"... who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…" - MLK MLK was speaking...
"... who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…" - MLK
MLK was speaking about white moderates who would stand by as others fought for justice, but the sentiment also applies here. These people arguing for "civility" as the current administration harms others is a reprehensible distraction from the cruelty and inhumanity to the weakest among us.
Seriously, anyone who wants to talk about MLK really needs to read The Letter from Birmingham Jail. The whole paragraph you pulled that quote from is powerful: "I must make two honest confessions...
Seriously, anyone who wants to talk about MLK really needs to read The Letter from Birmingham Jail. The whole paragraph you pulled that quote from is powerful:
"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Now people twist MLK's words and message to try to discredit any form of protests that risks minorly inconveniencing or upsetting people. It's very frustrating.
While that is very true, that argument doesn't get at civility, it gets at doing what you believe in while that may inconvenience others. Judging by reports, the restaurant owners were civil in...
While that is very true, that argument doesn't get at civility, it gets at doing what you believe in while that may inconvenience others.
Judging by reports, the restaurant owners were civil in the way they handled the situation, while standing up for their beliefs. Good on them.
Calling them uncivil is muddying the waters. But when the response you get isn't a civil argument for why muddying the waters is disingenuous and detracts from the debate is the following malediction, Esquire* is hurting more than it's helping:
How did any higher primate write this paragraph without coughing up a lung? How did any sentient mammal not red-pencil this paragraph into oblivion? How did Post truck drivers not save their employers severe embarrassment by tossing that entire day’s print run into the Potomac?
* just like their asterisk nonsense just undermines their credibility with anyone who isn't already a believer. Why undercut your message so crudely and actively alienate those you're supposedly trying to reach?
two things that are exactly opposite (fascism and opposing fascism) are definitely also exactly the same. you got me. back to the drawing board folks - this right wing concern troll thinks saying...
two things that are exactly opposite (fascism and opposing fascism) are definitely also exactly the same. you got me. back to the drawing board folks - this right wing concern troll thinks saying fascists should be resisted until they stop being fascists is somehow also fascist, we're done for.
What is fascism? What does it mean? The nazis began by targeting jews and gay people, gypsies, etc. All of Germany's problems were blamed on the Jews and those of ostensibly inferior stock. The...
What is fascism? What does it mean? The nazis began by targeting jews and gay people, gypsies, etc. All of Germany's problems were blamed on the Jews and those of ostensibly inferior stock. The German people guided hitler in his speech delivery, cheering more when he said this instead of that, and he adjusted accordingly until their collective resentment and hatred was fed and fed to the point that non-aryans were driven out of business, spat on in the streets. We know where that led.
They had their boogeyman too. The bolsheviks/communists. Boogeymen they might have been, they were just as bad as the nazis in terms of the death toll they created. I do not want to see western civility destroyed in the name of fighting nazis, while behaving exactly as the nazis did in the early days.
Now, all that said, do you understand how it does not do any good to call people nazis? the nazis don't exist anymore. You aren't one. I'm not one. But one of us is calling for behavior that more closely resembles these devils of human nature more than the other.
Yes, and it's your ilk, you apologist. One side is literally stealing children away from their families and putting them in actual, literal, no-uncertain-terms concentration camps, and they are...
But one of us is calling for behavior that more closely resembles these devils of human nature more than the other.
Yes, and it's your ilk, you apologist.
One side is literally stealing children away from their families and putting them in actual, literal, no-uncertain-terms concentration camps, and they are doing it right now. It's all over the mainstream news everywhere.
The other side is publicly shaming the first side when they go out to eat at a public restaurant.
Let us be clear that you are apologizing for the former and declaring that the latter is somehow more nazi-like than the former.
I'm going to say it again, because people apparently missed it the first time. There are actual concentration camps in our country. If the reports coming out of them are to be believed, ICE was...
I'm going to say it again, because people apparently missed it the first time. There are actual concentration camps in our country. If the reports coming out of them are to be believed, ICE was taking kids away from their parents by telling them they were taking them to shower. That's literally what the nazis did before gassing children. Thankfully we're not there yet, but the nazis didn't start their either.
The president openly advocates violence against his enemies, who remembers when he told his supporters to attack protesters and he would cover their medical bills. Who remembers when he said that the second amendment folks could 'do something' if they lost the election. I remember that because I was paying fucking attention.
Or how about when he mentioned there were good people on both sides after a literal nazi (Neo-nazis are still nazis, for all you pedants out there) murdered a protester with his car.
But yeah, that's totally the same as calling to annoy someone. The double standard is mind boggling.
I've been meaning to write up a summary of the difference between Civil Disobedience, which has an actual definition that very few people seem to know, and civility. Because the original post was right, this debate is really fucking dumb.
At the risk of being summarily labeled racist and sexist (and probably fascist too), by way of toleration, I think I have to say something here. I've been watching these comments for the last few...
I've been watching these comments for the last few days with some apprehension; the black-and-white world view espoused in many of the words you've written serves no-one, and nothing but the need to pyrrhically fight the other.
Of course, it is impossible to read all of the above as an attempt to forcibly suppress the opposition's viewpoint, but because it's been so conclusively proven that /u/Mumberthrax is evil.
Fuck. If you wanna fight, go to twitter or something. Your tactics alienate those who would be your allies
I don't particularly care what people believe in their heart of hearts. I care about what they do and how they vote. It's fine to say they don't agree with concentration camps for children, that's...
I don't particularly care what people believe in their heart of hearts. I care about what they do and how they vote.
It's fine to say they don't agree with concentration camps for children, that's one of the least controversial stances ever. But as long as they're still voting along party lines, they're still supporting the people doing it.
First of all, "whataboutism" is not a thing. It's a meme that Redditors love to throw around to try to invalidate someone's argument without actually having anything to say. I honestly have been...
First of all, "whataboutism" is not a thing. It's a meme that Redditors love to throw around to try to invalidate someone's argument without actually having anything to say. I honestly have been dreading the day when it pops its ugly, specious head on Tildes.
So I'd love it if you could not use it.
Anyway, I think I can be forgiven for assuming you're on the Left when you present the classic false "Nazis vs. angels" dichotomy:
One side is literally stealing children away from their families and putting them in actual, literal, no-uncertain-terms concentration camps, and they are doing it right now. It's all over the mainstream news everywhere.
The other side is publicly shaming the first side when they go out to eat at a public restaurant.
EDIT: Gah, I'm doing it again. I was just mentioning in another thread how I need to be more patient and charitable. So instead of saying your argument is invalid, I'll instead ask you to clarify what you mean by "whataboutism."
I'm leaving my angry nonsense in for posterity, so future generations can point and laugh.
I am on the left. I'm an actual leftist, though, which means I'm also anti-democrat. "Your party isn't innocent either" is classic whataboutism in the true definition (Soviet style "and you lynch...
I am on the left. I'm an actual leftist, though, which means I'm also anti-democrat.
"Your party isn't innocent either" is classic whataboutism in the true definition (Soviet style "and you lynch negroes"), not the stupid reddit meme that gets trotted out by centrist dorks whenever a lefty points out that maybe the Russia conspiracy is being used to cover for Democrats' mistakes and structural ineptitude.
That doesn't really explain what you mean by "whataboutism," though. I'm still personally convinced that it's a non-argument, but I'm open to another perspective.
That doesn't really explain what you mean by "whataboutism," though. I'm still personally convinced that it's a non-argument, but I'm open to another perspective.
This paragraph from a Merriam-Webster article on Words We're Watching describes it thus: It's a short article, and goes a bit more in-depth. Recommended reading for those unsure of what...
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?") to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
It's a short article, and goes a bit more in-depth. Recommended reading for those unsure of what "whataboutism/whataboutery" is.
To add to this, it's a distraction technique that means only someone completely blameless can offer any criticism at all. I have mixed feelings about it personally, because self-reflection is...
To add to this, it's a distraction technique that means only someone completely blameless can offer any criticism at all.
I have mixed feelings about it personally, because self-reflection is important, but that can also be weaponized.
And the fallacy fallacy is a problem too, if you mix up genuine concern for whataboutism.
None of us are perfect, but that doesn't mean all imperfection is equal. Long story short, getting to truth is hard.
Alright then. I still believe it's nonsense with that definition. It is not deflection to point out hypocrisy or bring up other points. Ironically, it's the people who throw out accusations of...
Alright then. I still believe it's nonsense with that definition. It is not deflection to point out hypocrisy or bring up other points.
Ironically, it's the people who throw out accusations of "whataboutism" that stifle the discourse.
If Tildes bans someone for calling out fascist apologia while supporting someone who commits fascist apologia, then its mission statement of avoiding the paradox of tolerance is entirely bunk and...
If Tildes bans someone for calling out fascist apologia while supporting someone who commits fascist apologia, then its mission statement of avoiding the paradox of tolerance is entirely bunk and it is barely better than reddit.
Oh yeah, don't fuck with me brah. ;P Joking aside, I do hope that @redacted gets to come back some day. I hope he makes an appeal and it's approved. All he did was get a little wrapped up in...
Oh yeah, don't fuck with me brah. ;P
Joking aside, I do hope that @redacted gets to come back some day. I hope he makes an appeal and it's approved. All he did was get a little wrapped up in emotions and lash out with the tags. If we end up shunning everyone who makes mistakes when it comes to interacting with people and ideas they disagree with, those people will just continue being polarizing instead of a uniting force in the world. I'd much rather warnings and guidance where possible.
That's just something that Mike Huckabee said on Fox News and Laura Ingraham subsequently tweeted. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't pass the smell test: so she comped them a cheese plate...
That's just something that Mike Huckabee said on Fox News and Laura Ingraham subsequently tweeted. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't pass the smell test: so she comped them a cheese plate and then followed them across the street?
Or they just flat out ignore his words like they do any facts contradicting their positions. That is the most frustrating thing. You could be on the right side of history with all the facts,...
Now people twist MLK's words and message to try to discredit any form of protests that risks minorly inconveniencing or upsetting people. It's very frustrating.
Or they just flat out ignore his words like they do any facts contradicting their positions. That is the most frustrating thing. You could be on the right side of history with all the facts, empathy, and precedent in the world to support your position, yet it doesn't matter at all because approximately 1/3 of Americans will simply ignore you or call you fake news.
The only way to fight is through mobilizing dormant Democrat voters to slowly shift control of government, but voter suppression and the sheer mathematics of the upcoming midterms make that an extraordinarily uphill battle. I'm doing everything I can to contribute and not get discouraged. It's hard though.
I think your argument to MLK falls flat. In a republic of liberties, the exchange of ideas is made possible by civility. . I completely agree that the cornerstone of civil disobedience is the fact...
I completely agree that the cornerstone of civil disobedience is the fact that you break the law and knowingly impose yourself on others. That's the whole point: breaking an immoral law to show how wrong the law is. The second necessary step is the willingness to take the punishment for breaking that law.
It doesn't mean we should be dicks to people because the ends justify the means. Not one bit.
Standing up to injustice does not require being mean or uncivil. The people calling for civility aren't calling for you to stop expressing yourself politically, they're calling for people to resist the urge for a race to the bottom: being civil where others are not.
As the linked article argues, that's about actually having a functional public discourse. If everyone's just yelling at each other, calling each other names and playing up team rhetoric, that's encouraging the tearing of the social fabric.
It's asking for an "us against them" discourse that destroys compromise, pragmatism and collaboration. The result is governmental gridlock.
You can absolutely slaughter someone's poor argument while staying civil, not attacking people but the actual argument, and without being a dick.
Whenever publications sentimentally tug at our heartstrings, when the methods of storytelling in a feature story seems to embellish or the storyteller takes sides, that undermines the actual cases' chance at persuading those who wish to push the story away in the first place.
The alternative is letting the actual injustice speak for itself on its own terms; show, don't tell.
It's a lot less satisfying in the moment without all the sarcastic jabs, insults for measure and ridicule, but that's the way to change minds and foster a climate of progress.
People are opting out of politics altogether, just like they're equating all "mainstream" media with partisan propaganda irrespective of the actual journalistic quality and integrity of individual media organizations.
People are giving up on public discourse entirely due to the tone of current public discourse. That's a win for those who want a small, invested and involved elite to play at politics among themselves.
Society and public discourse are the ones who lose when "we'll be mean right back at them!" is viewed as an integral part of standing up to policies we find morally insufficient.
If we scratch the uncivil itch, we're all left with the ensuing inflamed rash. We can stand up for our principles while being principled.
I would say that, in general, democrats need to stop being led by the nose into the trap of this one sided civility requirement. Somewhere along the line democrats even managed to make...
I would say that, in general, democrats need to stop being led by the nose into the trap of this one sided civility requirement. Somewhere along the line democrats even managed to make consistently falling for this ruse a point of pride ("They go low, we go high!"). Ultimately it's just a transparent manipulation tactic - you're inviting your opponent to a game where they're they only ones that have to play by any rules.
Yeah let's all give ourselves a free pass to continue in the abusive harassment we've been engaging in against those other guys! edit: just an observation from the "evil nazi trump voter" side of...
Yeah let's all give ourselves a free pass to continue in the abusive harassment we've been engaging in against those other guys!
edit: just an observation from the "evil nazi trump voter" side of this nonsense - the left has by far the worst optics for this sort of petty shit-flinging (literally) BS. Ramping that stuff up into a frenzy and abandoning all semblance of civility is just going to make that whole group lose credibility amongst less insane people.
The media lens through which you choose to receive your news determines your perception of the optics. Speaking as an outsider to the US political landscape/nightmare, I would say the right is by...
