a weakening of the opponent’s defense, won’t have difficulty finding chinks in his armor. And as long as you have confidence in your refinement and superiority, the most creative counter attacks will occur to you just like that. He who, in an unguarded moment, finds himself in a risky situation and cannot come up with an adequate reply can rely on three simple heuristic principles.​

• The first guideline is the principle of contamination. One can say: “Jazz is music for imbeciles.” One can also say: “Jazz is torture.” But it is better to say: “Jazz was invented as torture for imbeciles.”
• The second is the principle of inversion. Destroy your enemy by turning what he says around, or compliment him on his weaknesses and present your criticism as a compliment, the way Baudelaire said of Wagner: “I like Wagner, but I prefer the music that a cat makes when it is being hung by its tail from the window and is clamping itself to the sill with its claws.” Another fine example is the compliment Will Rogers gave to the German people: “I must say one thing in favor of the Germans: they are always willing to give other people’s land away.”
  
  The so-called better than-inversion is extremely fruitful. People tend to say things like, “It tastes better than it looks” or, “He is smarter than he appears,” even without malicious intent. The reversal of both poles of comparison can produce very pleasing insults, like Mark Twain’s about Wagner: “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.”
• The third principle is usually defined as an aprosdoketon and relates to the unexpected shift, to the sting in the tail. “Wager’s music has its beautiful moments,” Rossini said, “and its awful half hours.” An even subtler example is offered in Clifton Fadiman’s characterization of German nature: “The German spirit has the talent to make no mistakes except for the very largest.”

These three principles should offer enough support that you’ll never be faced with a lack of inspiration and they’ll enable the production of an appropriate and civilized insult at any time.​

Civility does not require one refrain from irascibly berating others in response to having one choler churned. It merely calls one do it absent the linguistic equivalent of hircine odiousness.

 

[Moonglow]

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....

 

[320 Years of History]

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."