Is it wrong to NOT want to be civil?

[AngelKing]

All this talk of toned down rhetoric and that we ought to be polite to each other when it comes to politics would be great, except I just don't see it being extended by those calling for it.

I tune into all of the left wing shows, just to get perspective on the news. All day yesterday, it was about Loughner and how what he did was a direct result of harsh political discourse, that the tea party movement and all its rudeness, pushed him over the proverbial edge to commit an unspeakable crime last Saturday.

As the day dragged on, it was more of the same finger pointing by aggreived groups - the ADL was mad at Palin for using the phrase blood libel in her speech, Olbermann blamed right wing talk shows and guys like reps Clyburn and Brady came on essentially demanding laws that would criminalize the opposition.

This scares me - I don't think they can ever get the traction for ridiculous magazine bans and I think the country is going to become more pro-gun as a result of what happened. But that an elected American politician can have the balls to get up and demand laws that essentially stifles debate and demonizes those who question government is truly distressing. Whats more, I feel attacked, I feel marginalized when they say gun owners are part of the problem....and they expect me to be civil??

Sorry guys, I was snowed in yesterday and Im hyper-caffeinated today. Probably should have just watched showtime.

 

[atmay]

I'm well past the point of civil discourse.

 

[jasons]

Both sides do it. Keeps us distracted from the fact that both sides are ripping us off. Bread and circuses.

 

[JRyan]

I hear you, and I agree. The left wants all these rules and restrictions in place, but only for the rest of us. This is SOP for them, gaming the system.

@jasons, yeah, but so far the "crying foul" is heavily lopsided.

 

[Twigg]

I feel attacked, I feel marginalized when they say gun owners are part of the problem....and they expect me to be civil??

Sorry guys, I was snowed in yesterday and Im hyper-caffeinated today. Probably should have just watched showtime.

You're not alone, and NES is waaaaay more entertaining then showtime.

 

[Climbnsink]

What they don't call it political correctness anymore? More don't disagree with us(left) and pretend we(the left, not me) have the moral high ground

 

[drgrant]

I'm well past the point of civil discourse.

+1....

Civil discourse works when you're talking with friends about what movie you're going to watch, or what movie was the best, etc.

Maybe it even works when debating something like what US foreign policy might be.

It starts to not work out so well, when the subject being discussed, is say, an issue of how much money that it is OK to steal from taxpayers at the end of a barrel of a gun, and how that money is going to be redistributed, or you are being forced to buy something (healthcare) by the government, at the end of a barrel of a gun. One cannot expect the person who is having the gun pointed at them to NOT be upset, pissed off, etc. It's human nature- it's a natural response to being violated, especially to the extent these things are done now. People could easily ignore/forgive a little bit of taxation... not so much when the entity collecting the taxes is now asking for a large portion of what you make every year, and on TOP of that theft, is forcing you to do things you don't want to.

Or for that matter, it doesn't work out very well when people start talking about stripping away natural rights from others under the pretext of "safety". It's pretty hard to get people who believe in freedom to NOT be pissed off at the obvious ramifications.

-Mike

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I'm done being civil. If you try to take away my rights or property be sure to have your affairs in order before you arrive, because you won't be going home. Not a threat, its an absolute promise.

 

[clinotus]

Politics are supposed to be lively, filled to the brim with anger, discourse, heated disagreements, and mistrust. At its core there are opposing sides deeply and emotionally entrenched in the debate. The civil part comes from rules of order to let all voices be heard, but at the end of the day both parties really only meet to disagree and attempt to outmaneuver each other. Even town hall meetings have someone banging a gavel to attempt to bring order to the room and discussion.

 

[MisterHappy]

Civil discourse is only civil when all sides agree upon the answer, these days. If there is a disagreement, it becomes at best an arguement, at worst hate speech.

There are numerous instances on this forum where an ill-chosen (well-chosen?) phrase will predictably set off certain members....and we're mostly of one mind here.....

I have non-shooting friends (really!) and while none are rabidly Anti, they honestly can't see our side. I respect that they and I have different views, and make my points by analogy...if you like the First Ammendment, you gotta like 'em all. We have agreed to disagree....and I've kept the offer to go to the range open. The parents in one family are a lost casue, but I have hopes for some of the kids.

But, the above only works with a pre-existing relationship. Between strangers, disagreement = "You're a Freaking Commie /Wingnut / Libetard / [insert slur]" because most people are afraid to admit that they were wrong (or even could be).