The media lens through which you choose to receive your news determines your perception of the optics. Speaking as an outsider to the US political landscape/nightmare, I would say the right is by far the most shit-flinging of the bunch but many on the left have recently decided to join them in doing so. Neither side is innocent in this.
p.s. I also find the attitude espoused in this article incredibly counterproductive and it’s disheartening to see it being upvoted considering its message runs counter to the goals of this very site.
What do you expect to happen? The left has tried to be civil constantly and for decades the right has only gotten worse the entire time. "When they go low, we go high" was endlessly cheered on the...
What do you expect to happen? The left has tried to be civil constantly and for decades the right has only gotten worse the entire time.
"When they go low, we go high" was endlessly cheered on the left while the Republicans had obstructed everything related to Obama. Republicans purposefully sabotaged policy to make Obama a 1-term president. They lied. They propagandized. They obstructed. They appointed an anti-EPA person to lead the EPA, an anti-public school person to be Secretary of Education, and they appointed an anti-consumer person to lead the CFPB. They have abandoned their duty in the legislature to put checks on Trump who is clearly abusing the Office of the President to enrich himself and his family. The similarly abandoned their duty to stop the human rights abuses of ICE et. al. at the border. Worse, many of them defended and cheered it.
How many decades is one side supposed to "behave" and attempt rational discourse in the face of ever escalating authoritarianism, xenophobia, and stupidity?
I know someone who isn't actively deployed but had to spend all weekend with other military folks. This person had to listen to an entire weekend of people talking about the "animals over-running our county" and how "who gives a shit about the children caged in chainlink anyways".
There is no civil discourse to be had with how brainwashed a huge part of our country is combined with the political control they wield. We've turned the other check for years and years. Seriously, how much shit are we expected to have flung into our faces, homes, and society before we tell people to go fly a kite?
And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever? All it does is further the divide rendering productive dialogue impossible and further escalate the...
And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever? All it does is further the divide rendering productive dialogue impossible and further escalate the already highly volatile situation which is teetering on the verge of all-out armed conflict already.
The bottom line is that demographically speaking Conservatives in the US are vastly outnumbered. IMO if you want to be beat them, you do so by taking the high road, volunteering for political campaigns, protesting when the current administration oversteps (like with the ICE detention centers) and pounding pavement to get out the vote for the mid-term... apathy and those in charge of the right wing political party and media empires are your enemy, not your fellow citizens with differing views.
It lets off steam? Several times in this short past I've screamed in my car and in my house out of utter frustration and anger. I've been trying to have productive dialogue. 99% of the people on...
And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever?
It lets off steam? Several times in this short past I've screamed in my car and in my house out of utter frustration and anger.
All it does is further the divide rendering productive dialogue impossible
I've been trying to have productive dialogue. 99% of the people on the other side who I still talk to have directly pivoted to defending the practice of separating children from their parents and putting them in cages. There. is. no. productive. dialogue. possible.
and further escalate the situation, which is already teetering on the verge of all-out armed conflict.
A "Fuck you and all that you stand for" from me is better than me physically decking them because those were the choices that were left. I have walked away, I have ignored, I have been polite. It never stops because they revel in the anguish these policies are enacting on "libruls" and "libtards". They have demonized Democrats so much that Democratic lawmakers poll at higher unfavorables than actual brutal dictators in their group.
The bottom line is that demographically speaking Conservatives in the US are vastly outnumbered. IMO if you want to be beat them, you do so by taking the high road, volunteering for political campaigns, protesting when the current administration oversteps (like with the ICE detention centers) and pounding pavement to get out the vote... not by joining them in the mud and making things worse.
Por que no los dos? Just because I tell these people to go fuck themselves doesn't mean I don't also pound pavement.
It's easy to advocate taking the high road when you don't have to listen to these assholes dehumanize children and celebrate the actions your own country is taking to do so and rub your face in it on the regular. Advocating "taking the high road" is a privileged position to be able to espouse, just look at the top of this thread to find quotes from someone who would absolutely agree with that.
So your justification for it is because it makes you feel better? That is often a sure sign something is not a good idea. I also find it ironic that you say "A 'Fuck you and all that you stand...
It lets off steam? Several times in this short past I've screamed in my car and in my house out of utter frustration and anger.
So your justification for it is because it makes you feel better? That is often a sure sign something is not a good idea. I also find it ironic that you say "A 'Fuck you and all that you stand for' from me is better than me physically decking them, because those were the choices that were left" followed immediately by three other choices you have available to you; walking away, ignoring them and remaining polite.
It never stops because they revel in the anguish these policies are enacting on "libruls" and "libtards"
And so by giving them exactly what they want and sinking to their level that is better how?
Por que no los dos?
Because your country is potentially about to collapse into sectarian violence... that's "why not both?"
Advocating "taking the high road" is a privileged position to take, just look at the top of this thread to find quotes from someone who would absolutely agree with that
MLK advocated civil disobedience. There is a reason he marched in a suit and tie, took the high road, used eloquent words and impassioned pleas to achieve his goal and not demonizing rhetoric, insults and resorting to violence. Why? Because while he wanted change, and immediate change, he knew taking the low road was the surest way to undermine his own position and turn the moderates against him was to resort to those things. The fact that so many are taking a single sentence of his out of context to justify their shitty behavior, while ignoring his actions and overall message is honestly astonishing to me.
Probably because I didn't do a good job explaining. I have tried all those other three choices, but people will continue to get in your face about it. And since I told them to fuck off they...
I also find it ironic that you say "A 'Fuck you and all that you stand for' from me is better than me physically decking them, because those were the choices that were left" followed immediately by three other choices you have available to you; walking away, ignoring them and remaining polite.
Probably because I didn't do a good job explaining. I have tried all those other three choices, but people will continue to get in your face about it.
And since I told them to fuck off they haven't gotten in my face about it where as all of the other tactics didn't work. That's because they know they've reached the end of the line of my civil discourse and tolerance.
And so by giving them exactly what they want and sinking to their level that is better how?
Please come to Georgia and be forcibly interacted with these people every day for a few weeks. Let me know how it goes.
MLK ...
Of course he did. Which is why I cheer the restaurant for civilly denying SHS service. My family does the same thing, we go out of our way to not interact with right-leaning companies, people, and even whole states (sadly we currently reside in Georgia). MLK wouldn't have been as effective if there wasn't essentially a direct contrast with Malcom X, the Black Panthers, etc. He didn't work in a vacuum.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to tell someone to fuck off who keeps getting in my face.
the moderates against him
He also wrote about how the moderates were the biggest stumbling block into getting actual change accomplished because of their preference for faux-civility.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Reread the entirety of what he wrote and put it in proper historical context. He was arguing that the "white moderate" who agreed with the protestors'...
He also wrote about how the moderates were the biggest stumbling block into getting actual change accomplished because of their preference for faux-civility.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Reread the entirety of what he wrote and put it in proper historical context. He was arguing that the "white moderate" who agreed with the protestors' message and goals but who were attempting to "set the timetable" (i.e. told them to wait for a "more convenient season") or against the "protestors direct actions" (i.e. peaceful, disruptive, civil protest, which MLK advocated for all his life) is who he was specifically writing about. It had absolutely nothing to do with "faux-civility" of moderates nor was it an argument against moderates in general, merely those that attempted to denounce the disruptive civil protest as a method. MLK was the absolute embodiment of civility, in action and discourse, and it honestly makes me angry to see people attempt to spin his words as justification for their horrible behavior.
And for a modern comparison, he was essentially arguing against what is happening currently to BLM, where some white moderates are arguing that their methods (i.e. disrupting "normal" everyday life with their civil protests) are the ones hindering progress.
What are you getting at here? He directly criticizes the faux-civility ("negative peace"). And I'll say once again, the only reason that MLK was as effective as he was was that society was faced...
It had absolutely nothing to do with "faux-civility" of moderates nor was it an argument against moderates in general,
What are you getting at here? He directly criticizes the faux-civility ("negative peace").
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
And I'll say once again, the only reason that MLK was as effective as he was was that society was faced with two paths forward: racial integration or escalating racial violence.
I hope that society will choose to mend itself the reasonable way.
But after the conference Malcolm met Martin’s wife, Coretta Scott King, and assured her that, “I want Dr. King to know that I didn’t come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking that I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is [to Martin’s nonviolent approach], perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.”
The Civil Rights Movement had to move on, but interestingly, even as Malcolm had been slowly moving closer to Martin’s nonviolent and integrationist approach before his assassination in 1965, so too did Martin start to slowly move towards Malcolm’s approach of active self-defence and rebellion. In fact, by the time of his own assassination in 1968, Martin was writing that he was not saddened by the rebellion of African-Americans against racist authority because “without this magnificent ferment among Negroes, the old evasions and procrastinations would have continued indefinitely.”
He is not criticizing civility (faux or otherwise) he is criticizing those calling for the end to the tension being brought about by the continued demonstrations: And he explained precisely what...
What are you getting at here? He directly criticizes the faux-civility ("negative peace").
He is not criticizing civility (faux or otherwise) he is criticizing those calling for the end to the tension being brought about by the continued demonstrations:
who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
And he explained precisely what he meant by that in the next parargraph:
Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
And the very next sentence after your quote, started with a semi-colon since it's a continuation of the thought, also specifies to which "white moderates" he is directly referring to:
; who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
The protests were originally scheduled to be done during the Easter and Christmas shopping seasons so as to be the most disruptive possible. He was specifically referring to "those that attempted to denounce the disruptive civil protest as a method", exactly as I said in my previous comment. And hence my comparison to BLM and the weak criticisms they have faced for "disrupting 'normal' everyday life".
Read his actual, full letter yourself. The entire letter is about peaceful, civil protest through civil disobedience and accepting the consequences of that disobedience:
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
And as to Malcolm X, in the letter he specifically calls out the the Black Nationalist movement:
The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Which, IMO, is precisely the "bitterness and hatred" trap you and many other are falling into by verbally (and physically) lashing out against those you disagree with. And that is also why people using MLK's words from that very same letter, taken completely out of context, to justify that ill behavior is so damn infuriating. Reading the whole letter makes it very, very clear that sort of behavior is exactly what MLK was cautioning against!
I disagree with your interpretation and also your insinuation that I haven't read these things. I also disagree with how you are mischaraterizing my arguments and blending them together, which...
I disagree with your interpretation and also your insinuation that I haven't read these things. I also disagree with how you are mischaraterizing my arguments and blending them together, which I've tried to separate but you keep ramming them together.
MLK's tactics would not have worked in a vacuum. It is entirely naive to believe that this rediculous fetish for constant civility in all aspects will actually yield the outcomes we want. There have always been more militaristic and extreme parallel movements that function as the stick to the other movement's carrot.
Again I'm going to have to agree with guamisc that you're completely misunderstanding King and being needlessly patronizing into the bargain with the implication that he hasn't read the letter....
Again I'm going to have to agree with guamisc that you're completely misunderstanding King and being needlessly patronizing into the bargain with the implication that he hasn't read the letter.
For one, equating verbal and physical lashing out is just lazy equivocation. And you seem to be getting his last quote exactly wrong by implying the "bitterness and hatred" is something to be contrasted with moderation, one because that's a lazy and unfair characterization of guamiscs argument and two, because if you're calling that moderation, you are using the word to identify something completely different than what King was talking about. Moderates are blind to the cases where moral outrage is necessary and well founded, and dismiss it all as extremism. That seems perfectly in line with the kind of moderate philosophy criticized by King and the original article.
Sorry, I got the feeling reading this exchange that cfabbro was exasperated, but not patronizing. What did you think was patronizing? That is the sort of attack that can derail any attempt to...
Sorry, I got the feeling reading this exchange that cfabbro was exasperated, but not patronizing. What did you think was patronizing? That is the sort of attack that can derail any attempt to communicate, so I want to be very clear we're all on the same page when you use language like that.
How is that not patronizing? Repeatedly saying "look at this", "well if you read this", "about this", and so on and so forth when we're discussing that very thing is what is exasperating. Maybe I...
Reread the entirety of what he wrote and put it in proper historical context.
Reading the whole letter makes it very, very clear that sort of behavior is exactly what MLK was cautioning against!
How is that not patronizing? Repeatedly saying "look at this", "well if you read this", "about this", and so on and so forth when we're discussing that very thing is what is exasperating. Maybe I should find one particular link, perform my own interpretation of it, and then repeatedly reference it through multiple posts while linking to it several times. I'm sure that'll get my point across.
The reason I did that is because @guamisc kept repeating the same singular sentence, stripped of context, from a 40 paragraph, 7000 word document and using it to justify their actions when I felt...
The reason I did that is because @guamisc kept repeating the same singular sentence, stripped of context, from a 40 paragraph, 7000 word document and using it to justify their actions when I felt (and still do) that it was entirely contrary to the MLK's point. And they also kept repeatedly mentioning Malcolm X when MLK specifically mentioned the dangers of the Black Nationalists' stance in the very same letter.
I fully admit I was growing exasperated and if my frustrated insistence they read the letter came across as patronizing, then I apologize. But I am still genuinely confused how anyone who reads the letter can take from it the lesson that lashing out in anger at their opposition is in any way what MLK would support, which @guamisc claimed he would in the very first comment:
Advocating "taking the high road" is a privileged position to be able to espouse, just look at the top of this thread to find quotes from someone who would absolutely agree with that.
Oh boy, there you go ignoring literally everything I've tried to differentiate so far again. I have been trying to be very clear that his writing absolutely supports the restaurant asking SHS to...
