10 ms·

And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.

by ColanR 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago
It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  .
  - viraptor 6y ago
    "engaged with people and the culture" is a bit revisionist considering the number of conflicts with politicians and law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn for example? (Example chosen at random, there's tons of them)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    Hardly. Go read about Stonewall and the ACTUP movement.
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  I dont think that's quite fair, basic civility would mean not immediately trying to frame something you disagree with as denying basic rights, and trying to have a more practical discussion about the issues.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    I'm not referring to framing something ambiguous. I mean for example people openly discussing final solution to Jew problem. Are you suggesting basic civility and discussion about the issue with them?
    - mc32 6y ago
      That's disingenuous. That is an unusual extreme view held by neo-nazis AND extreme leftists (nation of islam types). We're talking about people not feeling comfortable having a debate over abortion (it's a third rail on either side to try and establish a time when a foetus becomes a recognized being). This is something we should be curious to establish a benchmark for. Both sides fear that if we establish a number of days at which then we can't have abortions after and the other side fears we can have abortions before)
      - viraptor 6y ago
        I literally qualified my post with "once the views become too extreme". It's exactly what this thread is about. (I agree with your position on non-extreme views enough)
    - matz1 6y ago
      Yes including that issue. One person extreme view is just another person normal view, its subjective.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Are you suggesting that you are not able to reject those ideas if you hear them? Or are you suggesting that I cannot? I am an adult. You don't need to protect me from hate-speech.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    But... there are actually people who believe that those with a certain skin color or of a certain sexual orientation or religion actually should not have basic rights. Not everyone who gets targeted as such holds those beliefs, sure, but they absolutely do exist in America. Until fairly recently, those people’s beliefs actually drove real policies in America that had real teeth and caused real suffering for real people. Of course we still see remnants of these policies and we certainly see knock-on effects of them today. It would certainly help if the left did a better job at isolating those who actually hold the beliefs I listed above versus those who hold beliefs that are merely “in the orbit” of them. It would be great also if the right did a better job of isolating themselves and their own respectable beliefs from those beliefs that are not respectable. But in any case to act like any belief that someone holds needs to be treated with respect and never framed as a direct affront to human rights, even if it is, shows a lack of knowledge about the range of things that people actually believe.
- zo1 6y ago
  See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed. The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
  - yxhuvud 6y ago
    > The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
- knorker 6y ago
  You call it "not practical", I call the alternative "not effective". Case in point: In Sweden any politician, and mainstream society in general, who even hinted at reducing immigration has been called a heartless racist for the last 30 years, completely shutting down debate. The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) When you're told by the press and politicians that even raising a topic makes you racist and you should be cancelled, you're not exactly going to be won over. It's so sad to see from the sidelines. Why has the left shifted so much to shutting down all debate that isn't 100% in agreement with the party line? It's not that I disagree with them on the issues, it's that it's sad that they're not seeing how it's actively hurting their stated goals. If Sweden is any predictor, then this is going to get much worse (or, if you're on the right, it'll get much better). Every time someone who said "biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women" is called Hitler, that's one more person lost to your whole argument, and someone who says that Trump is an OK compromise, and who'll think "if that's your choice argument then you're too crazy to be listened to on abortion, too". tl;dr: If you're choosing between "practical" and "effective", choose "effective". But also see history for how I think when you say "practical", you actually mean "low effort".
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    >The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
- fareesh 6y ago
  A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's rights. Likewise in the USA if some executive talks about babies' rights they'll probably be fired and some smear campaign will be launched against them. Likewise in China vocal criticism of the CCP will probably lead to bad consequences. I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
    - pas 6y ago
      Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
        6y ago
- II2II 6y ago
  A couple of points to consider: Firm opposition does not imply that civility has to be dropped. In some cases it may even be counter productive since it ends up entrenching attitudes and positions. We also need to be aware of how our own attitudes contribute to our own perceptions. It is not much of a leap to believe that we will be fired for our political views if we think that others should be fired for their political views, even if those beliefs and thoughts do not reflect reality. I am not going to claim that civility must be maintained at any cost, there are certainly historical instances when it could not be. On the other hand, being proactive and civil will likely reap more positive change than the alternative.
- ben509 6y ago
  > Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example. And the political left has been gaming that for years now by declaring that every entitlement and vote-buying scheme they've come up with represents a basic human right.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Put that way it sounds compelling but if we look into what the rights are and the kind of rights (Isiah Berlin's framing of rights as negative or positive) then it becomes more complex. Perhaps you have a specific example of people being told they don't deserve basic rights that's a bit more specific?
- ColanR 6y ago
  I remember reading the Song of Roland in high school. It's a fairly famous, old Christian epic poem from the 11th century. In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility. Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.
Cass 6y ago
There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)
- golergka 6y ago
  I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years. Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm". Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chromatin 6y ago
    You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”
    - nautilus12 6y ago
      Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.
- arka2147483647 6y ago
  Im not american, But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible. To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.
metalliqaz 6y ago
what if those views aren't civil?
- matz1 6y ago
  Then you get people who silently support the views.
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    i'll bet there are still a bunch of people who silently oppose interracial marriage in the US. But... they will be dead soon and their ideas will die with them
    - matz1 6y ago
      A person may die but ideas lives on.
      - metalliqaz 6y ago
        not if they keep it to themselves also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
        matz1 6y ago
        The successive generation can also be the silent supporter or they can be the braver/smarter supporter who aren't afraid to voice their view.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      Faulty argument. Did the fight for LGBTQ rights die out when being LGBTQ in the past was something people had to stay in the closet about? No? Then why would anyone think it will work on other viewpoints?
- koheripbal 6y ago
atoav 6y ago
"Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book, and historians will probably tell you that in fact free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour. Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society. This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.
- zalkota 6y ago
  Yes, you are correct the left is full of fascists that are power hungry sour losers.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with. > free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour > if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.
  - atoav 6y ago
zalkota 6y ago
When one sides is burning down entire cities, it’s hard to be civil.

