Maybe it could, or maybe everything gets razed by it, getting an expensive lesson in failure. Civility is entirely different from dialogue. Disobedience is som

Maybe it could, or maybe everything gets razed by it, getting an expensive lesson in failure. Civility is entirely different from dialogue. Disobedience is sometimes necessary but cannot be the base of a society. You can be non-civil and still discuss and engage with your opponent, but shouting them down is not engagement, neither are loud protests without constructive ideas that actually can work, or without actual pressure. Lying and shooting down inconvenient research is not an acceptable tactic. That's what communists did. Putting words into mouth of your opponent only escalates stakes. What you do they can do onto you, and smaller (poorer, less in control of media or masses) will lose. In dialog, both sides can win. Compromises led to steady victory for many movements. (Such as feminists.)