Oh boy, there you go ignoring literally everything I've tried to differentiate so far again.
I have been trying to be very clear that his writing absolutely supports the restaurant asking SHS to leave in a non-violent way.
I apologized earlier for the confusion and poor writing on my part, but you seem to be unable to move past it.
After a lengthy talk with @BuckeyeSundae in private and rereading all of our exchanges I can't help but feel I owe you a serious apology. I completely missed your point about Malcolm X being a...
After a lengthy talk with @BuckeyeSundae in private and rereading all of our exchanges I can't help but feel I owe you a serious apology. I completely missed your point about Malcolm X being a necessary element to MLKs success (which I do agree with to an extent), failed to acknowledge your attempt to clear up my original confusion, and misinterpreted your frustration with my missing your points as further disagreement, when there was not. I think the most unfortunate part of this whole thing is that we probably largely agree with each other but since I was being so overly defensive and stubborn I failed to recognize that so I wound up sabotaging any chance of our reaching consensus. So I do want to apologize to you, especially for my mischaracterization of your argument by my misunderstanding of it.
It’s quite true that MLK was long not very cozy with Malcolm X or the NoI movement, and it’s also true he was the most relevant political beneficiary of that movement. There is quite a bit of...
It’s quite true that MLK was long not very cozy with Malcolm X or the NoI movement, and it’s also true he was the most relevant political beneficiary of that movement. There is quite a bit of truth to the idea that NoI scared the jesus into the very same white moderates that MLK derides for trying to set timetables and aim for incremental integration. That’s nit what MLK ever liked to admit, but it’s pretty plain based on the media coverage and political reactions.
How good is having power if your enemy knows you won’t use it? This got Obama into serious geopolitical trouble because of how predictable he was. And it is the one card Trump can play well these days. It’s this same principle with these sorts of rights-based issues sometimes. Civil disobedience without the threat of force can be toothless.
I do agree with that... but at the same time, IMO threats of force without the core of civil disobedience behind it and being open to the potential for civil discourse and negotiation. is ruinous...
I do agree with that... but at the same time, IMO threats of force without the core of civil disobedience behind it and being open to the potential for civil discourse and negotiation. is ruinous and will only lead to disaster and bloodshed. And I can't help but feel that everything is so polarized in the US right now and charged with hate that the doors to the latter options are being slowly sealed shut. leading to only one potential outcome... and it's not a pretty one.
The thing, the two groups have to be separate, right? It isn’t like you can have both the enemy that is saber rattling also be the group you want to negotiate with. There has to be counter-balance.
The thing, the two groups have to be separate, right? It isn’t like you can have both the enemy that is saber rattling also be the group you want to negotiate with. There has to be counter-balance.
I don't think that is true. The enemy that is saber rattling is precisely who you need to negotiate with... but you don't do it directly, you do it by building enough support from the general...
I don't think that is true. The enemy that is saber rattling is precisely who you need to negotiate with... but you don't do it directly, you do it by building enough support from the general populace (largely moderates and independents) by taking the high road and building sympathy for your cause, which leaves the saber rattlers outnumbered and with no choice but to back down and actually start negotiating.
We saw this very thing occur with the latest ICE policies IMO... even Republican politicians saw how insanely outnumbered they were on the issue of separating children from their parents so they were forced to back down from the worst of it and start negotiating. The battle is far from won but it was a stern warning to them and at least now strides can be taken forwards in negotiating.
However the minute those who practice civil protest and disobedience become outnumbered by the elements amongst them resorting to hateful rhetoric, demonization and violence you lose that moderate support and all chance of negotiation goes out the window with it. Just look at Antifa, Black Bloc and all the other hateful and/or violent fringe groups amongst the left and you can see how that is true. Moderates refuse to support them because of their actions and so the only thing they are capable of is causing escalation.
Power disparities play out in the court of public opinion to be sure, but to break through to get their attention in the first place, you don’t always have young children crying for their mothers...
Power disparities play out in the court of public opinion to be sure, but to break through to get their attention in the first place, you don’t always have young children crying for their mothers to work with. Sometimes you have a government willing to bomb those crying children (looking at you, Philly). How do you address systemic violence against people like you but by disruption? If disruption isn’t enough to get their attention, what else do you advocate? It isn’t as though there are a shortage of sympathetic killings of unarmed young black men to go around. If outrage and pain aren’t being heard, what then? If after the end of a viral story that potentially threatens your lufe, you’re left with nothing changing, what is there to do? A rational person can easily conclude it’s time to arm yourself and police the police as a community in arms.
I think your conversation with @mumberthrax in your topic about deescalation highlights exactly what you do... even he conceded the new wave of peaceful BLM protestors and their new leadership are...
I think your conversation with @mumberthrax in your topic about deescalation highlights exactly what you do... even he conceded the new wave of peaceful BLM protestors and their new leadership are making huge strides in terms of outreach, goal oriented direction and so are worth listening to. Does that solve the problem in the immediate term? No but it's tangible progress.
And I admit, when your life is on the line and the violence against your peoples' continues that is understandably hard to stomach. But the only real alternative to civil disobedience and protest in that case is armed insurrection against the police, which serves absolutely no-one but the white supremacists, especially since the Police forces across the US are not a monolith. Many police forces and many municipal governments are already making progress through new bodycam policies, community policing initiatives and deescalation training and not all police officers are deserving of violence being done against them either.... but if police across the US were suddenly being targeted they would have absolutely no choice but to side against the insurrectionists and many (if not most) moderates would go with them.
Let me clear about that exchange. It ameliorated my dread somewhat because Mumber was pointing out one case where Trump has uncharacteristically decided to reach out to people who aren't directly...
Let me clear about that exchange. It ameliorated my dread somewhat because Mumber was pointing out one case where Trump has uncharacteristically decided to reach out to people who aren't directly in his political base, but it is far from the norm. The normal behavior is that Trump insults the people who aren't in his political base and seems to almost deliberately try to upset them. He could have been a unifying influence out the gate, and instead he chose to try to implement a hideously poorly crafted, communicated, and executed travel ban that seemed obviously targeted at muslims. This behavior is what's being doubled-down with this latest immigration fiasco, where the initial policy is seen to be hugely defective, then it gets replaced with something only technically better but just about as tone deaf, all in the hopes of wearing the opposition out and maybe not insulting as many people the third time they do the exact same fucking thing (potentially denying people due process to deport them faster so you don't have to worry about their refugee status application, which you have also tightened the standards for by reducing the personal-threat claims that can make a case viable--I see you Sessions).
I sharply disagree that the threat of violence serves no one but white supremacists. The threat of violence is the main reason people react. Were it not for the chaos their policies are creating, it is pretty unclear that police departments would shift to try to address those longstanding complaints. That shit varies a lot on precinct, absolutely, and some precincts have very different views on how to treat the poorer, more difficult (and disproportionately PoC) people within their communities. I mean, how long the NYC have its stop and frisk policy before that was stopped by court order? That story was so sad to read about because the officer who collected the evidence and served as the whistleblower was effectively pushed out of service. What's worse, an ESU unit illegally entered his apartment, physically abducted him and forcibly admitted him to a psychiatric facility, where he was held against his will for six days.
What could this community have done differently to stop this shit? What could Adrian Schoolcraft have done differently? Would you have asked him not to collect that data because it was uncivil? I would doubt that! It seems that the threat of legal violence wasn't itself enough either. It would take activism and an election that heavily punished and repudiated the Bloomberg administration to undo some of the damage caused by this practice, and in that same time you'd have conservatives all around the country seeing this example, nodding their heads, and saying "Yep, let's do that too. Crime is a really big problem in these minority communities, Better racially profile." This is all despite the fact that, mathematically, racial profiling doesn't make you any more likely to catch criminals than just good old fashioned patrolling (and it alienates you from those underserved communities at the same time).
Edit - the point, which I recognize after re-reading is missing: Protests, refusal to cooperate with police, loudly screaming that refusal to cooperate with police, all of that combined would be forms of civil disobedience that I think MLK would be completely comfortable with. What's more, if you ignore those concerns long enough, you are provoking a violent reaction and that will be on your head. And I would wholly support that violent reaction.
I agree that there is a balance between the larger group advocating for nonviolent action and the smaller group advocating for violence, but I'm also quite partial to the idea that when it comes to issues that are literally life and death such as this particular police practice, the "ballot or the bullet" approach of Malcolm X and more in-your-face activists serves as a good deal of lubricant to get the conversation moving on how to address the root anger to make that violent reaction as unlikely as possible. No one wants a repeat of the 2005 race riots in Toledo. But at the same time, some things are too hideous to expect people to suffer silently.
That's not what I said, at all! "But the only real alternative to civil disobedience and protest in that case is armed insurrection against the police"... Armed insurrection isn't the threat of...
I sharply disagree that the threat of violence serves no one but white supremacists.
That's not what I said, at all! "But the only real alternative to civil disobedience and protest in that case is armed insurrection against the police"... Armed insurrection isn't the threat of physical violence, it is violent uprising. I was specifically talking about if Police officers began being targeted for violence in retribution, which I thought I made abundantly clear in the very next sentence "not all police officers are deserving of violence being done against them either".
Would you have asked him not to collect that data because it was uncivil?
I honestly have no idea where you are getting this from. Of course I bloody wouldn't! Whistle-blowers are a fundamental element of civil disobedience and nowhere did I imply otherwise.
Protests, refusal to cooperate with police, loudly screaming that refusal to cooperate with police, all of that combined would be forms of civil disobedience that I think MLK would be completely comfortable with.
I agree as well... in fact MLK specifically talks about similar measures (refusing to comply with unjust laws) in the letter.
What's more, if you ignore those concerns long enough, you are provoking a violent reaction
Again... I agree, and once again that exact scenario was addressed in the letter.
if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies
However where we draw the line on "long enough" is the underlying issue at hand. If the situation isn't "solved" yet but tangible progress is being made, that to me suggest that the concerns are being heard and attempting to be addressed, which invalidates the moral authority of those calling for violence.
Given the nature of your interpretive differences, would you rather he didn’t quote speeches? You also quote speech segments to him, and I don’t think anything is particularly malicious there. It...
Given the nature of your interpretive differences, would you rather he didn’t quote speeches? You also quote speech segments to him, and I don’t think anything is particularly malicious there. It seems a pretty normal thing to direct attention to specific passages relevant to discussion. Maybe you’re reading a tone into this that isn’t intended?
Whether or not MLK could have succeeded without Malcolm X’ threat of force is an open debate, but as you’ve said yourself, that has no bearing on MLK’s writing other than serving as an implicit bargaining chip for his movement. So how much attention should be paid to a part of an argument that isn’t part of his disagreement with your interpretation?
It seems strange to me that we’re even talking this deep about the appropriate interpretation of a long dead man’s letter, from long before most of us were alive. I’ve thought for a while now that MLK is both overrated and out dated. So I really don’t have much of an axe in this debate other than to say it seems there is still some room for you both to be right, if either of you are willing to walk back some of these absolutes.
It was the same thing, quoted over and over again along with the insinuation that I had not read it. I cannot believe you can characterise simply linking to the same thing over and over while...
Given the nature of your interpretive differences, would you rather he didn’t quote speeches?
It was the same thing, quoted over and over again along with the insinuation that I had not read it. I cannot believe you can characterise simply linking to the same thing over and over while repeatedly asking/telling someone to read it as "quoting some speeaches".
I wrote and phrased something poorly which I have attempted to clarify and point out several times. But I only get continual mischaraterizing of my argument (which I have stated 3 or more times) and the insinuation that I haven't read the very letter that we are talking about. Not once, but several times.
They mischaraterise my position again in a response see to the post you just replied to.
I don't know how to clarify my point any better if my clarifications and apologies for bad/confusing writing are continually ignored in order to attack a position I do not hold.
Wait, what? Like u/guamisc, I had to do a huge double take here. The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary...
It had absolutely nothing to do with "faux-civility" of moderates
Wait, what? Like u/guamisc, I had to do a huge double take here. The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary definition of civility, in the naiive form that the arrticle is talking about.
It most definitely is an argument against moderates per se because moderation for it's own sake is blind to the moral stakes of any given issue, and it's in light of the moral urgency of political issues that different forms of civic action make sense, not in light of whether those actions are moderate or civil in some abstract sense.
This is not being very fair to @cfabbro's point. Civility is about much more than when to implement some idea. I definitely think the line you quoted from Cfabbro is inelegant (because certainly...
The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary definition of civility, in the naiive form that the arrticle is talking about.
Civility is about much more than when to implement some idea. I definitely think the line you quoted from Cfabbro is inelegant (because certainly MLK is a little concerned with the faux-civility of white moderates here, it is the disingenuous delay tactics that he's protesting), but to say that the opposite conclusion is therefore true is ... unfair.
I think this is cfabbro's stronger point. It comes just before the line you quoted:
He was arguing that the "white moderate" who agreed with the protestors' message and goals but who were attempting to "set the timetable" (i.e. told them to wait for a "more convenient season") or against the "protestors direct actions" (i.e. peaceful, disruptive, civil protest, which MLK advocated for all his life) is who he was specifically writing about.
So there is some fuzziness here because MLK is talking about tactics, but he isn't saying you can't still try to communicate with people who disagree with you. He would actually rather communicate with people who disagree with him than people who pretend to agree with him while arguing for policies that harm him, in fact. It's a common theme throughout many of the civil activists' writing and speeches: better to deal with the devil who tell you he hates you than the devil who pretends he's on your side. At least the first devil is honest.