And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.

by ColanR 6y ago

And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.

It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.

cblconfederate 6y ago
.
- viraptor 6y ago
  "engaged with people and the culture" is a bit revisionist considering the number of conflicts with politicians and law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn for example? (Example chosen at random, there's tons of them)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Hardly. Go read about Stonewall and the ACTUP movement.
mdifrgechd 6y ago
I dont think that's quite fair, basic civility would mean not immediately trying to frame something you disagree with as denying basic rights, and trying to have a more practical discussion about the issues.
- viraptor 6y ago
  I'm not referring to framing something ambiguous. I mean for example people openly discussing final solution to Jew problem. Are you suggesting basic civility and discussion about the issue with them?
  - mc32 6y ago
    That's disingenuous. That is an unusual extreme view held by neo-nazis AND extreme leftists (nation of islam types). We're talking about people not feeling comfortable having a debate over abortion (it's a third rail on either side to try and establish a time when a foetus becomes a recognized being). This is something we should be curious to establish a benchmark for. Both sides fear that if we establish a number of days at which then we can't have abortions after and the other side fears we can have abortions before)
    - viraptor 6y ago
      I literally qualified my post with "once the views become too extreme". It's exactly what this thread is about. (I agree with your position on non-extreme views enough)
  - matz1 6y ago
    Yes including that issue. One person extreme view is just another person normal view, its subjective.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that you are not able to reject those ideas if you hear them? Or are you suggesting that I cannot? I am an adult. You don't need to protect me from hate-speech.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  But... there are actually people who believe that those with a certain skin color or of a certain sexual orientation or religion actually should not have basic rights. Not everyone who gets targeted as such holds those beliefs, sure, but they absolutely do exist in America. Until fairly recently, those people’s beliefs actually drove real policies in America that had real teeth and caused real suffering for real people. Of course we still see remnants of these policies and we certainly see knock-on effects of them today. It would certainly help if the left did a better job at isolating those who actually hold the beliefs I listed above versus those who hold beliefs that are merely “in the orbit” of them. It would be great also if the right did a better job of isolating themselves and their own respectable beliefs from those beliefs that are not respectable. But in any case to act like any belief that someone holds needs to be treated with respect and never framed as a direct affront to human rights, even if it is, shows a lack of knowledge about the range of things that people actually believe.
zo1 6y ago
See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed. The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
- yxhuvud 6y ago
  > The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
knorker 6y ago
You call it "not practical", I call the alternative "not effective". Case in point: In Sweden any politician, and mainstream society in general, who even hinted at reducing immigration has been called a heartless racist for the last 30 years, completely shutting down debate. The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) When you're told by the press and politicians that even raising a topic makes you racist and you should be cancelled, you're not exactly going to be won over. It's so sad to see from the sidelines. Why has the left shifted so much to shutting down all debate that isn't 100% in agreement with the party line? It's not that I disagree with them on the issues, it's that it's sad that they're not seeing how it's actively hurting their stated goals. If Sweden is any predictor, then this is going to get much worse (or, if you're on the right, it'll get much better). Every time someone who said "biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women" is called Hitler, that's one more person lost to your whole argument, and someone who says that Trump is an OK compromise, and who'll think "if that's your choice argument then you're too crazy to be listened to on abortion, too". tl;dr: If you're choosing between "practical" and "effective", choose "effective". But also see history for how I think when you say "practical", you actually mean "low effort".
