Comments on: The Conundrum of Civil Communication

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:30:00 +0000

Evil needs to be uncovered and pointed out where ever it might exist . If that means hurting some feelings of some people that might be involved in the evil, then so be it. Not to say you don’t treat people with respect, but don’t fear the truth. Don’t give up on correct principles to just get along with the crowd and not ruffle feathers.

“There is not a truth existing which I fear… or would wish unknown to the whole world.”
Thomas Jefferson

By: Josh Williams

Josh Williams — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:53:40 +0000

Oh, I agree completely about separating the people from the ideas. My philosophy is that all people deserve respect, but no ideas deserve it.

I think that civility and politeness waxes and wanes in society. It’s a function of the social mores of the times. Incivility can be a sign of social divisiveness or upheaval, or wars, but I think more often it just follows the current zeitgeist.

If you you think debates in the US Congress are uncivil, just try the Australian Parliament. There is of course the infamous event in 1856 where Rep. Preston Brooks (SC) stormed into the senate, and nearly caned Sen. Charles Sumner (MA) to death, three days after Sumner made a particularly raucous speech.

On the other hand I think there is such a thing as too much respect and/or politeness; when it turns into obfuscation. I mean, I think sometimes people are excessively polite when they don’t want to honestly discuss the elephant in the room.

By: Clumpy

Clumpy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:08:06 +0000

It’s a point to be made, though – anonymity and mass communication makes it easier and easier for political groupthink to perpetuate itself throughout society. Out-of-context stories of poor people suffering populate Michael Moore’s new anticapitalist movie, and if it was party of Sean Hannity’s partisan duties to prove that kittens are mosquitoes he’d find a way to paint everybody with a grip on reality as wife-swapping, Communist ignoramuses.

Analysis and context are mostly dead, and with them any ability to really match our opinions up with some sort of objective reality.

Still. . . “I’m not saying I want your mother to suffer, I’m just saying that my political philosophy doesn’t want to give her medicine and food.”

I have a hard time imagining somebody not making the connection to their own lives. Libertarianism and financial independence and whatnot are all fine, though their implementation does have consequences. I don’t think that mere offense is the greatest threat to our current political discourse unless it leads to people refusing to consider other viewpoints (which it does, so maybe my logic is full of holes).

By: Clumpy

Clumpy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:51:54 +0000

I think the guy in the photo just installed the new Office suite.

By: JHP

JHP — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:29:06 +0000

Agreed. We need to separate ourselves and others from our ideas. This problem is one of the biggest in politics today. Politicians and political groups market their plans to whoever will favor them, knowing that people often care only about what may seem to help them. For example, if you don’t want to reform Medicare or Social Security, just tell all the elderly (the most persistent voters) that their benefits will be taken away. If you’re a big fan of welfare, then tell the poor that their food stamps will be taken away. Or tell businesses that they’ll get taxed heavily with a cap and trade system. It’s sad that we can’t all see the bigger picture when debating issues, meaning what’s best for everyone as a whole, whether that includes government involvement or not.