The idea that letting off steam reduces aggression has been debunked.
It lets off steam? Several times in this short past I've screamed in my car and in my house out of utter frustration and anger.
The idea that letting off steam reduces aggression has been debunked.
The arbitrary use of expressive, ventilationist or cathartic techniques like pillow-pounding, primal-screaming, bed-beating or bataka-bashing and so forth, designed to "drain off" or disperse anger and rage is, in the long run, ineffective and clinically counterproductive.
Glad you asked! It deprives them of their strategic advantage in the theaters of legislative procedure, electoral process and public debate. For example it was a terrible mistake for Obama to...
And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever?
Glad you asked! It deprives them of their strategic advantage in the theaters of legislative procedure, electoral process and public debate. For example it was a terrible mistake for Obama to craft the Affordable Care Act in a manner that sought consent from Republicans, and it was a strategic error to let Republicans abuse the filibuster when Obama could have asked Harry Reid to eliminate it.
In terms of public debate, contary to the claims of moderates, success often comes from calling out the opponents in strongest terms, which I think was illustrated by the Parkland survivors. You can have valid and well founded moral outrage that isn't merely shit slinging, which is the critical thing that people lose perspective on in the pursuit of civility at all costs.
I agree. I think there's some nugget of truth in there, but I'm really not a fan of the delivery. Essentially, the author is arguing that civility is getting in the way of effective government and...
I agree. I think there's some nugget of truth in there, but I'm really not a fan of the delivery.
Essentially, the author is arguing that civility is getting in the way of effective government and justice. If one side is incredibly uncivil, it might give that side an advantage with the electorate. Therefore, the other side should not be afraid to be uncivil if it negates that advantage.
First, it could be worthwhile to unpack whether or not one side of the political spectrum is really more uncivil than the other. I'm not sure I could do this very easily in an unbiased manner, so let's assume that this statement is true for now.
I want to point out a few pieces of argumentation that I think are pretty weak. The author attacks the following point from The Washington Post editorial:
How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?
I think the obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, "It's not hard at all to imagine." The author of the piece from the Post it's pointing out that it's dangerous to lower the level of civil discourse, because when you do, people can be put in danger. The author of the Esquire piece essentially uses the next few lines to prove that point but in a strangely combative manner. I'm not sure how this advances his argument.
The author also uses an appeal to the values of the founding fathers, which is a form of argumentation that is never very compelling, in my opinion. However, in this particular case it seems particularly uncompelling. When someone appeals to the founding fathers on a principle like representative government or liberty, it may possibly advance an argument because most people agree these were fundamental principles of the founding fathers and the founding fathers were successful in forming a government based on these principles. However, I don't think that lack of civil discourse was a fundamental principle of the founding fathers, so appealing to the founding fathers by pointing out actions where they were not civil, doesn't seem like a successful means of argumentation.
It's also strange how the author uses the closing paragraph to toss an ad hominem attack that Sarah Huckabee used back at her. While there's possibly some poignancy using someone's own words against them, I think it's counter to the overall thesis. The author is suggesting to call out the other side when they lie or when they go against justice, which seems to be in the same theme as a lot of the MLK Jr quotes I've seen in this thread. But does using ad hominem really help in this cause? Personally, I don't think so.
I prefer childish immensely to supporting anyone's rights to refuse service based on sexual orientation and then using your power to try to drive a restaurant out of business in a hypocritical way.
I prefer childish immensely to supporting anyone's rights to refuse service based on sexual orientation and then using your power to try to drive a restaurant out of business in a hypocritical way.
After trying to research what a false dichotomy is, I agree that I used the term incorrectly. I'm not sure if my grasp of language is good enough to nail down exactly what I'm trying to say. I...
After trying to research what a false dichotomy is, I agree that I used the term incorrectly. I'm not sure if my grasp of language is good enough to nail down exactly what I'm trying to say.
I guess I don't understand what your comment means. Aren't both of those things bad? What is there to gain by saying one is less bad than the other?
I'm not sure I follow what you're bringing up either. I think that it's obvious that some things are worse than other things. To take an extreme example: it's probably worse to murder someone than...
Aren't both of those things bad? What is there to gain by saying one is less bad than the other?
I'm not sure I follow what you're bringing up either. I think that it's obvious that some things are worse than other things. To take an extreme example: it's probably worse to murder someone than it is to speed in your car, though both are against the law. I hope we can agree on that.
In this case, the person writing the article is being a bit childish. I accept that and I even agree. But I don't think that the points they raise are not important, and I think that this "small badness" is nowhere near as important to think about as the huge badness of Sarah Huckabee Sanders' general actions.
To turn it around a bit... why do we care if this person wrote something in a childish way? To me that sounds like completely missing the point of the entire article.
Ah, I see what you're saying. It hurts the argument. I think a majority of the piece uses weak forms of argumentation. However, I agree with what you're saying. The main takeaway of not being...
Ah, I see what you're saying.
To turn it around a bit... why do we care if this person wrote something in a childish way?
It hurts the argument. I think a majority of the piece uses weak forms of argumentation. However, I agree with what you're saying. The main takeaway of not being afraid to call out injustice for fear of looking impolite is an important one. Personally, I wish it had been argued better. The follow two lines struck me as some of the most important:
This debate is stupid. It’s also dangerously beside the point.
I wish the author had started with his intro, condensed the middle few paragraphs into a sentence or two, and then said this. The specific details of certain editorials or the abortion tangent take away from the major thesis in my opinion.
Thank you for spending the time to explain your perspective!
No problem! Thanks for taking the time to be charitable and understanding. I agree that it would be better, generally, to argue the point in a more above-board way, but I also think that if the...
No problem! Thanks for taking the time to be charitable and understanding.
I agree that it would be better, generally, to argue the point in a more above-board way, but I also think that if the sentiment were argued in such a way then the people that need to understand it the most would never read it. If it's argumentative, it's attention grabbing; if it grabs attention, it may seep in when an outraged person reads it.
The article might seem childish, but I see it as borne out of a "fed up" mentality with which a majority of Americans can empathize. The president engages in childish behavior every single goddamn...
The article might seem childish, but I see it as borne out of a "fed up" mentality with which a majority of Americans can empathize. The president engages in childish behavior every single goddamn day - I'm not going to criticize someone for dedicating an opinion piece to vent about it because I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired too. The president is a bum, the people who work for him are bums, and the Americans who support him and rationalize his behavior are bums too. Their actions don't warrant respect or professionalism, and they deserve every bit of criticism they receive, civil or uncivil.
The age of taking the high road ended almost two years ago. It's time to ruthlessly mobilize dormant voters while incessantly exposing the hypocrisy of this administration and the party that enables it. Anyone who is offended by this article or the Red Hen's decision probably isn't worth trying to convince otherwise. We have plenty of moderates and Democrats to achieve the necessary votes to shift control of government without them. The Trumpets can retreat to their safe spaces and weep into their MAGA hats for all I care - maintaining civility with them isn't necessary to enacting change in this country.
Everything you're saying, combined with maxine waters' recent comments, sounds kind of nazi-like, doesn't it? What does "civility" or lack thereof mean to you? Because to me, it sounds like...
Everything you're saying, combined with maxine waters' recent comments, sounds kind of nazi-like, doesn't it? What does "civility" or lack thereof mean to you? Because to me, it sounds like antifa-style street violence. It sounds like that guy who shot cops at the blm rally in dallas because being civil wasn't enough for him. It sounds like those kids who cut up that developmentally-challenged kid because he was white and voted for Donald Trump.
Maybe that isn't what you're envisioning, but that is how it comes across - and I don't think that is going to endear any policy decisions to moderates - whereas people like Hawk Newsome of BLM are realizing that they can get a lot more accomplished by reaching across the aisle to build something together rather than being all #resist #nocivility etc. childishness.
No, that isn't what I envisioned in the slightest, and I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth with off base assumptions and loaded terminology. Nazi-like? Really? Nowhere do I advocate...
No, that isn't what I envisioned in the slightest, and I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth with off base assumptions and loaded terminology. Nazi-like? Really? Nowhere do I advocate violence or anything other than mobilizing voters to change who controls the government. Unless the phrase "ruthlessly mobilize" is too militaristic for your personal taste. Would "energetically rally" be more palatable?
Lack of civility to me still remains in the realm of verbal dialogue, not physical altercations. That's why I have no problem with this article venting about conservative hypocrisy even if it appears childish and disrespectful - they're just words, and no words either in my comment or the article advocate anything close to violence.
Reaching across the aisle is useless or unnecessary when a) the other side doesn't participate in good faith, and b) the number of votes required to change control of government can be obtained by mobilizingrallying only moderates and dormant Democrats. My point is that I don't care about the feelings of Trump supporters, and I don't need their support to enact change. Trying to get them to change their ways is a futile use of the Democrats' resources. They shouldn't face physical threat for their opinions, but that doesn't mean they deserve my respect or verbal civility.
EDIT: Basically, I'm using the same definition of civility that thin-skinned Trump supporters use when something hurts their feelings. Oh boo hoo, their president has to face heated, legitimate criticism from virtually every side because he's a shit-tier human being - maybe they shouldn't have elected a pseudo-billionaire conman who sexually assaults women and launders money for Russian oligarchs to the most important public office on the planet. Then their sensitivities would still be intact.
I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth with off base assumptions and loaded terminology.
He didn't do that. See this part again:
What does "civility" or lack thereof mean to you? Because to me, it sounds like antifa-style street violence. It sounds like that guy who shot cops at the blm rally in dallas because being civil wasn't enough for him. It sounds like those kids who cut up that developmentally-challenged kid because he was white and voted for Donald Trump.
If you’re basing a future vote on childish slap fights online instead of policy, documented hypocrisy, and elected officials’ voting records, you’ve already played yourself.
If you’re basing a future vote on childish slap fights online instead of policy, documented hypocrisy, and elected officials’ voting records, you’ve already played yourself.
Ah yes, the most tired and self-serving false equivalence ever. Online chatter does not represent actual party policy and actions. Please don’t vote if that is factored into your decision.
Ah yes, the most tired and self-serving false equivalence ever. Online chatter does not represent actual party policy and actions. Please don’t vote if that is factored into your decision.
My bad too. I’m letting my frustrations get the best of me, and I apologize. While I do find plenty of issues with both parties, I feel pretty confident saying one has objectively done more damage...
My bad too. I’m letting my frustrations get the best of me, and I apologize.
While I do find plenty of issues with both parties, I feel pretty confident saying one has objectively done more damage than the other. I mean, the GOP practically forced me to become a Democrat in 2016 with the prospect of Trump after several election cycles voting third party. IMO, the only way to enact sweeping change is from inside one of the major parties (Democrats for me) rather than supporting third parties closer to my views with no chance of mainstream success. My first election cycle was all Republican in the 00s before becoming libertarian then eventually more progressive as I am now.
It really is. The reason I supported third parties during pre-2016 presidential elections was in the hopes that someone would garner the 15% of public opinion poll support required for an...
It really is. The reason I supported third parties during pre-2016 presidential elections was in the hopes that someone would garner the 15% of public opinion poll support required for an invitation to the mainstream debates. Haven't come close since I've been eligible to vote, sadly.
Can I ask where you fall on the political spectrum?
I'm closest to libertarianism, but I usually don't bother to align myself with any group by name. I don't think it's helpful to group oneself into a party, since that implies a loyalty to the...
I'm closest to libertarianism, but I usually don't bother to align myself with any group by name. I don't think it's helpful to group oneself into a party, since that implies a loyalty to the entire range of policies when most people probably disagree with their party on at least something. In general I'm for less governmental interference with pretty much everything.
Consider me a culture war agnostic. I care extremely little about anyone refusing service to anyone else based solely on political beliefs. If that is how they want to run their business, fine. It...
Consider me a culture war agnostic.
I care extremely little about anyone refusing service to anyone else based solely on political beliefs. If that is how they want to run their business, fine. It sucks, but that's a shrug from me.
The more important questions involve people's actual freedoms and rights. Talk to me about whether children should have access to healthcare; whether women should have access to abortions; whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, gender, or some other reason; the extent to which we should expect employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled but capable people. Someone's ability to enjoy a cheese plate is meaningless in comparison to the bigger cultural fractures that divide us.
I respect Huckabee-Sanders' right to feel bad about being refused service for her political civil service in a divisive administration. But I care not a single ounce about it as a political issue.
What functional difference in liberty is there between being allowed to refuse someone service for political reasons and being allowed to refuse them employment for political reasons?
What functional difference in liberty is there between being allowed to refuse someone service for political reasons and being allowed to refuse them employment for political reasons?
Probably not much, to be honest. It's not that likely that political affiliation is going to pop up unless employers are doing other fairly sketchy things like facebook/twitter stalking or...
Probably not much, to be honest. It's not that likely that political affiliation is going to pop up unless employers are doing other fairly sketchy things like facebook/twitter stalking or requiring social media access from their applicants before hiring. I tend to take the upfront approach (as my political affiliation is pretty much plastered to my resume at this point), and admit that affiliation out the gate but I hope to demonstrate pretty quickly and easily that my political leanings don't mean I can't still see the person behind whatever views that might come up.
Political reasons for employment is pretty relevant in ... political organizations. So yeah. It's pretty similar to me.
So it's not okay to choose to not serve someone based on their beliefs that you (an immigrant) should be sent back to their country, but it is okay to not serve someone based on their sexual...
