20
votes
Civility is on the decline and we all bear responsibility
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Why can't we all just get along? Because we seem to have forgotten how
- Published
- Jul 5 2018
- Word count
- 845 words
It is pretty ironic that a call for increased politeness coincides with a rude jab at people who sit elsewhere on a political spectrum, but the idea that being civil “starts with” some group is exactly the wrong mentality to adopt.
It illustrates one of the main issues: we expect to be treated with basic decency ourselves, but find justifications to deny others that basic level of civility. As if basic decency is something people can forfeit, somehow.
They have to "earn it" while I deserve it.
I know your question is rhetorical, but fascists do this because calls for civility benefit them. They don't actually believe in free speech, but it's a useful tool in a liberal society to spread their message.
I'm talking about basic decency, the inherent dignity we afford all other humans by virtue of their humanity.
Someone not respecting the humanity of others does not absolve me of my moral obligation to treat others with the basic modicum of respect all people deserve.
In a republic of liberties, the exchange of ideas is made possible by civility. Discourse breaks down if we exchange insults in a race to the bottom.
Acting at the base level of human decency decency is harder when others don't, but it's still an underlying moral obligation, not a double standard.
We've already had a discussion about the paradox of tolerance.
#PunchANazi
you can be intolerant of ideas, and criticize the people that hold them, while retaining basic human decency. Advocating violence against people, even people as terrible as Nazis, is deplorable.
you're twisting the intent of the paradox of tolerance to justify behavior that would, and should, result in you going to jail for battery.
Jail is a small price to pay to prevent genoicde.
jail is a hefty price to pay to help make it happen.
no, seriously, people like you turn fascists into reasonable martyrs instead of political extremist pariahs. nobody will see that you feel morally justified, they'll just see that you vote a certain way and are a violent sociopath, then associate people who share your political views with your moral shortcomings.
nobody will stop being a nazi because you punch them, but many people will become one because they see you doing it
The only violent sociopaths in this scenario are the people advocating mass-murder based on someone's ethnicity, not on the content of their character.
What do you mean when you say "that I vote a certain way?" Seems like a big assumption to make.
e: So I guess the Jews forced the Nazis to exterminate them in the 20th century, huh?
whatever way you vote or are perceived to vote. I left it deliberately nonspecific. It doesn't matter what your political leanings are, people's brains are lazy and will stereotype people who share your views based on your behavior.
Don't put words in my mouth. You know that's not what I meant, and so your saying it is just a sensationalist emotional appeal.
this contributes pretty much nothing to the discussion.
here, I really doubt you are actually capable of changing your mind based on discussion for reasons I'll explain, but I'm going to explain my point in its entirety anyways.
To what end would one advocate violence against "nazis"? (here assumed to be a slur against alt right ideologies sharing similar beliefs and not literal Nazis)
Advocating violence against a group of people only deeper entrenches them into their viewpoints. It's a well documented scientific observation that people tend not to leave any sort of confrontation of their deeply held beliefs with anything other than a deeper commitment to that belief. This is why I believe debate explaining this to you is probably useless, by the way. It's human nature for you to only deepen your beliefs in response to confrontation.
This is also pretty much not going to happen. Anyone who would be supportive of your act of violence already agrees with you, else they wouldn't support it. Furthermore, violence isn't an argument, and most people find it abhorrent.
Well, this is actually counter-productive, then. Imagine this: you walk into a Denny's at 3am partially hungover and see two men arguing. One is physically pushing the other one while the other is remaining calm and repeating "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend." Finally, the first one decks the second one and knocks them out cold. On an emotional level, what is your gut reaction? To believe that man #1 is correct about whatever that were just arguing about, or that man #2 seemed very reasonable and man #1 probably didn't have anything to say that would prove #1 wrong, or else why would they resort to violence?
This sort of instantaneous gut reaction is programmed into us, and even if you later find out #2 was an honest to god real Nazi and reassess your opinion, in the moment you were put into an emotionally vulnerable state where you likely had an increased susceptibility to being converted.
People tend not to change their mind by direct confrontation, but they do tend to be more susceptible to conversion when they see people they identify with acting in a way they deem socially or rationally unacceptable.
in other words, Proving someone wrong is less likely to convince them they're wrong than socially embarrassing someone they agree with
and even more bluntly put, punching "Nazis" is a better alt right recruitment tactic than anything the Nazis could do on their own, because you paint a powerful emotional appeal in the Nazi's favor.
This is why I'm writing this, by the way. I hope someone reading this is indirectly led to question their beliefs because they're protected by not being directly confronted, as I am directly confronting you.
to be honest, I don't think you even believe this is true of yourself, but it's the only possible intention that is in line with the likely outcome of your behavior. If you want to punch someone more than you want to cause positive political change, then of course you're going to advocate punching people and then come up with an post-hoc rationalization for why you should be allowed to.
