4 ms·

The trouble is, once this perspective gains a footing, it metastasises to the point where civil disagreement becomes almost impossible anywhere, and on any topi

The trouble is, once this perspective gains a footing, it metastasises to the point where civil disagreement becomes almost impossible anywhere, and on any topic. That seems to be happening now. Here in Australia, for instance, we have the marriage equality postal survey going on as mentioned in the article (a daft exercise in fake democracy to appease a far-right party faction, but let's put that aside for now). I have personally been called a homophobic bigot by a 'yes' campaigner, not because I'm against same-sex marriage (I'm strongly for it, and voted accordingly), but because I refuse to cut off friends and family who are on the 'no' side. Polarisation has reached the stage where, according to many, we are literally required to ostracise anyone on 'the other side' (of pretty much any debate). A capacity for, at a very minimum, civil debate, even where you disagree strongly with the other side, is a crucial foundation stone of the Enlightenment. There are edge cases for sure (I don't know how to have rational discourse with self-professed Nazis, for example), but actual debate (as opposed to fighting, spurning, hating and ostracising) needs to be a strongly-held default, or we are totally stuffed.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago
I picked the names in the parent comment carefully. I'm not advocating no-platforming as a blanket policy for anybody I disagree with. I'm just saying if you have a death toll attached to your name, maybe you don't deserve the same respect afforded to somebody who simply has an unpopular opinion.
- Mz 9y ago
  Certain jobs involve making certain kinds of judgement calls. Acting like the person fulfilling the role is unquestionably immoral and at fault for the fact that people die when nations have conflicts is, at best, naïve. I was a hippie tree hugger type. I got married at age 19 to another 19 year old. Being a soldier was his dream career, in part because he was very patriotic and loved his country. My twenties were spent being genuinely surprised that some soldiers go to church and they are not all bloodthirsty villains. In fact, most of them fervently want war to not happen because their own lives are at stake. I am still kind of a hippie tree hugger type. But, I am a pro military hippie these days. "A man of peace must be strong." If you think America would be a kinder gentler nation if we got rid of our military forces entirely, think again. The US would cease to exist. It would be promptly invaded and taken over. There is a lot of not nice stuff that happens in the world. "Freedom for all" gets paid for in part with the blood of patriots. That is an unfortunate reality.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Yes I understand and am sympathetic with you on the specific case. However I see a strong risk of this attitude spreading to infect public discourse more widely. As is now happening with I believe potentially catastrophic consequences. I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. The risks of public civility breaking down usually seem to me to be more significant than the risks of the likes of Kissenger getting an occasional airing. Kissenger may not (and does not in my view) 'deserve' any respect. But the concept of debate being a means of dealing with conflict to be preferred over more primitive recourses does.
  - jim-jim-jim 9y ago
    >I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. It looks like we're mostly on the same page then. I understand the value of civil discourse; I come from a conservative family and I had openly fascist friends in university. Me, my parents, and those friends didn't find much to agree on, but I came to a better understanding of my own beliefs through our exchanges. When somebody says "I can't read X" or "I can't listen to Y," it's usually to their detriment. But liberal high-mindedness has its limits. I personally draw mine at architects of mass murder. I don't think refusing somebody like Kissinger a platform has to indicate a trend towards incivility, since most humans--no matter what they believe--haven't killed thousands of people.
- trentnix 9y ago
  Even when you qualify with your "death toll" litmus test, you ensnare many who enjoy some fame and respect depending on one's worldview. A few names that come to mind include Ayers and Dohrn, Chelsea Manning, Mumia Abu-Jamal, OJ Simpson, etc. Each of those is considered a hero to some, and murderer to others. When hysterics and the worst rhetoric are reserved for a Jewish lawyer (Ben SHAPIRO) who is loud, direct, and otherwise harmless, one begins to recognize that the knives are primarily reserved for those who provide the best opportunity to score political points or for those who present the greatest threat to undermining one's point-of-view. And that's why I find the moans about "divisiveness" and whatnot to simply be more political theater. The only strategy I've found to maintain civil discussion is to separate the person from the topic. And I don't do it for the sake of the discussion or the other person, I do it for the sake of my own mental well-being.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago

I picked the names in the parent comment carefully. I'm not advocating no-platforming as a blanket policy for anybody I disagree with. I'm just saying if you have a death toll attached to your name, maybe you don't deserve the same respect afforded to somebody who simply has an unpopular opinion.

Mz 9y ago
Certain jobs involve making certain kinds of judgement calls. Acting like the person fulfilling the role is unquestionably immoral and at fault for the fact that people die when nations have conflicts is, at best, naïve. I was a hippie tree hugger type. I got married at age 19 to another 19 year old. Being a soldier was his dream career, in part because he was very patriotic and loved his country. My twenties were spent being genuinely surprised that some soldiers go to church and they are not all bloodthirsty villains. In fact, most of them fervently want war to not happen because their own lives are at stake. I am still kind of a hippie tree hugger type. But, I am a pro military hippie these days. "A man of peace must be strong." If you think America would be a kinder gentler nation if we got rid of our military forces entirely, think again. The US would cease to exist. It would be promptly invaded and taken over. There is a lot of not nice stuff that happens in the world. "Freedom for all" gets paid for in part with the blood of patriots. That is an unfortunate reality.
crispinb 9y ago
Yes I understand and am sympathetic with you on the specific case. However I see a strong risk of this attitude spreading to infect public discourse more widely. As is now happening with I believe potentially catastrophic consequences. I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. The risks of public civility breaking down usually seem to me to be more significant than the risks of the likes of Kissenger getting an occasional airing. Kissenger may not (and does not in my view) 'deserve' any respect. But the concept of debate being a means of dealing with conflict to be preferred over more primitive recourses does.
- jim-jim-jim 9y ago
  >I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. It looks like we're mostly on the same page then. I understand the value of civil discourse; I come from a conservative family and I had openly fascist friends in university. Me, my parents, and those friends didn't find much to agree on, but I came to a better understanding of my own beliefs through our exchanges. When somebody says "I can't read X" or "I can't listen to Y," it's usually to their detriment. But liberal high-mindedness has its limits. I personally draw mine at architects of mass murder. I don't think refusing somebody like Kissinger a platform has to indicate a trend towards incivility, since most humans--no matter what they believe--haven't killed thousands of people.
trentnix 9y ago
Even when you qualify with your "death toll" litmus test, you ensnare many who enjoy some fame and respect depending on one's worldview. A few names that come to mind include Ayers and Dohrn, Chelsea Manning, Mumia Abu-Jamal, OJ Simpson, etc. Each of those is considered a hero to some, and murderer to others. When hysterics and the worst rhetoric are reserved for a Jewish lawyer (Ben SHAPIRO) who is loud, direct, and otherwise harmless, one begins to recognize that the knives are primarily reserved for those who provide the best opportunity to score political points or for those who present the greatest threat to undermining one's point-of-view. And that's why I find the moans about "divisiveness" and whatnot to simply be more political theater. The only strategy I've found to maintain civil discussion is to separate the person from the topic. And I don't do it for the sake of the discussion or the other person, I do it for the sake of my own mental well-being.