So it's not okay to choose to not serve someone based on their beliefs that you (an immigrant) should be sent back to their country, but it is okay to not serve someone based on their sexual orientation?
The double negatives in your post made me thing you were making the opposite point you were actually making. Rereading it cleared it up. But yeah, not understanding the difference between judging...
The double negatives in your post made me thing you were making the opposite point you were actually making. Rereading it cleared it up.
But yeah, not understanding the difference between judging someone because of 'who they are' vs 'what they do' is astounding.
I'd be careful with that idea. It leads very easily to thinking that someone's actions can revoke their humanity. I get flashbacks of Reddit threads just thinking about it. "This person did...
What you do defines who you are, after all.
I'd be careful with that idea. It leads very easily to thinking that someone's actions can revoke their humanity.
I get flashbacks of Reddit threads just thinking about it. "This person did such-and-such crime, so they should be tortured!"
People do fucked up things all the time in the heat of the moment. It still defines you, but be careful about passing judgement - you're not as perfect as you think.
People do fucked up things all the time in the heat of the moment. It still defines you, but be careful about passing judgement - you're not as perfect as you think.
I'd also be careful with that line of thought. The actions a person makes are what defines them to other people. Nobody should be stripped of their humanity, but it's important to hold people...
I'd also be careful with that line of thought. The actions a person makes are what defines them to other people. Nobody should be stripped of their humanity, but it's important to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise you (and I want to be clear, this is the general 'you', not you specifically) can easily end up defending someone who raped someone with 'they didn't mean to, it was just a mistake. they're a good person', completely missing the fact that rape is a terrible crime.
Are you referring to the Colorado cake case? If you are, I'm not sure that it's a good parallel. That case had to do with artistic expresssion and discrimination against the baker by a Colorado...
Are you referring to the Colorado cake case? If you are, I'm not sure that it's a good parallel. That case had to do with artistic expresssion and discrimination against the baker by a Colorado court (to the best of my understanding). It was a fairly narrow ruling.
EDIT: I mispoke. I meant to emphasize more that the Supreme Court case probably won't be the end of the conversation on a business refusing to serve LGBT people because the ruling was so narrow.
The parallel is more general: private establishments reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason or no reason at all (excepting protected classes). For some groups of people, they've...
The parallel is more general: private establishments reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason or no reason at all (excepting protected classes).
For some groups of people, they've never dreamed it could happen to them. The message to Sanders is effectively: "How does it feel when the shoe's on the other foot?"
She clearly didn't like it so much so that it's become a huge story and the President's involved.
I was not referring to anything in specific, nor to the food industry in specific either. It's just a common argument I've seen, that because of religion, they should not be "forced" to serve gays.
I was not referring to anything in specific, nor to the food industry in specific either. It's just a common argument I've seen, that because of religion, they should not be "forced" to serve gays.
Citations Needed (a podcast by the excellent media critics Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson) has multiple good episodes talking about this civility fetishist garbage peddled by the center and the...
Citations Needed (a podcast by the excellent media critics Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson) has multiple good episodes talking about this civility fetishist garbage peddled by the center and the right. It's perpetually pulled out in order to silence criticism from the left, and it has been standard media practice for over a century to call for civility when a barbaric societal practice is criticized.
Episode 40 - The Civility Fetish deals with it most directly, but many of the episodes all the way from the very early episodes mention or tackle this absurdity. In particular, every episode where race in the media is covered tends to deal with how the media wields a onesided concept of civility as a weapon against change.
I have question, can we as a Nation have a logical and honest debate about what ales society and from that debate create policy to address those problems?
I have question, can we as a Nation have a logical and honest debate about what ales society and from that debate create policy to address those problems?
Only if we as a nation decide that we're going to talk about policy with facts along with cause and effect analysis. One side actually believes that our problems stem from some sort of "moral...
Only if we as a nation decide that we're going to talk about policy with facts along with cause and effect analysis. One side actually believes that our problems stem from some sort of "moral failure" where the only morals that we should practice anywhere are privileged, white, Christian morals.
This is only a partial truth. While evangelic Christians make up a decent percentage of the Republican party, there are definitely other types of Republicans.
This is only a partial truth. While evangelic Christians make up a decent percentage of the Republican party, there are definitely other types of Republicans.
I agree. However the other types are happy to parrot the same moralizing BS that comes from the rest of them so there is little difference in practice.
I agree. However the other types are happy to parrot the same moralizing BS that comes from the rest of them so there is little difference in practice.
The sad answer is probably not. I think the core divisions that have gotten us to this point are institutional, not individual. People's trust in institutions of any form have plummeted in the...
The sad answer is probably not. I think the core divisions that have gotten us to this point are institutional, not individual. People's trust in institutions of any form have plummeted in the past 50 years; people's feeling represented by their governments also plummeted significantly. But the thing people don't talk as much about is that the people who don't trust these institutions anymore are, themselves, deeply divided about why and which institutions are the most damaged.
So let me reify this a bit, because I know I'm kind of in the clouds here. You have many conservatives that argue that the education system has lost its way and indoctrinates children to hold values other than what they, personally, believe makes a stable society. Leftists meanwhile argue that the education system isn't being effective enough at teaching young people these values, and point to declining achievement as a need for greater investment. You have many leftists that will argue the economic system, and corporations in particular, create a corrupting influence on all the available levers of power in the society, which means no one in power represents the "people's" interests. Conservatives, meanwhile, point at what they see as a high amount of wasteful or politically self-serving use of money in politics. You have many ideological moderates who see news cycle after news cycle of horseshit being flung between people in two camps, many of whom are wholly willing to take advantage of any slight for their own partisan ends. Meanwhile, conservatives see the oldest news media institutions as having been taken over by leftists, while leftists see those same institutions falling prey to a "both sides equally" bias.
In the end, it becomes generally true that trust in the education system, distaste for corruption in politics, and trust in the news media as an institution are at or near historic lows, but the reasons for those historic lows are, themselves, part of the broader culture wars that have defined our political struggles since our founding as a nation.
This seems an appropriate counter to this article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-shuts-down-maxine-waters-unacceptable-call-to-harass-trump-officials
"... who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…" - MLK
MLK was speaking about white moderates who would stand by as others fought for justice, but the sentiment also applies here. These people arguing for "civility" as the current administration harms others is a reprehensible distraction from the cruelty and inhumanity to the weakest among us.
Seriously, anyone who wants to talk about MLK really needs to read The Letter from Birmingham Jail. The whole paragraph you pulled that quote from is powerful:
"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Now people twist MLK's words and message to try to discredit any form of protests that risks minorly inconveniencing or upsetting people. It's very frustrating.
While that is very true, that argument doesn't get at civility, it gets at doing what you believe in while that may inconvenience others.
Judging by reports, the restaurant owners were civil in the way they handled the situation, while standing up for their beliefs. Good on them.
Calling them uncivil is muddying the waters. But when the response you get isn't a civil argument for why muddying the waters is disingenuous and detracts from the debate is the following malediction, Esquire* is hurting more than it's helping:
* just like their asterisk nonsense just undermines their credibility with anyone who isn't already a believer. Why undercut your message so crudely and actively alienate those you're supposedly trying to reach?
Apparently the Red Hen owner followed Sanders' family to the restaurant across the street and attempted to stir up a protest over there. :/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/red-hen-restaurant-owner-stalked-sarah-sanders-followed-her-to-next-restaurant-to-continue-harassment/
GOOD. These fascists should know no peace until they resign.
That's sort of a nazi thing to advocate for, isn't it?
two things that are exactly opposite (fascism and opposing fascism) are definitely also exactly the same. you got me. back to the drawing board folks - this right wing concern troll thinks saying fascists should be resisted until they stop being fascists is somehow also fascist, we're done for.
What is fascism? What does it mean? The nazis began by targeting jews and gay people, gypsies, etc. All of Germany's problems were blamed on the Jews and those of ostensibly inferior stock. The German people guided hitler in his speech delivery, cheering more when he said this instead of that, and he adjusted accordingly until their collective resentment and hatred was fed and fed to the point that non-aryans were driven out of business, spat on in the streets. We know where that led.
They had their boogeyman too. The bolsheviks/communists. Boogeymen they might have been, they were just as bad as the nazis in terms of the death toll they created. I do not want to see western civility destroyed in the name of fighting nazis, while behaving exactly as the nazis did in the early days.
Now, all that said, do you understand how it does not do any good to call people nazis? the nazis don't exist anymore. You aren't one. I'm not one. But one of us is calling for behavior that more closely resembles these devils of human nature more than the other.
Yes, and it's your ilk, you apologist.
One side is literally stealing children away from their families and putting them in actual, literal, no-uncertain-terms concentration camps, and they are doing it right now. It's all over the mainstream news everywhere.
The other side is publicly shaming the first side when they go out to eat at a public restaurant.
Let us be clear that you are apologizing for the former and declaring that the latter is somehow more nazi-like than the former.
Folks, this is what we call 'disingenuity'.
Do I need to paste the Sartre quote here?
I'm going to say it again, because people apparently missed it the first time. There are actual concentration camps in our country. If the reports coming out of them are to be believed, ICE was taking kids away from their parents by telling them they were taking them to shower. That's literally what the nazis did before gassing children. Thankfully we're not there yet, but the nazis didn't start their either.
The president openly advocates violence against his enemies, who remembers when he told his supporters to attack protesters and he would cover their medical bills. Who remembers when he said that the second amendment folks could 'do something' if they lost the election. I remember that because I was paying fucking attention.
Or how about when he mentioned there were good people on both sides after a literal nazi (Neo-nazis are still nazis, for all you pedants out there) murdered a protester with his car.
But yeah, that's totally the same as calling to annoy someone. The double standard is mind boggling.
I've been meaning to write up a summary of the difference between Civil Disobedience, which has an actual definition that very few people seem to know, and civility. Because the original post was right, this debate is really fucking dumb.
At the risk of being summarily labeled racist and sexist (and probably fascist too), by way of toleration, I think I have to say something here.
I've been watching these comments for the last few days with some apprehension; the black-and-white world view espoused in many of the words you've written serves no-one, and nothing but the need to pyrrhically fight the other.
Facists should "know no peace", but (apparently), it is permissible to label anyone who supports Trump (or in this case, reads conservative media?) a fascist -- no matter the reason for their support, nor that only 50% of Republicans even support the policy you so vehemently (and correctly) oppose. Thankfully, it isn't important to defend one's views when challenged. It must be nice to live in a world where the only possible reason to support Trump is racism, oppression and tacit approval of mass-imprisonment (or, as could easily be inferred, genocide). Of course it must follow that /u/Mumberthrax, who as far as I can tell has said nothing for, nor against this policy on ~, supports family separation and following from earlier, and they are clearly a literal Nazi. They have so obviously called for the forcible suppression of the opposition on this website. We must then, logically, ensure sure that they know no peace; /u/Mumberthrax, you've been warned.
Of course, it is impossible to read all of the above as an attempt to forcibly suppress the opposition's viewpoint, but because it's been so conclusively proven that /u/Mumberthrax is evil.
Fuck. If you wanna fight, go to twitter or something. Your tactics alienate those who would be your allies
I don't particularly care what people believe in their heart of hearts. I care about what they do and how they vote.
It's fine to say they don't agree with concentration camps for children, that's one of the least controversial stances ever. But as long as they're still voting along party lines, they're still supporting the people doing it.
You're kinda skimming over the atrocities of your own party there.
I'm not a democrat and don't belong to any particular political party. Cute whataboutism though.
First of all, "whataboutism" is not a thing. It's a meme that Redditors love to throw around to try to invalidate someone's argument without actually having anything to say. I honestly have been dreading the day when it pops its ugly, specious head on Tildes.
So I'd love it if you could not use it.
Anyway, I think I can be forgiven for assuming you're on the Left when you present the classic false "Nazis vs. angels" dichotomy:
EDIT: Gah, I'm doing it again. I was just mentioning in another thread how I need to be more patient and charitable. So instead of saying your argument is invalid, I'll instead ask you to clarify what you mean by "whataboutism."
I'm leaving my angry nonsense in for posterity, so future generations can point and laugh.
I am on the left. I'm an actual leftist, though, which means I'm also anti-democrat.
"Your party isn't innocent either" is classic whataboutism in the true definition (Soviet style "and you lynch negroes"), not the stupid reddit meme that gets trotted out by centrist dorks whenever a lefty points out that maybe the Russia conspiracy is being used to cover for Democrats' mistakes and structural ineptitude.
That doesn't really explain what you mean by "whataboutism," though. I'm still personally convinced that it's a non-argument, but I'm open to another perspective.
This paragraph from a Merriam-Webster article on Words We're Watching describes it thus:
It's a short article, and goes a bit more in-depth. Recommended reading for those unsure of what "whataboutism/whataboutery" is.
To add to this, it's a distraction technique that means only someone completely blameless can offer any criticism at all.
I have mixed feelings about it personally, because self-reflection is important, but that can also be weaponized.
And the fallacy fallacy is a problem too, if you mix up genuine concern for whataboutism.
None of us are perfect, but that doesn't mean all imperfection is equal. Long story short, getting to truth is hard.
Alright then. I still believe it's nonsense with that definition. It is not deflection to point out hypocrisy or bring up other points.
Ironically, it's the people who throw out accusations of "whataboutism" that stifle the discourse.
A user was banned from Tildes for being uncivil to Mumberthrax, so heads up... you've got to be civil to everyone here.
