A Modest Proposal for a Culture of Civility

[bripat9643]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

Bravo.

Looking at this problem from a cultural perspective, my guess is that it won't happen unless and until (1) "leaders" in our society - from all walks of life, from politics to religion to sports to pop culture - bravely lead the way, and throw down the gauntlet and challenge their supporters to behave more civilly, and (2) the more hateful and divisive voices on both ends of the spectrum are culturally marginalized as a result.

I may be naive here, but I think that could happen. It would just take a few brave souls to start the momentum. And the reason I think it will take "leaders", specifically, is because our culture is so quick to idolize and follow. We make "celebrities" out of nearly anyone, and their "endorsement" has tangible value.
.

You are incredibly naive.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Eloy]

Thank you for making my point for me.

You're welcome. Civility is a trait related to surrender and giving up, not winning. It's a waste of time and sets a bad precedent.

It sounds like you believe civility is weakness. I respectfully disagree. The strongest cases are often those made the most quietly, with conviction and reason.

Do you feel that way when you talk to your son or daughter? Do you require them to fight with you so that you don't see them as weak?

national politics is not like a family, most of the time the violent ones tend to get their way in world politics, civility hasn't accomplished crap

It is true that bullies get their way for a while, even in international politics, but they usually meet their match eventually.

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

 

[kaz]

There are a lot of things that go into right and wrong, including culture. Few things are black and white in life, including morality

No there aren't. They're Universal concepts. You folks just don't want to accept that because they don't fit your BS worldview.

I think a lot more of God than you do

 

[Unkotare]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

Everyone on my 'ignore' list is there because of rudeness.

Wrong

How do you know differently, if I may ask.

You're not unique.

 

[dblack]

I think a lot more of God than you do

That's a bold assertion. Are you claiming you spend more time thinking of God? Or just that when you do think of God you do it 'more'?

 

[NCC1701]

You're welcome. Civility is a trait related to surrender and giving up, not winning. It's a waste of time and sets a bad precedent.

It sounds like you believe civility is weakness. I respectfully disagree. The strongest cases are often those made the most quietly, with conviction and reason.

Do you feel that way when you talk to your son or daughter? Do you require them to fight with you so that you don't see them as weak?

national politics is not like a family, most of the time the violent ones tend to get their way in world politics, civility hasn't accomplished crap

It is true that bullies get their way for a while, even in international politics, but they usually meet their match eventually.

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The country has divided into warring enemy camps. There is no civility toward the enemy in foxholes.

That's because there is no middle ground any longer. The right is pushing to go more right and the left is pushing to go more left.

Where is the middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism?

There is none. But you can disagree without name calling

Are you referring to me or somebody else?

 

[Eloy]

It sounds like you believe civility is weakness. I respectfully disagree. The strongest cases are often those made the most quietly, with conviction and reason.

Do you feel that way when you talk to your son or daughter? Do you require them to fight with you so that you don't see them as weak?

national politics is not like a family, most of the time the violent ones tend to get their way in world politics, civility hasn't accomplished crap

It is true that bullies get their way for a while, even in international politics, but they usually meet their match eventually.

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

 

[Avatar4321]

The country has divided into warring enemy camps. There is no civility toward the enemy in foxholes.

That's because there is no middle ground any longer. The right is pushing to go more right and the left is pushing to go more left.

Where is the middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism?

There is none. But you can disagree without name calling

Are you referring to me or somebody else?

Someone else

 

[NCC1701]

national politics is not like a family, most of the time the violent ones tend to get their way in world politics, civility hasn't accomplished crap

It is true that bullies get their way for a while, even in international politics, but they usually meet their match eventually.

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

 

[Eloy]

It is true that bullies get their way for a while, even in international politics, but they usually meet their match eventually.

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

 

[kaz]

I think a lot more of God than you do

That's a bold assertion. Are you claiming you spend more time thinking of God? Or just that when you do think of God you do it 'more'?

What a stupid post. You completely didn't grasp the discussion. Try again

 

[NCC1701]

usually by violence is how they meet their match

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

this is one reason why I can't be civil with you guys, you are liars.

I would 'have you believe' it was Reagan? I never mentioned the man, its right here in black and white letters, I never mentioned anything about him you liar. I said the shitty socialist economy failed and Americans footed the bill for 50 years in defense of you to wait it out, that is why Gorby wanted reforms. He wanted prosperity and better relations.

I am actually sorry that I paid my tax dollars to make your place better, I wish we would have stayed home and let you deal with hitler and Stalin yourself. I wish that because of people like you

 

[Eloy]

Sometimes from within.

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

this is one reason why I can't be civil with you guys, you are liars.