Examine your motives and ask yourself if what you're advocating is really in line with what you wish to achieve. Then ask yourself if what you really want to achieve is the same thing as what you desire to want to achieve
What did you mean then? Would the Jews have been wrong to fight violently against the people who wanted to exact violence against them?
Saying this doesn't actually make it true. If you can't counter an argument, just fess up buddy.
The "alt-right" is just neo-nazism with muddier optics, but you already know that.
Ah, so we should appease them instead. I've heard that worked out very well in the 30s.
Nope, just want to disillusion supremacists of their feeling of invulnerability.
This explains why the Middle East is such a quagmire. Quick, tell Donny that instead of fighting ISIS and the Taliban he should be funding them!!
we are not in the same situation as them, and so it's pointless to bring them up.
mind explaining how it was supposed to contribute, then? it wasn't an argument or a point other than "I think Nazis are sociopaths", which, ok, you think that, what's the point? why should I care?
the alt right is shorthand for "Right but not Republican", and so it is a wide variety of political leanings, many of which share a ideals with Nazis, but most of which fall short. You need a special combination of hyper-nationalism and racism to be a neo-Nazi and the are many alt righters (like libertarians) that by and large aren't either.
but yeah, basically.
please quote the portion of my post where I said we should do that.
mind elaborating? I don't see them how that's any different than Possibility 1, which I see you've conveniently ignored.
actually, yes. American military action makes for excellent recruitment material for middle eastern extremists. Not saying we necessarily have a choice in that particular example, but luckily, we're not talking about literal war, here.
please quote the portion of my post where I said we should support Nazis.
Look, my entire point here is that, regardless of your reasons, you're helping the Nazis by doing what you're doing, and there are a multitude of other ways to combat nazism that are way, way more effective than punching people that you've excluded as possibilities a priori.
edit:
honestly, your tactics here are so strikingly alt-right inspired that it's nauseating.
Misdirection, check!
irrelevant emotional appeal, Check!
Straw manning, check!
How do we determine who is and isn't a nazi? These days it seems like it's a label that can be thrown at anyone by anyone, and even if it isn't an appropriate use, it still can influence thousands of peers to behave as though it is true.
These are just general rules of thumb, of course. There's the similar idea that if you say or do racist things or if you're fine with people saying or doing those things, then you're clearly a racist. It also helps avoid dealing with asshats who (truthfully) say "I never said anything about hating black people!", but are clearly content with the idea that POC are inferior. Adopting the same approach toward Nazis is only sensible.
number 1 is sort of tautological, isn't it? So now instead of asking "how do you identify a nazi" we have to ask "what is a nazi?" Because I have seen plenty of people called "nazi" while not believing germany should be supreme over all other countries, that all jews and gypsies and developmentally challenged people ought to be killed or sterilized, not wearing hugo boss uniforms, not demanding the cessation of democracy in favor of an authoritarian ruler, not believing everyone should get a volkswagen, etc. etc.
If those are the criteria, then how do we grapple with the epidemic of people abusing this term and watering its meaning down to almost criminally mundane levels?
The common mistake people make when trying to categorize someone is using overly specific details.
Let's look back at the racism example for a moment. If we decide to apply a strict definition like "someone who oppresses others based on the color of their skin", then suddenly that excludes people who e.g. says "all Mexicans are lazy", because that's not necessarily oppression per se, but it's still harmful. Thus, it's better to have a definition that's just broad enough to encompass the important characteristics.
With that in mind, let's get back to the subject of Nazis. What are the actual, important characteristics to consider?
Let's make an important note right at the beginning: Nazism is no longer purely tied to German history, as is evidenced by neo-Nazi movements in the U.S. and abroad. So we can drop your example points of German supremacy, uniforms (because there is no centralized neo-Nazi movement or military), or the VW. So anything that is specific to Germany can be completely eliminated right now.
What, then, is common between neo-Nazis (which, for the sake of brevity, I will simply refer to as "Nazis" as most people do) across these different movements that can be used to identify someone as such?
There are a few well-accepted traits:
You've probably realized that the above makes for a pretty broad category. As such, there are a couple of (perfectly reasonable!) questions that you may or may not have, and I'll quickly address the ones that came to mind for myself while I questioned my own reasoning:
The first would probably be "what about people who are just e.g. racist and love their country?". There are a few considerations for answering this concern. The first is that the racism and love of country must be related. That is, your racism must come from your sense of nationalism or your nationalism must come from your racism (or both!). For instance, your fear of middle-eastern peoples may cause you to latch strongly onto national pride and desire stricter surveillance of those in your country and those wanting to enter it. The second is a simple "you know it when you see it". That is, just being a little racist and loving your country doesn't make you a Nazi--no reasonable person will disagree on that point--but the distinction is the degree of these traits. Literally locking people up in camps, particularly people of color, due to ultra-nationalistic ideals is a good example of this. The third is, once you cross the threshold of merely holding these views and feel emboldened enough to actually act upon them, you're firmly in Nazi territory.