(Yes I recognize the irony)
If Tildes bans someone for calling out fascist apologia while supporting someone who commits fascist apologia, then its mission statement of avoiding the paradox of tolerance is entirely bunk and it is barely better than reddit.
Not endorsing this pitfall of Tildes... just pointing it out.
If it's any consolation, some of us don't believe in the paradox of tolerance anyway.
...Or at least, I don't. I very well may be alone on this.
Oh yeah, don't fuck with me brah. ;P
Joking aside, I do hope that @redacted gets to come back some day. I hope he makes an appeal and it's approved. All he did was get a little wrapped up in emotions and lash out with the tags. If we end up shunning everyone who makes mistakes when it comes to interacting with people and ideas they disagree with, those people will just continue being polarizing instead of a uniting force in the world. I'd much rather warnings and guidance where possible.
Has anyone seen any evidence of this? Gateway Pundit and Mike Huckabee are not reliable sources.
I stand corrected. Not cool.
That's just something that Mike Huckabee said on Fox News and Laura Ingraham subsequently tweeted. There's no evidence for it and it doesn't pass the smell test: so she comped them a cheese plate and then followed them across the street?
Or they just flat out ignore his words like they do any facts contradicting their positions. That is the most frustrating thing. You could be on the right side of history with all the facts, empathy, and precedent in the world to support your position, yet it doesn't matter at all because approximately 1/3 of Americans will simply ignore you or call you fake news.
The only way to fight is through mobilizing dormant Democrat voters to slowly shift control of government, but voter suppression and the sheer mathematics of the upcoming midterms make that an extraordinarily uphill battle. I'm doing everything I can to contribute and not get discouraged. It's hard though.
I think your argument to MLK falls flat. In a republic of liberties, the exchange of ideas is made possible by civility. .
I completely agree that the cornerstone of civil disobedience is the fact that you break the law and knowingly impose yourself on others. That's the whole point: breaking an immoral law to show how wrong the law is. The second necessary step is the willingness to take the punishment for breaking that law.
It doesn't mean we should be dicks to people because the ends justify the means. Not one bit.
Standing up to injustice does not require being mean or uncivil. The people calling for civility aren't calling for you to stop expressing yourself politically, they're calling for people to resist the urge for a race to the bottom: being civil where others are not.
As the linked article argues, that's about actually having a functional public discourse. If everyone's just yelling at each other, calling each other names and playing up team rhetoric, that's encouraging the tearing of the social fabric.
It's asking for an "us against them" discourse that destroys compromise, pragmatism and collaboration. The result is governmental gridlock.
You can absolutely slaughter someone's poor argument while staying civil, not attacking people but the actual argument, and without being a dick.
Whenever publications sentimentally tug at our heartstrings, when the methods of storytelling in a feature story seems to embellish or the storyteller takes sides, that undermines the actual cases' chance at persuading those who wish to push the story away in the first place.
The alternative is letting the actual injustice speak for itself on its own terms; show, don't tell.
It's a lot less satisfying in the moment without all the sarcastic jabs, insults for measure and ridicule, but that's the way to change minds and foster a climate of progress.
People are opting out of politics altogether, just like they're equating all "mainstream" media with partisan propaganda irrespective of the actual journalistic quality and integrity of individual media organizations.
People are giving up on public discourse entirely due to the tone of current public discourse. That's a win for those who want a small, invested and involved elite to play at politics among themselves.
Society and public discourse are the ones who lose when "we'll be mean right back at them!" is viewed as an integral part of standing up to policies we find morally insufficient.
If we scratch the uncivil itch, we're all left with the ensuing inflamed rash. We can stand up for our principles while being principled.
I would say that, in general, democrats need to stop being led by the nose into the trap of this one sided civility requirement. Somewhere along the line democrats even managed to make consistently falling for this ruse a point of pride ("They go low, we go high!"). Ultimately it's just a transparent manipulation tactic - you're inviting your opponent to a game where they're they only ones that have to play by any rules.
Yeah let's all give ourselves a free pass to continue in the abusive harassment we've been engaging in against those other guys!
edit: just an observation from the "evil nazi trump voter" side of this nonsense - the left has by far the worst optics for this sort of petty shit-flinging (literally) BS. Ramping that stuff up into a frenzy and abandoning all semblance of civility is just going to make that whole group lose credibility amongst less insane people.
The media lens through which you choose to receive your news determines your perception of the optics. Speaking as an outsider to the US political landscape/nightmare, I would say the right is by far the most shit-flinging of the bunch but many on the left have recently decided to join them in doing so. Neither side is innocent in this.
p.s. I also find the attitude espoused in this article incredibly counterproductive and it’s disheartening to see it being upvoted considering its message runs counter to the goals of this very site.
What do you expect to happen? The left has tried to be civil constantly and for decades the right has only gotten worse the entire time.
"When they go low, we go high" was endlessly cheered on the left while the Republicans had obstructed everything related to Obama. Republicans purposefully sabotaged policy to make Obama a 1-term president. They lied. They propagandized. They obstructed. They appointed an anti-EPA person to lead the EPA, an anti-public school person to be Secretary of Education, and they appointed an anti-consumer person to lead the CFPB. They have abandoned their duty in the legislature to put checks on Trump who is clearly abusing the Office of the President to enrich himself and his family. The similarly abandoned their duty to stop the human rights abuses of ICE et. al. at the border. Worse, many of them defended and cheered it.
How many decades is one side supposed to "behave" and attempt rational discourse in the face of ever escalating authoritarianism, xenophobia, and stupidity?
I know someone who isn't actively deployed but had to spend all weekend with other military folks. This person had to listen to an entire weekend of people talking about the "animals over-running our county" and how "who gives a shit about the children caged in chainlink anyways".
There is no civil discourse to be had with how brainwashed a huge part of our country is combined with the political control they wield. We've turned the other check for years and years. Seriously, how much shit are we expected to have flung into our faces, homes, and society before we tell people to go fly a kite?
And how does joining them in the mud, demonizing and shit-flinging, solve anything whatsoever? All it does is further the divide rendering productive dialogue impossible and further escalate the already highly volatile situation which is teetering on the verge of all-out armed conflict already.
The bottom line is that demographically speaking Conservatives in the US are vastly outnumbered. IMO if you want to be beat them, you do so by taking the high road, volunteering for political campaigns, protesting when the current administration oversteps (like with the ICE detention centers) and pounding pavement to get out the vote for the mid-term... apathy and those in charge of the right wing political party and media empires are your enemy, not your fellow citizens with differing views.
It lets off steam? Several times in this short past I've screamed in my car and in my house out of utter frustration and anger.
I've been trying to have productive dialogue. 99% of the people on the other side who I still talk to have directly pivoted to defending the practice of separating children from their parents and putting them in cages. There. is. no. productive. dialogue. possible.
A "Fuck you and all that you stand for" from me is better than me physically decking them because those were the choices that were left. I have walked away, I have ignored, I have been polite. It never stops because they revel in the anguish these policies are enacting on "libruls" and "libtards". They have demonized Democrats so much that Democratic lawmakers poll at higher unfavorables than actual brutal dictators in their group.
Por que no los dos? Just because I tell these people to go fuck themselves doesn't mean I don't also pound pavement.
It's easy to advocate taking the high road when you don't have to listen to these assholes dehumanize children and celebrate the actions your own country is taking to do so and rub your face in it on the regular. Advocating "taking the high road" is a privileged position to be able to espouse, just look at the top of this thread to find quotes from someone who would absolutely agree with that.
So your justification for it is because it makes you feel better? That is often a sure sign something is not a good idea. I also find it ironic that you say "A 'Fuck you and all that you stand for' from me is better than me physically decking them, because those were the choices that were left" followed immediately by three other choices you have available to you; walking away, ignoring them and remaining polite.
And so by giving them exactly what they want and sinking to their level that is better how?
Because your country is potentially about to collapse into sectarian violence... that's "why not both?"
MLK advocated civil disobedience. There is a reason he marched in a suit and tie, took the high road, used eloquent words and impassioned pleas to achieve his goal and not demonizing rhetoric, insults and resorting to violence. Why? Because while he wanted change, and immediate change, he knew taking the low road was the surest way to undermine his own position and turn the moderates against him was to resort to those things. The fact that so many are taking a single sentence of his out of context to justify their shitty behavior, while ignoring his actions and overall message is honestly astonishing to me.
Probably because I didn't do a good job explaining. I have tried all those other three choices, but people will continue to get in your face about it.
And since I told them to fuck off they haven't gotten in my face about it where as all of the other tactics didn't work. That's because they know they've reached the end of the line of my civil discourse and tolerance.
Please come to Georgia and be forcibly interacted with these people every day for a few weeks. Let me know how it goes.
Of course he did. Which is why I cheer the restaurant for civilly denying SHS service. My family does the same thing, we go out of our way to not interact with right-leaning companies, people, and even whole states (sadly we currently reside in Georgia). MLK wouldn't have been as effective if there wasn't essentially a direct contrast with Malcom X, the Black Panthers, etc. He didn't work in a vacuum.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to tell someone to fuck off who keeps getting in my face.
He also wrote about how the moderates were the biggest stumbling block into getting actual change accomplished because of their preference for faux-civility.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Reread the entirety of what he wrote and put it in proper historical context. He was arguing that the "white moderate" who agreed with the protestors' message and goals but who were attempting to "set the timetable" (i.e. told them to wait for a "more convenient season") or against the "protestors direct actions" (i.e. peaceful, disruptive, civil protest, which MLK advocated for all his life) is who he was specifically writing about. It had absolutely nothing to do with "faux-civility" of moderates nor was it an argument against moderates in general, merely those that attempted to denounce the disruptive civil protest as a method. MLK was the absolute embodiment of civility, in action and discourse, and it honestly makes me angry to see people attempt to spin his words as justification for their horrible behavior.
And for a modern comparison, he was essentially arguing against what is happening currently to BLM, where some white moderates are arguing that their methods (i.e. disrupting "normal" everyday life with their civil protests) are the ones hindering progress.
For reference:
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
What are you getting at here? He directly criticizes the faux-civility ("negative peace").
And I'll say once again, the only reason that MLK was as effective as he was was that society was faced with two paths forward: racial integration or escalating racial violence.
I hope that society will choose to mend itself the reasonable way.
http://www.ihistory.co/meeting-in-the-middle-the-forgotten-relationship-of-malcolm-x-and-mlk-jr/
He is not criticizing civility (faux or otherwise) he is criticizing those calling for the end to the tension being brought about by the continued demonstrations:
And he explained precisely what he meant by that in the next parargraph:
And the very next sentence after your quote, started with a semi-colon since it's a continuation of the thought, also specifies to which "white moderates" he is directly referring to:
The protests were originally scheduled to be done during the Easter and Christmas shopping seasons so as to be the most disruptive possible. He was specifically referring to "those that attempted to denounce the disruptive civil protest as a method", exactly as I said in my previous comment. And hence my comparison to BLM and the weak criticisms they have faced for "disrupting 'normal' everyday life".
Read his actual, full letter yourself. The entire letter is about peaceful, civil protest through civil disobedience and accepting the consequences of that disobedience:
And as to Malcolm X, in the letter he specifically calls out the the Black Nationalist movement:
Which, IMO, is precisely the "bitterness and hatred" trap you and many other are falling into by verbally (and physically) lashing out against those you disagree with. And that is also why people using MLK's words from that very same letter, taken completely out of context, to justify that ill behavior is so damn infuriating. Reading the whole letter makes it very, very clear that sort of behavior is exactly what MLK was cautioning against!
I disagree with your interpretation and also your insinuation that I haven't read these things. I also disagree with how you are mischaraterizing my arguments and blending them together, which I've tried to separate but you keep ramming them together.
MLK's tactics would not have worked in a vacuum. It is entirely naive to believe that this rediculous fetish for constant civility in all aspects will actually yield the outcomes we want. There have always been more militaristic and extreme parallel movements that function as the stick to the other movement's carrot.
Again I'm going to have to agree with guamisc that you're completely misunderstanding King and being needlessly patronizing into the bargain with the implication that he hasn't read the letter.
For one, equating verbal and physical lashing out is just lazy equivocation. And you seem to be getting his last quote exactly wrong by implying the "bitterness and hatred" is something to be contrasted with moderation, one because that's a lazy and unfair characterization of guamiscs argument and two, because if you're calling that moderation, you are using the word to identify something completely different than what King was talking about. Moderates are blind to the cases where moral outrage is necessary and well founded, and dismiss it all as extremism. That seems perfectly in line with the kind of moderate philosophy criticized by King and the original article.
Sorry, I got the feeling reading this exchange that cfabbro was exasperated, but not patronizing. What did you think was patronizing? That is the sort of attack that can derail any attempt to communicate, so I want to be very clear we're all on the same page when you use language like that.
How is that not patronizing? Repeatedly saying "look at this", "well if you read this", "about this", and so on and so forth when we're discussing that very thing is what is exasperating. Maybe I should find one particular link, perform my own interpretation of it, and then repeatedly reference it through multiple posts while linking to it several times. I'm sure that'll get my point across.
The reason I did that is because @guamisc kept repeating the same singular sentence, stripped of context, from a 40 paragraph, 7000 word document and using it to justify their actions when I felt (and still do) that it was entirely contrary to the MLK's point. And they also kept repeatedly mentioning Malcolm X when MLK specifically mentioned the dangers of the Black Nationalists' stance in the very same letter.