It's easier to yell than think......

 

[davemata]

Both sides do it. Keeps us distracted from the fact that both sides are ripping us off. Bread and circuses.

+1. Besides, intelligent respectful discourse doesn't keep listeners, no listeners? No advertisers. No advertisers? No gold plated shark tank.

But, the above only works with a pre-existing relationship. Between strangers, disagreement = "You're a Freaking Commie /Wingnut / Libetard / [insert slur]" because most people are afraid to admit that they were wrong (or even could be).

True, but it can be fun to challenge those strangers. I do it from time to time for enjoyment when in the PRC.

 

[Pete85]

We'll never get back to being "civil" when debating stances on political issues. Both sides do thhe same thing, one side much much more than the other. They pick a side on an issue, and no matter what the facts, statistics, or reality of the issue is, they will never change sides. They'd rather shout the same slogans over and over no matter how wrong it is, and ignore any facts that are presented to them. And the people who present the facts to them are discredited as uneducated, unenlightened, stupid, arrogant, misinformed, etc. Civil discourse requires education, and when that education proves that your opinion is misguided, people don't want it.

 

[drgrant]

I have non-shooting friends (really!) and while none are rabidly Anti, they honestly can't see our side. I respect that they and I have different views, and make my points by analogy...if you like the First Ammendment, you gotta like 'em all. We have agreed to disagree....and I've kept the offer to go to the range open. The parents in one family are a lost casue, but I have hopes for some of the kids.

But, the above only works with a pre-existing relationship.

We often tolerate lunacy because the perceived costs of assaulting it head on exceed the benefits, especially in the short term. Or we tolerate the lunacy because we see some sort of value in the person beyond whatever the disagreement is.

Everyone here probably has a moonbat relative that they have to bite their tongue at thanksgiving dinner with.

At least in the case of your friends you can choose your friends, and you can intentionally discard the more obnoxious ones. In the case of family, it's a lot harder to choose family.

Between strangers, disagreement = "You're a Freaking Commie /Wingnut / Libetard / [insert slur]" because most people are afraid to admit that they were wrong (or even could be).

Well, let's face some facts- some of these people are wrong- in fundamental ways. In ways that we find extremely offensive. At some point or another, things might get heated. At some level or another you don't even have to resort to ad-homs to get someone pissed off, either. Even if you stick to attacking the idea and avoiding making it personal, they'll still get butthurt.

-Mike

 

[rwl1955]

I'm well past the point of civil discourse.

Me too. I have no use for the "other" side. I can`t wait to retire so I can mess with them constantly. I will be a professional PIA to liberals and anti-gun hysterical libs.

 

[Mike02048]

What the libtards seem to be conveniently forgetting, and if they knew anything about US history, is that the US form of Government (a Constitutional Republic - not a democracy) was designed purposely to be adversarial. It was designed purposely such that it would be very difficult to pass laws. You have the House, which has to answer to people in their districts every two years, which makes them "hotter" and much quicker to react to events. On the other hand, you have the Senate, which only has to answer to their constituents every six years. This allows them to be "cooler" and take a longer view on issues. Getting these two houses of Congress to agree on an issue is hard, as it should be. And of course, the differences between the House and Senate as well as the two political parties makes it such that only really good ideas ought to be passed and sent to the President to be signed into law.

Of course, what liberals mean when they say that conservatives need to tone down the rhetoric, is that they should agree with the liberals! Fat chance!

What the libtards also forget is that in the early years of our country, political differences sometimes were settled in a duel with pistols. Much more sporting than a debate, eh??

Also, this hipocracy of what is being said is stunning. The Democratic National Committee used bulleyes on Congressional districts they were targeting in 2006, way before Sarah Palin did it last year. But the mainstream media conveniently forgets to mention this. Nor do they mention the use of common phrases like "battleground states" which both parties use all the time.

I don't want to live in a country where public officials have to worry about using common phrases for fear that they will set someone off to commit heinous acts. I'm not suggesting that public officials ought to be able to incite violence. But the "common man" standard ought to apply. Anything that a common man interprets as reasonable, ought to be allowed.

 

[mikem317]

I'm not going to tone down my rhetoric when all of these thugs want to further usurp our rights. Barry Goldwater said it best, "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Don't tone down your rhetoric.