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
fareesh 6y ago
A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's rights. Likewise in the USA if some executive talks about babies' rights they'll probably be fired and some smear campaign will be launched against them. Likewise in China vocal criticism of the CCP will probably lead to bad consequences. I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
  - pas 6y ago
    Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
      - 6y ago
II2II 6y ago
A couple of points to consider: Firm opposition does not imply that civility has to be dropped. In some cases it may even be counter productive since it ends up entrenching attitudes and positions. We also need to be aware of how our own attitudes contribute to our own perceptions. It is not much of a leap to believe that we will be fired for our political views if we think that others should be fired for their political views, even if those beliefs and thoughts do not reflect reality. I am not going to claim that civility must be maintained at any cost, there are certainly historical instances when it could not be. On the other hand, being proactive and civil will likely reap more positive change than the alternative.
ben509 6y ago
> Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example. And the political left has been gaming that for years now by declaring that every entitlement and vote-buying scheme they've come up with represents a basic human right.
brigandish 6y ago
Put that way it sounds compelling but if we look into what the rights are and the kind of rights (Isiah Berlin's framing of rights as negative or positive) then it becomes more complex. Perhaps you have a specific example of people being told they don't deserve basic rights that's a bit more specific?
ColanR 6y ago
I remember reading the Song of Roland in high school. It's a fairly famous, old Christian epic poem from the 11th century. In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility. Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.

Cass 6y ago

There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)

golergka 6y ago
I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years. Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm". Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chromatin 6y ago
  You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”
  - nautilus12 6y ago
    Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.
arka2147483647 6y ago
Im not american, But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible. To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.

metalliqaz 6y ago

what if those views aren't civil?

matz1 6y ago
Then you get people who silently support the views.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  i'll bet there are still a bunch of people who silently oppose interracial marriage in the US. But... they will be dead soon and their ideas will die with them
  - matz1 6y ago
    A person may die but ideas lives on.
    - metalliqaz 6y ago
      not if they keep it to themselves also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
      - matz1 6y ago
        The successive generation can also be the silent supporter or they can be the braver/smarter supporter who aren't afraid to voice their view.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    Faulty argument. Did the fight for LGBTQ rights die out when being LGBTQ in the past was something people had to stay in the closet about? No? Then why would anyone think it will work on other viewpoints?
koheripbal 6y ago

atoav 6y ago

"Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book, and historians will probably tell you that in fact free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour. Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society. This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.

zalkota 6y ago
Yes, you are correct the left is full of fascists that are power hungry sour losers.
brigandish 6y ago
> "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with. > free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour > if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.
- atoav 6y ago

zalkota 6y ago

When one sides is burning down entire cities, it’s hard to be civil.