I fully admit I was growing exasperated and if my frustrated insistence they read the letter came across as patronizing, then I apologize. But I am still genuinely confused how anyone who reads the letter can take from it the lesson that lashing out in anger at their opposition is in any way what MLK would support, which @guamisc claimed he would in the very first comment:
Oh boy, there you go ignoring literally everything I've tried to differentiate so far again.
I have been trying to be very clear that his writing absolutely supports the restaurant asking SHS to leave in a non-violent way.
I apologized earlier for the confusion and poor writing on my part, but you seem to be unable to move past it.
After a lengthy talk with @BuckeyeSundae in private and rereading all of our exchanges I can't help but feel I owe you a serious apology. I completely missed your point about Malcolm X being a necessary element to MLKs success (which I do agree with to an extent), failed to acknowledge your attempt to clear up my original confusion, and misinterpreted your frustration with my missing your points as further disagreement, when there was not. I think the most unfortunate part of this whole thing is that we probably largely agree with each other but since I was being so overly defensive and stubborn I failed to recognize that so I wound up sabotaging any chance of our reaching consensus. So I do want to apologize to you, especially for my mischaracterization of your argument by my misunderstanding of it.
Accepted.
My seething anger probably didn't help either. I apologise for my part as well. We good :D
This is very clear, I think. And it gets us back to where this disagreement started.
It’s quite true that MLK was long not very cozy with Malcolm X or the NoI movement, and it’s also true he was the most relevant political beneficiary of that movement. There is quite a bit of truth to the idea that NoI scared the jesus into the very same white moderates that MLK derides for trying to set timetables and aim for incremental integration. That’s nit what MLK ever liked to admit, but it’s pretty plain based on the media coverage and political reactions.
How good is having power if your enemy knows you won’t use it? This got Obama into serious geopolitical trouble because of how predictable he was. And it is the one card Trump can play well these days. It’s this same principle with these sorts of rights-based issues sometimes. Civil disobedience without the threat of force can be toothless.
I do agree with that... but at the same time, IMO threats of force without the core of civil disobedience behind it and being open to the potential for civil discourse and negotiation. is ruinous and will only lead to disaster and bloodshed. And I can't help but feel that everything is so polarized in the US right now and charged with hate that the doors to the latter options are being slowly sealed shut. leading to only one potential outcome... and it's not a pretty one.
The thing, the two groups have to be separate, right? It isn’t like you can have both the enemy that is saber rattling also be the group you want to negotiate with. There has to be counter-balance.
I don't think that is true. The enemy that is saber rattling is precisely who you need to negotiate with... but you don't do it directly, you do it by building enough support from the general populace (largely moderates and independents) by taking the high road and building sympathy for your cause, which leaves the saber rattlers outnumbered and with no choice but to back down and actually start negotiating.
We saw this very thing occur with the latest ICE policies IMO... even Republican politicians saw how insanely outnumbered they were on the issue of separating children from their parents so they were forced to back down from the worst of it and start negotiating. The battle is far from won but it was a stern warning to them and at least now strides can be taken forwards in negotiating.
However the minute those who practice civil protest and disobedience become outnumbered by the elements amongst them resorting to hateful rhetoric, demonization and violence you lose that moderate support and all chance of negotiation goes out the window with it. Just look at Antifa, Black Bloc and all the other hateful and/or violent fringe groups amongst the left and you can see how that is true. Moderates refuse to support them because of their actions and so the only thing they are capable of is causing escalation.
Power disparities play out in the court of public opinion to be sure, but to break through to get their attention in the first place, you don’t always have young children crying for their mothers to work with. Sometimes you have a government willing to bomb those crying children (looking at you, Philly). How do you address systemic violence against people like you but by disruption? If disruption isn’t enough to get their attention, what else do you advocate? It isn’t as though there are a shortage of sympathetic killings of unarmed young black men to go around. If outrage and pain aren’t being heard, what then? If after the end of a viral story that potentially threatens your lufe, you’re left with nothing changing, what is there to do? A rational person can easily conclude it’s time to arm yourself and police the police as a community in arms.
I think your conversation with @mumberthrax in your topic about deescalation highlights exactly what you do... even he conceded the new wave of peaceful BLM protestors and their new leadership are making huge strides in terms of outreach, goal oriented direction and so are worth listening to. Does that solve the problem in the immediate term? No but it's tangible progress.
And I admit, when your life is on the line and the violence against your peoples' continues that is understandably hard to stomach. But the only real alternative to civil disobedience and protest in that case is armed insurrection against the police, which serves absolutely no-one but the white supremacists, especially since the Police forces across the US are not a monolith. Many police forces and many municipal governments are already making progress through new bodycam policies, community policing initiatives and deescalation training and not all police officers are deserving of violence being done against them either.... but if police across the US were suddenly being targeted they would have absolutely no choice but to side against the insurrectionists and many (if not most) moderates would go with them.
Let me clear about that exchange. It ameliorated my dread somewhat because Mumber was pointing out one case where Trump has uncharacteristically decided to reach out to people who aren't directly in his political base, but it is far from the norm. The normal behavior is that Trump insults the people who aren't in his political base and seems to almost deliberately try to upset them. He could have been a unifying influence out the gate, and instead he chose to try to implement a hideously poorly crafted, communicated, and executed travel ban that seemed obviously targeted at muslims. This behavior is what's being doubled-down with this latest immigration fiasco, where the initial policy is seen to be hugely defective, then it gets replaced with something only technically better but just about as tone deaf, all in the hopes of wearing the opposition out and maybe not insulting as many people the third time they do the exact same fucking thing (potentially denying people due process to deport them faster so you don't have to worry about their refugee status application, which you have also tightened the standards for by reducing the personal-threat claims that can make a case viable--I see you Sessions).
I sharply disagree that the threat of violence serves no one but white supremacists. The threat of violence is the main reason people react. Were it not for the chaos their policies are creating, it is pretty unclear that police departments would shift to try to address those longstanding complaints. That shit varies a lot on precinct, absolutely, and some precincts have very different views on how to treat the poorer, more difficult (and disproportionately PoC) people within their communities. I mean, how long the NYC have its stop and frisk policy before that was stopped by court order? That story was so sad to read about because the officer who collected the evidence and served as the whistleblower was effectively pushed out of service. What's worse, an ESU unit illegally entered his apartment, physically abducted him and forcibly admitted him to a psychiatric facility, where he was held against his will for six days.
What could this community have done differently to stop this shit? What could Adrian Schoolcraft have done differently? Would you have asked him not to collect that data because it was uncivil? I would doubt that! It seems that the threat of legal violence wasn't itself enough either. It would take activism and an election that heavily punished and repudiated the Bloomberg administration to undo some of the damage caused by this practice, and in that same time you'd have conservatives all around the country seeing this example, nodding their heads, and saying "Yep, let's do that too. Crime is a really big problem in these minority communities, Better racially profile." This is all despite the fact that, mathematically, racial profiling doesn't make you any more likely to catch criminals than just good old fashioned patrolling (and it alienates you from those underserved communities at the same time).
Edit - the point, which I recognize after re-reading is missing: Protests, refusal to cooperate with police, loudly screaming that refusal to cooperate with police, all of that combined would be forms of civil disobedience that I think MLK would be completely comfortable with. What's more, if you ignore those concerns long enough, you are provoking a violent reaction and that will be on your head. And I would wholly support that violent reaction.
I agree that there is a balance between the larger group advocating for nonviolent action and the smaller group advocating for violence, but I'm also quite partial to the idea that when it comes to issues that are literally life and death such as this particular police practice, the "ballot or the bullet" approach of Malcolm X and more in-your-face activists serves as a good deal of lubricant to get the conversation moving on how to address the root anger to make that violent reaction as unlikely as possible. No one wants a repeat of the 2005 race riots in Toledo. But at the same time, some things are too hideous to expect people to suffer silently.
That's not what I said, at all! "But the only real alternative to civil disobedience and protest in that case is armed insurrection against the police"... Armed insurrection isn't the threat of physical violence, it is violent uprising. I was specifically talking about if Police officers began being targeted for violence in retribution, which I thought I made abundantly clear in the very next sentence "not all police officers are deserving of violence being done against them either".
I honestly have no idea where you are getting this from. Of course I bloody wouldn't! Whistle-blowers are a fundamental element of civil disobedience and nowhere did I imply otherwise.
I agree as well... in fact MLK specifically talks about similar measures (refusing to comply with unjust laws) in the letter.
Again... I agree, and once again that exact scenario was addressed in the letter.
However where we draw the line on "long enough" is the underlying issue at hand. If the situation isn't "solved" yet but tangible progress is being made, that to me suggest that the concerns are being heard and attempting to be addressed, which invalidates the moral authority of those calling for violence.
Given the nature of your interpretive differences, would you rather he didn’t quote speeches? You also quote speech segments to him, and I don’t think anything is particularly malicious there. It seems a pretty normal thing to direct attention to specific passages relevant to discussion. Maybe you’re reading a tone into this that isn’t intended?
Whether or not MLK could have succeeded without Malcolm X’ threat of force is an open debate, but as you’ve said yourself, that has no bearing on MLK’s writing other than serving as an implicit bargaining chip for his movement. So how much attention should be paid to a part of an argument that isn’t part of his disagreement with your interpretation?
It seems strange to me that we’re even talking this deep about the appropriate interpretation of a long dead man’s letter, from long before most of us were alive. I’ve thought for a while now that MLK is both overrated and out dated. So I really don’t have much of an axe in this debate other than to say it seems there is still some room for you both to be right, if either of you are willing to walk back some of these absolutes.
It was the same thing, quoted over and over again along with the insinuation that I had not read it. I cannot believe you can characterise simply linking to the same thing over and over while repeatedly asking/telling someone to read it as "quoting some speeaches".
I wrote and phrased something poorly which I have attempted to clarify and point out several times. But I only get continual mischaraterizing of my argument (which I have stated 3 or more times) and the insinuation that I haven't read the very letter that we are talking about. Not once, but several times.
They mischaraterise my position again in a response see to the post you just replied to.
I don't know how to clarify my point any better if my clarifications and apologies for bad/confusing writing are continually ignored in order to attack a position I do not hold.
Wait, what? Like u/guamisc, I had to do a huge double take here. The white moderate supposedly agreed with MLKs aims but objected to the means by which he sought them. That's the dictionary definition of civility, in the naiive form that the arrticle is talking about.
It most definitely is an argument against moderates per se because moderation for it's own sake is blind to the moral stakes of any given issue, and it's in light of the moral urgency of political issues that different forms of civic action make sense, not in light of whether those actions are moderate or civil in some abstract sense.
This is not being very fair to @cfabbro's point.
Civility is about much more than when to implement some idea. I definitely think the line you quoted from Cfabbro is inelegant (because certainly MLK is a little concerned with the faux-civility of white moderates here, it is the disingenuous delay tactics that he's protesting), but to say that the opposite conclusion is therefore true is ... unfair.
I think this is cfabbro's stronger point. It comes just before the line you quoted:
So there is some fuzziness here because MLK is talking about tactics, but he isn't saying you can't still try to communicate with people who disagree with you. He would actually rather communicate with people who disagree with him than people who pretend to agree with him while arguing for policies that harm him, in fact. It's a common theme throughout many of the civil activists' writing and speeches: better to deal with the devil who tell you he hates you than the devil who pretends he's on your side. At least the first devil is honest.
The idea that letting off steam reduces aggression has been debunked.
Glad you asked! It deprives them of their strategic advantage in the theaters of legislative procedure, electoral process and public debate. For example it was a terrible mistake for Obama to craft the Affordable Care Act in a manner that sought consent from Republicans, and it was a strategic error to let Republicans abuse the filibuster when Obama could have asked Harry Reid to eliminate it.
In terms of public debate, contary to the claims of moderates, success often comes from calling out the opponents in strongest terms, which I think was illustrated by the Parkland survivors. You can have valid and well founded moral outrage that isn't merely shit slinging, which is the critical thing that people lose perspective on in the pursuit of civility at all costs.
This entire article is childish.
I agree. I think there's some nugget of truth in there, but I'm really not a fan of the delivery.
Essentially, the author is arguing that civility is getting in the way of effective government and justice. If one side is incredibly uncivil, it might give that side an advantage with the electorate. Therefore, the other side should not be afraid to be uncivil if it negates that advantage.
First, it could be worthwhile to unpack whether or not one side of the political spectrum is really more uncivil than the other. I'm not sure I could do this very easily in an unbiased manner, so let's assume that this statement is true for now.
I want to point out a few pieces of argumentation that I think are pretty weak. The author attacks the following point from The Washington Post editorial:
I think the obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, "It's not hard at all to imagine." The author of the piece from the Post it's pointing out that it's dangerous to lower the level of civil discourse, because when you do, people can be put in danger. The author of the Esquire piece essentially uses the next few lines to prove that point but in a strangely combative manner. I'm not sure how this advances his argument.
The author also uses an appeal to the values of the founding fathers, which is a form of argumentation that is never very compelling, in my opinion. However, in this particular case it seems particularly uncompelling. When someone appeals to the founding fathers on a principle like representative government or liberty, it may possibly advance an argument because most people agree these were fundamental principles of the founding fathers and the founding fathers were successful in forming a government based on these principles. However, I don't think that lack of civil discourse was a fundamental principle of the founding fathers, so appealing to the founding fathers by pointing out actions where they were not civil, doesn't seem like a successful means of argumentation.
It's also strange how the author uses the closing paragraph to toss an ad hominem attack that Sarah Huckabee used back at her. While there's possibly some poignancy using someone's own words against them, I think it's counter to the overall thesis. The author is suggesting to call out the other side when they lie or when they go against justice, which seems to be in the same theme as a lot of the MLK Jr quotes I've seen in this thread. But does using ad hominem really help in this cause? Personally, I don't think so.