 

[KBCraig]

Barry Goldwater said it best, "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Penned by Karl Hess, RIP.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Civil discourse and bi-partisanship are just code words for "let's compromise our beliefs." Hell, if I'm right and your wrong, we should not compromise. 1st amendment, 2nd amendment - how far are you willing to compromise? Because that's what they are calling for. Restricting the "airwaves" and our RKBA.

 

[fubar]

Civil discourse in todays political world is like Captain Kangaroo and the Easter Bunny - One ain't a captain and the other doesn't even exist.

I do not hear anyone on the left politely explaining that they are interested in hearing how ObamaCare , Fairness Doctrine, new calls for gun restrictions , etc are wrong , unamerican and anti-constitutional. What I hear is the Left saying I am a bad person and i should shut the hell up while they make more laws to control me.

 

[scottb]

Penned by Karl Hess, RIP.

I believe paraphrased Cicero

 

[Cabinetman]

Mike 02048 hit the nail on its head. We are governed under an ADVERSARIAL system. It is purposefully meant to be this way from our governments inception. To expect two parties coming from two distinctly different attidudes to sing Kumbaya is ignorant. The problem we're experiening today is the fact that the left has tried to demonize the right. Fortunately, the general public is sick of it as exhibited during the last election. Hopefully this new Congress will continue to build back the spine of the conservatives and block any attempts of the minority to inflict yet more worthless laws on the general public.

Rome

 

[PlaymoreMinds]

The way I see it, One man's rhetoric is another man's free speech.

And that goes BOTH ways.
I usually start out civil. But I can give as well as I get.

 

[endus]

The most major problem we have in this country is that we have allowed politicians to divide us. We've been factionalized and now think of the other side as trying to "destroy America" when the truth is that the entire POINT of America was to allow people with differing views and lifestyles to live together. What is needed in this country, more than anything else, is a willingness to compromise and tolerate and a willingness to try to understand where the other side is coming from. Failing to do that is what has lead us to keep electing the corrupt worthless bums that we elect, because we're so unbelievably scared of what the other side is going to do....

...and meanwhile, BOTH sides are participating in the most egregious dismantling of the country. Who cares about gay marriage and all this BS when the government has gutted the 4th amendment and funneled hundreds of billions of dollars of our money to prop up failing businesses? We're busy pumping money into Afghanistan and Iraq with the flip side being that we are completely bankrupting OURSELVES to do it. We've got lawmakers siphoning off tens of billions for worthless pet projects and tens of billions more to incarcerate pot heads.

The angry, fearful rhetoric from BOTH sides is what allows this to keep happening. It's pretty simple. They keep us distracted and meanwhile they do whatever the hell they want with our money.

That said, I don't see things being fixable anymore. I have spent a lot of time discussing politics online for many many years now and I used to think that maybe the internet would be a means to communicate with people you might not otherwise talk to, and therefore a means to build understanding and opposition to the career politicians that are killing the country. In the time I've been doing this I've only seen things get worse. People are more polarized than ever and the politicians are taking bigger and bigger liberties with our money and our way of life.

So I guess what I'm saying is, who gives a rat's ass about being civil anymore. If you want to "do the right thing" and try to save this country then, yea, you have GOT to be civil...but you're fighting a losing battle.

I can't believe the rhetoric that's been going around since the shootings. I'm a libertarian and thus maybe not on the same page as some on this site in some areas of politics but in terms of our 2A rights I am right there, and I am flabbergasted by the complete lack of common sense and more importantly FACTS to back up these gun control nuts. I talk to people and I ask for some evidence that what they are advocating makes sense...in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't...and they go "BUT HE SHOT ALL THOSE PEOPLE". I'm totally willing to listen to a factual, reasoned, gun control argument (even if I don't agree) but the truth is these idiots believe in something completely counter logical and counter-factual. And they BELIEVE in it.

 

[BillB]

What Obama said in 2008!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

 

[calsdad]

+1....

Civil discourse works when you're talking with friends about what movie you're going to watch, or what movie was the best, etc.

Maybe it even works when debating something like what US foreign policy might be.

It starts to not work out so well, when the subject being discussed, is say, an issue of how much money that it is OK to steal from taxpayers at the end of a barrel of a gun, and how that money is going to be redistributed, or you are being forced to buy something (healthcare) by the government, at the end of a barrel of a gun. One cannot expect the person who is having the gun pointed at them to NOT be upset, pissed off, etc. It's human nature- it's a natural response to being violated, especially to the extent these things are done now. People could easily ignore/forgive a little bit of taxation... not so much when the entity collecting the taxes is now asking for a large portion of what you make every year, and on TOP of that theft, is forcing you to do things you don't want to.