The second is "what if they don't identify as Nazis and actually hate them?". This is an incredibly common question in discussions about political identity, in my experience. The annoying answer that people don't seem to like hearing basically boils down to "if the shoe fits". That is, your self-prescribed labels don't matter. Feminism is a great example for this. If you believe that men and women should be equal, then you're a feminist. If you're an egalitarian, then you're also a feminist. This is because feminism as a whole is a subset of egalitarianism, and intersectional feminism is typically egalitarian in nature. It doesn't matter how much you bitch and moan about being called a feminist, because your beliefs absolutely encompass feminism. Similarly, if you hold Nazi ideals and do Nazi things, even if you "don't support" Nazis, then you're a Nazi, plain and simple.
Of course, sometimes you can use specific examples to identify someone as being part of a group, e.g. if someone announces that they love Hitler and everything he did, then they're clearly a Nazi. What I want to emphasize here is that specific actions are not required, but can nonetheless be self-evident. It's analogous to a criminal trial, where the broader requirements are evidence being used to prove guilt whereas specific actions are a direct guilty plea from the defendant.
I think that this point of view is completely off. these labels hold connotations beyond their "definition". the kind of person who would call themselves an "egalitarian" would not find themselves in good company with someone who calls themselves a "feminist". although their foundational beliefs are the same these labels are defined by more than just their strict definition.
they're as much a social group as they are an ideology, basically, and there are different social norms in each community.
I find that more often than not, those who readily state that they're egalitarians but take offense at the term "feminism" aren't quite as egalitarian as they believe. On the contrary, their past comments often exhibit sexist tendencies, even if those tendencies aren't particularly overt. That's not to say that they're necessarily doing it intentionally, though, and instead they tend not to realize their own prejudices. Lashing out at the term "feminism" is usually symptomatic of that underlying prejudice.
In that case, I can only half agree with you on this point. You're absolutely correct that those who call themselves egalitarians generally disdain the thought of being called feminists and wouldn't get along well in feminist circles, but I would argue that the reason for this is due largely to those people mislabeling themselves as egalitarians. More specifically, they genuinely believe in egalitarianism, but their prejudices cause them to lash out when they believe anyone is shown what they perceive as "preferential treatment", e.g. in the case of affirmative action being used to combat systemic racism. In other words, they believe in egalitarianism as an ideal, but become frustrated when measures are put in place to actually enact that ideal because those measures often feel like they're in opposition to that ideal and they don't realize the necessity of those measures.
If I had to summarize everything above, I would say that those who really are egalitarians and those who really are feminists--particularly, those from both groups who understand the reasoning for policies that show some amount of "favoritism"--would never have any problems actually getting along, and that conflicts between those groups only ever exist between those with a poor understanding of egalitarian and feminist policies.
I want to tell you right now that I deeply appreciate you taking the time to think about this and compose such a detailed and thoughtful response and to share it here with me. I'm really taking my time to read it and to try to formulate my thoughts into the right words, to try to express them clearly because you are owed that since you've done such a courtesy to me. Thank you.
Also, I just looked back at my "how can I do better" post and realized I didn't respond to your detailed comment there. I'm sorry for that. Please accept my apologies, and my thanks for you sharing your thoughts.
No worries, please feel free to take your time. I'll be happy to continue discussing this subject as long as you would like and look forward to having my arguments challenged. Mostly I just try to give a detailed walkthrough of my own thought processes because I feel that understanding the process at which I arrive at my conclusion is the best context available for understanding why I hold the views that I do. And sometimes in the process I discover that my process or even the conclusion is flawed and end up shifting my point of view. But if at the end you disagree with my thought process and conclusion and I disagree with yours, as long as we've had the opportunity to exchange ours and better understand each other I feel that we've still accomplished something :)
And don't worry about the lack of a response to my comment on that thread. Sometimes there's too much to respond to, or there are too many comments to keep track of, or there just isn't anything more of value to add to a discussion. I figured that since you hadn't replied, there just wasn't anything of added value that you felt was necessary to respond with and chose to leave it as it was. There's absolutely nothing to apologize for.
I look forward to hearing your response to this discussion, though!
Well obviously they have to earn it. You see, I'm smarter than they are. I make better decisions. I understand the world more. I have more experience. They should consider themselves lucky to even be in my presence, let alone listening to the knowledge I have to impart upon them. For they are nothing but barbarians - uncivilized and unlearned.
#DunningKrugerEffect
Yeah, someone called me a fascist yesterday just because I said all brown people need to be deported immediately.
Don't these people understand they need to address my unique ideas with decorum?
"Peter Kurti is a senior research fellow co-ordinating the religion and civil society program at the Centre for Independent Studies."