I prefer childish immensely to supporting anyone's rights to refuse service based on sexual orientation and then using your power to try to drive a restaurant out of business in a hypocritical way.
That's setting up a false dichotomy. Can't you have both? Can't you stand for inclusivity and mature dialogue?
I didn't say or even insinuate that these were the only two options. This isn't a false dichotomy because it is in no way a dichotomy.
After trying to research what a false dichotomy is, I agree that I used the term incorrectly. I'm not sure if my grasp of language is good enough to nail down exactly what I'm trying to say.
I guess I don't understand what your comment means. Aren't both of those things bad? What is there to gain by saying one is less bad than the other?
I'm not sure I follow what you're bringing up either. I think that it's obvious that some things are worse than other things. To take an extreme example: it's probably worse to murder someone than it is to speed in your car, though both are against the law. I hope we can agree on that.
In this case, the person writing the article is being a bit childish. I accept that and I even agree. But I don't think that the points they raise are not important, and I think that this "small badness" is nowhere near as important to think about as the huge badness of Sarah Huckabee Sanders' general actions.
To turn it around a bit... why do we care if this person wrote something in a childish way? To me that sounds like completely missing the point of the entire article.
Ah, I see what you're saying.
It hurts the argument. I think a majority of the piece uses weak forms of argumentation. However, I agree with what you're saying. The main takeaway of not being afraid to call out injustice for fear of looking impolite is an important one. Personally, I wish it had been argued better. The follow two lines struck me as some of the most important:
I wish the author had started with his intro, condensed the middle few paragraphs into a sentence or two, and then said this. The specific details of certain editorials or the abortion tangent take away from the major thesis in my opinion.
Thank you for spending the time to explain your perspective!
No problem! Thanks for taking the time to be charitable and understanding.
I agree that it would be better, generally, to argue the point in a more above-board way, but I also think that if the sentiment were argued in such a way then the people that need to understand it the most would never read it. If it's argumentative, it's attention grabbing; if it grabs attention, it may seep in when an outraged person reads it.
The article might seem childish, but I see it as borne out of a "fed up" mentality with which a majority of Americans can empathize. The president engages in childish behavior every single goddamn day - I'm not going to criticize someone for dedicating an opinion piece to vent about it because I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired too. The president is a bum, the people who work for him are bums, and the Americans who support him and rationalize his behavior are bums too. Their actions don't warrant respect or professionalism, and they deserve every bit of criticism they receive, civil or uncivil.
The age of taking the high road ended almost two years ago. It's time to ruthlessly mobilize dormant voters while incessantly exposing the hypocrisy of this administration and the party that enables it. Anyone who is offended by this article or the Red Hen's decision probably isn't worth trying to convince otherwise. We have plenty of moderates and Democrats to achieve the necessary votes to shift control of government without them. The Trumpets can retreat to their safe spaces and weep into their MAGA hats for all I care - maintaining civility with them isn't necessary to enacting change in this country.
Everything you're saying, combined with maxine waters' recent comments, sounds kind of nazi-like, doesn't it? What does "civility" or lack thereof mean to you? Because to me, it sounds like antifa-style street violence. It sounds like that guy who shot cops at the blm rally in dallas because being civil wasn't enough for him. It sounds like those kids who cut up that developmentally-challenged kid because he was white and voted for Donald Trump.
Maybe that isn't what you're envisioning, but that is how it comes across - and I don't think that is going to endear any policy decisions to moderates - whereas people like Hawk Newsome of BLM are realizing that they can get a lot more accomplished by reaching across the aisle to build something together rather than being all #resist #nocivility etc. childishness.
No, that isn't what I envisioned in the slightest, and I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth with off base assumptions and loaded terminology. Nazi-like? Really? Nowhere do I advocate violence or anything other than mobilizing voters to change who controls the government. Unless the phrase "ruthlessly mobilize" is too militaristic for your personal taste. Would "energetically rally" be more palatable?
Lack of civility to me still remains in the realm of verbal dialogue, not physical altercations. That's why I have no problem with this article venting about conservative hypocrisy even if it appears childish and disrespectful - they're just words, and no words either in my comment or the article advocate anything close to violence.
Reaching across the aisle is useless or unnecessary when a) the other side doesn't participate in good faith, and b) the number of votes required to change control of government can be obtained by
mobilizingrallying only moderates and dormant Democrats. My point is that I don't care about the feelings of Trump supporters, and I don't need their support to enact change. Trying to get them to change their ways is a futile use of the Democrats' resources. They shouldn't face physical threat for their opinions, but that doesn't mean they deserve my respect or verbal civility.EDIT: Basically, I'm using the same definition of civility that thin-skinned Trump supporters use when something hurts their feelings. Oh boo hoo, their president has to face heated, legitimate criticism from virtually every side because he's a shit-tier human being - maybe they shouldn't have elected a pseudo-billionaire conman who sexually assaults women and launders money for Russian oligarchs to the most important public office on the planet. Then their sensitivities would still be intact.
He didn't do that. See this part again:
As someone who has never voted, seeing both sides engage in petulant and destructive rhetoric doesn't entice me to vote for either of them.
If you’re basing a future vote on childish slap fights online instead of policy, documented hypocrisy, and elected officials’ voting records, you’ve already played yourself.
I'm basing it on how much I disapprove of pretty much anything both parties do. Policy, online behavior, all of it. They're both terrible.
Ah yes, the most tired and self-serving false equivalence ever. Online chatter does not represent actual party policy and actions. Please don’t vote if that is factored into your decision.
I didn't say they were equal. I said policy and online actions. You should read more carefully before you insult me.
You said “they’re both terrible”, which I took as an equivalence of the two parties, not the two activities of policy and online actions.
Oh. My bad. In that case, yes, I think they're equally terrible. They're terrible in different ways, to be sure, but neither is good.
My bad too. I’m letting my frustrations get the best of me, and I apologize.
While I do find plenty of issues with both parties, I feel pretty confident saying one has objectively done more damage than the other. I mean, the GOP practically forced me to become a Democrat in 2016 with the prospect of Trump after several election cycles voting third party. IMO, the only way to enact sweeping change is from inside one of the major parties (Democrats for me) rather than supporting third parties closer to my views with no chance of mainstream success. My first election cycle was all Republican in the 00s before becoming libertarian then eventually more progressive as I am now.
It really is a shame that no third parties stand much of a chance. That would at least allow us some breathing room.
It really is. The reason I supported third parties during pre-2016 presidential elections was in the hopes that someone would garner the 15% of public opinion poll support required for an invitation to the mainstream debates. Haven't come close since I've been eligible to vote, sadly.
Can I ask where you fall on the political spectrum?
I'm closest to libertarianism, but I usually don't bother to align myself with any group by name. I don't think it's helpful to group oneself into a party, since that implies a loyalty to the entire range of policies when most people probably disagree with their party on at least something. In general I'm for less governmental interference with pretty much everything.
Consider me a culture war agnostic.
I care extremely little about anyone refusing service to anyone else based solely on political beliefs. If that is how they want to run their business, fine. It sucks, but that's a shrug from me.
The more important questions involve people's actual freedoms and rights. Talk to me about whether children should have access to healthcare; whether women should have access to abortions; whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, race, gender, or some other reason; the extent to which we should expect employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled but capable people. Someone's ability to enjoy a cheese plate is meaningless in comparison to the bigger cultural fractures that divide us.
I respect Huckabee-Sanders' right to feel bad about being refused service for her political civil service in a divisive administration. But I care not a single ounce about it as a political issue.
What functional difference in liberty is there between being allowed to refuse someone service for political reasons and being allowed to refuse them employment for political reasons?
Probably not much, to be honest. It's not that likely that political affiliation is going to pop up unless employers are doing other fairly sketchy things like facebook/twitter stalking or requiring social media access from their applicants before hiring. I tend to take the upfront approach (as my political affiliation is pretty much plastered to my resume at this point), and admit that affiliation out the gate but I hope to demonstrate pretty quickly and easily that my political leanings don't mean I can't still see the person behind whatever views that might come up.
Political reasons for employment is pretty relevant in ... political organizations. So yeah. It's pretty similar to me.
So it's not okay to choose to not serve someone based on their beliefs that you (an immigrant) should be sent back to their country, but it is okay to not serve someone based on their sexual orientation?
The mental gymnastics are astounding sometimes.
The double negatives in your post made me thing you were making the opposite point you were actually making. Rereading it cleared it up.
But yeah, not understanding the difference between judging someone because of 'who they are' vs 'what they do' is astounding.
I mean in both situations you can be judging someone because of what they do or who they are. What you do defines who you are, after all.
Sure, perhaps I need a better way to draw the distinction. The limitations of language are rather frustrating at times.
I'd be careful with that idea. It leads very easily to thinking that someone's actions can revoke their humanity.
I get flashbacks of Reddit threads just thinking about it. "This person did such-and-such crime, so they should be tortured!"
People do fucked up things all the time in the heat of the moment. It still defines you, but be careful about passing judgement - you're not as perfect as you think.
When did I imply that I'm perfect?
Apologies, that wasn't directed at you, just a general statement directed at anyone who is quick to judge based on actions.
I'd also be careful with that line of thought. The actions a person makes are what defines them to other people. Nobody should be stripped of their humanity, but it's important to hold people accountable for their actions. Otherwise you (and I want to be clear, this is the general 'you', not you specifically) can easily end up defending someone who raped someone with 'they didn't mean to, it was just a mistake. they're a good person', completely missing the fact that rape is a terrible crime.
Oh, definitely. It's just that to many people, holding someone accountable is stripping them of humanity. Those people scare me.
It's for that very reason I generally don't support capital punishment. But that discussion is probably better saved for a different thread.
Are you referring to the Colorado cake case?
If you are, I'm not sure that it's a good parallel. That case had to do with artistic expresssion and discrimination against the baker by a Colorado court (to the best of my understanding). It was a fairly narrow ruling.EDIT: I mispoke. I meant to emphasize more that the Supreme Court case probably won't be the end of the conversation on a business refusing to serve LGBT people because the ruling was so narrow.
The parallel is more general: private establishments reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason or no reason at all (excepting protected classes).
For some groups of people, they've never dreamed it could happen to them. The message to Sanders is effectively: "How does it feel when the shoe's on the other foot?"
She clearly didn't like it so much so that it's become a huge story and the President's involved.
I agree that there are many similaries in the events. I also agree that it sends an important message in a meaningful way.
I was not referring to anything in specific, nor to the food industry in specific either. It's just a common argument I've seen, that because of religion, they should not be "forced" to serve gays.
Citations Needed (a podcast by the excellent media critics Nima Shirazi and Adam Johnson) has multiple good episodes talking about this civility fetishist garbage peddled by the center and the right. It's perpetually pulled out in order to silence criticism from the left, and it has been standard media practice for over a century to call for civility when a barbaric societal practice is criticized.
https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded
Episode 40 - The Civility Fetish deals with it most directly, but many of the episodes all the way from the very early episodes mention or tackle this absurdity. In particular, every episode where race in the media is covered tends to deal with how the media wields a onesided concept of civility as a weapon against change.
I have question, can we as a Nation have a logical and honest debate about what ales society and from that debate create policy to address those problems?
Only if we as a nation decide that we're going to talk about policy with facts along with cause and effect analysis. One side actually believes that our problems stem from some sort of "moral failure" where the only morals that we should practice anywhere are privileged, white, Christian morals.
This is only a partial truth. While evangelic Christians make up a decent percentage of the Republican party, there are definitely other types of Republicans.
I agree. However the other types are happy to parrot the same moralizing BS that comes from the rest of them so there is little difference in practice.
The sad answer is probably not. I think the core divisions that have gotten us to this point are institutional, not individual. People's trust in institutions of any form have plummeted in the past 50 years; people's feeling represented by their governments also plummeted significantly. But the thing people don't talk as much about is that the people who don't trust these institutions anymore are, themselves, deeply divided about why and which institutions are the most damaged.
So let me reify this a bit, because I know I'm kind of in the clouds here. You have many conservatives that argue that the education system has lost its way and indoctrinates children to hold values other than what they, personally, believe makes a stable society. Leftists meanwhile argue that the education system isn't being effective enough at teaching young people these values, and point to declining achievement as a need for greater investment. You have many leftists that will argue the economic system, and corporations in particular, create a corrupting influence on all the available levers of power in the society, which means no one in power represents the "people's" interests. Conservatives, meanwhile, point at what they see as a high amount of wasteful or politically self-serving use of money in politics. You have many ideological moderates who see news cycle after news cycle of horseshit being flung between people in two camps, many of whom are wholly willing to take advantage of any slight for their own partisan ends. Meanwhile, conservatives see the oldest news media institutions as having been taken over by leftists, while leftists see those same institutions falling prey to a "both sides equally" bias.
In the end, it becomes generally true that trust in the education system, distaste for corruption in politics, and trust in the news media as an institution are at or near historic lows, but the reasons for those historic lows are, themselves, part of the broader culture wars that have defined our political struggles since our founding as a nation.
This seems an appropriate counter to this article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-shuts-down-maxine-waters-unacceptable-call-to-harass-trump-officials
Here's someone else who thinks civility is overrated - and that we need an actual civil war with bloodshed over this nonsense: http://web.archive.org/web/20180626000038/https://splinternews.com/this-is-just-the-beginning-1827099100