I would 'have you believe' it was Reagan? I never mentioned the man, its right here in black and white letters, I never mentioned anything about him you liar. I said the shitty socialist economy failed and Americans footed the bill for 50 years in defense of you to wait it out, that is why Gorby wanted reforms. He wanted prosperity and better relations.

I am actually sorry that I paid my tax dollars to make your place better, I wish we would have stayed home and let you deal with hitler and Stalin yourself. I wish that because of people like you

Are you calling me a liar?

 

[Lastamender]

Thank you for making my point for me.

You're welcome. Civility is a trait related to surrender and giving up, not winning. It's a waste of time and sets a bad precedent.

We are loosing virility. We have laws that keep us civil, when they are enforced.

 

[NCC1701]

and most of the time violently so, within or external makes no difference, I am surprised a European could be so niave

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

this is one reason why I can't be civil with you guys, you are liars.

I would 'have you believe' it was Reagan? I never mentioned the man, its right here in black and white letters, I never mentioned anything about him you liar. I said the shitty socialist economy failed and Americans footed the bill for 50 years in defense of you to wait it out, that is why Gorby wanted reforms. He wanted prosperity and better relations.

I am actually sorry that I paid my tax dollars to make your place better, I wish we would have stayed home and let you deal with hitler and Stalin yourself. I wish that because of people like you

Are you calling me a liar?

I first posted this: 'the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe'

To which you responded: "You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!""

Tell you what, I'll let you pick. If you deliberately distorted what I said then you are a liar, if you did it because you can't understand then you are an incompetent. Logically it is one of those two, your choice

 

[Anathema]

I think a lot more of God than you do

I've already seen what's behind the curtains of your God. It's a cute illusion but an illusion none the less.

 

[Eloy]

You would benefit from reading about the fall of the Soviet Union from within and without bloodshed. The same goes for European countries which had been under the influence of Moscow and became democratic without violence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Europeans know about their history.

You would benefit from reading more, the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe, not an eastern European peaceful resistance. you also ignore all the violent rebellions previously such as East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956), and Czecheslovakia (1978), and the fact they had to live for 50 years in hell

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

this is one reason why I can't be civil with you guys, you are liars.

I would 'have you believe' it was Reagan? I never mentioned the man, its right here in black and white letters, I never mentioned anything about him you liar. I said the shitty socialist economy failed and Americans footed the bill for 50 years in defense of you to wait it out, that is why Gorby wanted reforms. He wanted prosperity and better relations.

I am actually sorry that I paid my tax dollars to make your place better, I wish we would have stayed home and let you deal with hitler and Stalin yourself. I wish that because of people like you

Are you calling me a liar?

I first posted this: 'the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe'

To which you responded: "You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!""

Tell you what, I'll let you pick. If you deliberately distorted what I said then you are a liar, if you did it because you can't understand then you are an incompetent. Logically it is one of those two, your choice

I claimed that the Soviet Union system of government changed in a bloodless revolution. Why? Because the economy was failing. You were incorrect to describe the economy of the Soviet Union as "socialist". It was a command economy.

However, I have read enough American editorials and heard enough Americans to know that they believe they won the Cold War. Your argument was the same by your claim that somehow the Americans won because of their determination. This is the claim that I find funny. I have heard so many American politicians seriously claim this almost always due to Ronald Reagan. They actually and I suppose seriously believe that there was no agency of the German people themselves to reject the system they lived under and it was they themselves who tore down the wall which was symbolic of tearing down their authoritarian government which was underpinned by the Soviets.

The Americans played no part in East Germany's reunification of the German people. So, I caricatured your thinking that somehow American military might had any part in East Germans' rejection of the GDR by mentioning Ronald Reagan as a symbol of American military strength as if the German and Russian people had no agency. No, it was not due to the Americans but to the Russian people and the East German people as well as the people of other east European countries to revolt peacefully against their governments. This was a massive destruction of a system from within as I had originally said.

By the way, you will hear only Americans write and say things as you did. It is a distortion of history. The Russian people as well as those in eastern Europe did have agency. Without their choice of democracy and freedom, there would have been no bloodless revolts (with the notable exception of Romania). You missed that I mentioned Ronald Reagan as an image of American thinking, such as yours. I never claimed that you mentioned Ronald Reagan. Note my words which were carefully chosen ... You would have us believe. Not you actually believe.

So, I did not lie and I understand very well what you were claiming about the American agency. I am neither a liar nor incompetent but I confess to being somewhat wry.

 

[Clementine]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure it didn't die down, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. ACORN arranged bus tours of AIG execs' home to begin the process of pitting the poor against the wealthy. Class warfare began. Of course, that was after the government bailed the "too big to fail" companies out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

 

[Eloy]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.