The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) is an Australian libertarian think tank
I am shocked that a senior research fellow for a libertarian think tank would say such things. Absolutely shocked.
Agreed, the first step to reclaiming civil discourse is for everyone to agree that diversity is always good. Otherwise, the diversity of thought on this topic will tear us apart.
This article was almost reasonable until the author started taking potshots at "multiculturalism".
Today's mainstream media articles and reports are hard to distinguish from opinionated blog entries from random people that thought they had to share their insight with the world.
Not all media is equal and not all are heavily slanted. There are plenty of good fact-based journalists out there who do a great job of sourcing and explaining their case. I would encourage you to seek those out (I'm specifically not going to provide examples as I afraid they would just be flipped back at me as proof of my "bias")
Flattening the discussion by claiming everyone is doing bad things, so nobody is to be trusted is a cop out and will only serve to bolster ignorance. It is our job as citizens of democracies to find those trusted sources and elevate them so everyone can make well-informed decisions about our future
You're right, and I actually do keep looking for reliable sources of information and useful discussion.
The problem I have is that all media, at some point in recent years and in a repeated manner, have shown complete inability to control the quality of the information they deliver.
And I'm not talking about honest mistakes, that are inevitable and that everyone makes sometimes. I talking about massive pieces of wrong or even senseless information that the media I am criticizing participated in spreading.
They should be talking almost only about the validity of the information they sell, its context, its source, its validity. But I see this analysis nowhere.
Even years after we saw exceptional effects of disinformation on the largest scales possible (Brexit, Trump election), all we see in the news is the term "troll" being thrown here and there is no real analysis to follow through.
Fact based journalists exists, and I actually also enjoy reading opinionated articles when the discussion is lead openly and honestly, but journals and TV stations have to protect their integrity as institutions. If they regularly spread false information and foreign propaganda - even unknowingly - they're not worth much as a news source.
It's like a tomato sauce factory which 1% of production is actually poison and not tomato sauce. I wouldn't buy from it.
I definitely share your frustrations with the level and quality of media reporting in recent years. But even if all media organisations have to some extent participated in spreading wrong information, they have not done so equally. Some outlets are far far more deliberate and pernicious than others, and those need to be ousted. The others need to be called out when they do, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The alternative, claiming all media is no to be trusted, is a far more dangerous path
It's true that when disinformation or false information comes out of a fairly reliable media actor, it's not like poison that kills you instantly, and you should be able to have a decent spread of good information even if it comes with a small amount of lies. It's not a reason to totally discard that actor.
So I agree again, when you say that you should not be to harsh, and desolidarising from all media is actually really dangerous.
There is just so much of it today. So much conditioning content which barely means anything in itself but aims at putting you in a context that favors someone. As I said in my first comment it's hard to distinguish, but I'm not giving up !
I just wish major media realized how sick they are and start working on getting better instead mostly capitalizing on the global (and local) political mess.
I can completely relate. I come from a country further along the populism track than the US, if you can believe that (my guess is we're around 5 years in America's future). The surreal result is that you can see precisely what's in store for the US, without having to delve into history books. The first thing a populist government did is demarcate the public sphere - who are the honest true believers, the volk, and who are the traitors. It will do this by repeating the distinction ad nauseam, and as shamelessly as possible. Once people internalize the criteria for such distinction, they will self-segragate and view anything else through this lens. People are good and people are bad, media is honest and brave or trying to undermine the state. Once this is done, the media, democracy's watchdog, has been defanged - regardless of what corruption they uncover, the volkists will never believe them and the autocrat is free to define their message without criticism. It is depressingly effective and maddening to see unfold yet again.
I found this interview with Jan-Werner Mueller does a great job articulating the issues and providing some methods to tackle them: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-real-danger-posed-by-populist-leaders-like-trump-and-netanyahu-1.5445180
The media has always been a propaganda machine. If not for the government, than for the rich and the corporations. These lyrics are practically obligatory in a discussion like this.
Okay... the way this is worded is worrying.
But I do actually agree with the sentiment. There is a big difference between diversity and "the fetish of diversity".
I'm going to speak from the point of view from the United States.
The former is encouraging minority groups to attend a specific college through grants and scholarships; the latter is that same college hand-holding those minority groups so that they "appear" more diverse, under the white-supremicist assumption that minorities are intellectually unable to get in on their own merits.
There's a really big push among white people to force their own version of diversity for diversitys sake. We must have x percent of black people. We must have x percent of asians. X percent of latinos. Etc. The problem is that it is purely superficial; a fetish, if you will. It just absolves white people of their "guilt", and doesn't actually solve anything.
Maybe we should consider figuring out what the root of these problems are, and then fixing them, instead of metaphorically patting ourselves on the back because we are "diverse"?
Go fuck yourself.
/s