Or for that matter, it doesn't work out very well when people start talking about stripping away natural rights from others under the pretext of "safety". It's pretty hard to get people who believe in freedom to NOT be pissed off at the obvious ramifications.

-Mike

What he said. I have been an advocate for more incivility for a while now. I see no reason we should be "civil" to people who are trying to screw us. What we should be is as uncivil as possible so they are scared $h!tless of us and can't use the excuse any more that "the people are behind this".

Being uncivil to them forces the curtain to be drawn back and exposes them for the tyrannical a-holes they really are.

 

[calsdad]

The most major problem we have in this country is that we have allowed politicians to divide us. We've been factionalized and now think of the other side as trying to "destroy America" when the truth is that the entire POINT of America was to allow people with differing views and lifestyles to live together. What is needed in this country, more than anything else, is a willingness to compromise and tolerate and a willingness to try to understand where the other side is coming from. Failing to do that is what has lead us to keep electing the corrupt worthless bums that we elect, because we're so unbelievably scared of what the other side is going to do....

...and meanwhile, BOTH sides are participating in the most egregious dismantling of the country. Who cares about gay marriage and all this BS when the government has gutted the 4th amendment and funneled hundreds of billions of dollars of our money to prop up failing businesses? We're busy pumping money into Afghanistan and Iraq with the flip side being that we are completely bankrupting OURSELVES to do it. We've got lawmakers siphoning off tens of billions for worthless pet projects and tens of billions more to incarcerate pot heads.

The angry, fearful rhetoric from BOTH sides is what allows this to keep happening. It's pretty simple. They keep us distracted and meanwhile they do whatever the hell they want with our money.

That said, I don't see things being fixable anymore. I have spent a lot of time discussing politics online for many many years now and I used to think that maybe the internet would be a means to communicate with people you might not otherwise talk to, and therefore a means to build understanding and opposition to the career politicians that are killing the country. In the time I've been doing this I've only seen things get worse. People are more polarized than ever and the politicians are taking bigger and bigger liberties with our money and our way of life.

So I guess what I'm saying is, who gives a rat's ass about being civil anymore. If you want to "do the right thing" and try to save this country then, yea, you have GOT to be civil...but you're fighting a losing battle.

I can't believe the rhetoric that's been going around since the shootings. I'm a libertarian and thus maybe not on the same page as some on this site in some areas of politics but in terms of our 2A rights I am right there, and I am flabbergasted by the complete lack of common sense and more importantly FACTS to back up these gun control nuts. I talk to people and I ask for some evidence that what they are advocating makes sense...in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't...and they go "BUT HE SHOT ALL THOSE PEOPLE". I'm totally willing to listen to a factual, reasoned, gun control argument (even if I don't agree) but the truth is these idiots believe in something completely counter logical and counter-factual. And they BELIEVE in it.

People with "different views" cannot live together civilly when one group of people is actively trying to screw over the other group.

A Mustang owner can live next to a Camaro owner - and they can argue back and forth about which is best until they are blue in the face and nobody really loses anything.

If a vegetable garden owner lives next to a person who thinks that all food just grows wild and she is entitled to pick whatever she wants because it is "the bounty of the earth" - there is going to be a problem.


There should not be compromise with people who are actively trying to screw you. What is happening right now - is that a lot of people are waking up to the fact that their butt hurts and they are figuring out why.

 

[calsdad]

I'm not going to tone down my rhetoric when all of these thugs want to further usurp our rights. Barry Goldwater said it best, "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Don't tone down your rhetoric.

One of my favorite quotes!

 

[BigMike]

I wish anti's wouldn't fear the "I told you so!"

I wouldn't do that to them if they ever came around. I would only be happy to have them.

Then we could just forget it and move on to other things.

 

[Titan]

Some Dems/Progressives are naively ignorant, but I have no intention of being civil with individuals like Obama and his team of socialist czars who are intent on remolding the country into something we won't recognize.

 

[calsdad]

Some Dems/Progressives are naively ignorant, but I have no intention of being civil with individuals like Obama and his team of socialist czars who are intent on remolding the country into something we won't recognize.

Naively ignorant and willing to listen is different than ignorant and belligerent.