Why we need civility on THR

[hillbilly]

Again, I understand civility and operate in it most of the time.

However, I am not so naive as to think there is no limit to civility. And neither do I believe in complete civility until the time comes to use rifles.

Vandalzing ships and throwing their cargo of tea into the harbor was not very civil.

Neither was hanging various British officials in effigy.

Neither was breaking the windows and vandalizing the offices of corrupt government officials or tarring and
feathering those who "disagreed" with you. And all were done in the founding of this country and all came before the time to atually use the rifles.

The "Boston Massacre" did not happen because a bunch of evil British troops fired at a group of colonists showing mass civility. And that happened five years before any actual armed combat between colonials and redcoats.

What I fundamentally disagree with is "civility" as an end itself.

What I have a problem with is civility as a means of conflict avoidance. Which is what I see civility often used as.

There comes a time for the gloves to come off.

As for having friends who fundamentally disagree with you, yes it is possible. I have some friends like that.

But the fundamental truth is that if it ever comes to "throw down" time, those very friends may be the people you have to take out first.

I don't think I'm being paranoid here. Hundreds of thousands of Americans had friends and relatives they loved, but otherwise disagreed with over the question of black slavery in 1850. Within one decade, they came to "throw down" time. Within one decade they had to work to hurt, kill and otherwise destroy those friends and relatives. That's why that conflict got the rather ironic name of the "Civil" War.

With the situation today, us being involved in a World War against Islamist terror, I can see us coming to another such precipice.

We are going to come to a place where the gloves will have to come off. We are going to come to a time when we will alll have to divide everyone we know into "friends" and "enemies."

My friends will be those committed to freedom and liberty. My enemies will be those either hate freedom, or who are willing to sacrifice it for cheap results.

hillbilly

 

[MountainPeak]

Hillbilly, you stated your belief in a civil manner. I think that's the point.

 

[fjolnirsson]

When does the time for civility end? What are the limits?

\\

For me, I'll remain civil right up to the point where someone throws a punch. Of course, that's probably from my time spent as a bouncer. If I had a nickel for every time somebody insulted me, I wouldn't have to work anymore.

 

[Freedomv]

What an excelent post! I always learn something everytime I log on to THR.
One thing that I have noticed in life is that when a man or woman raises their voice or become foul with the launguage that they use while discussing or debating usually means that they do not wish to listen to reason or truth. Or quite often have run out of ideas to back up their position.
Boy that was one long sentence.

I don't believe anyone learns or changes their position on a peticular subject when they are being called names or insulted etc. while discussing or debating said subject. They just assume the other party is ignorant.

Thank you for posting, as I said it is excelent.
Vern

 

[Wildalaska]

Yer all a bunch of weenies, and Preach is a pantywaist! Vegetarians! Tofu eating pinky dangling couth imposers!

Rip* Tear* Shred* Bite*Kick*Drool* gnarrrrrrrrrrrrrgagagagagaggrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
gagaggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh chompchompchomp....nukethewhalesnukethewhales




I feel better now. I am Michael Savage incarnate!

WildrawtastysteakAlaska

 

[hillbilly]

One last thought I had about the limits of civility a passage from the New Testament.

Mark 11: 15-19.

Here's part of verse 15.

"And Jesus went into the temple and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves."

Be civil while you can. But realize there comes a time when civilty needs to end.

Just make sure you can tell when that time comes, and that you don't hang on to civility for civility's sake.

hillbilly

 

[P95Carry]

Excellent food for thought Peter and a great post - thx.

A lot can be achieved by ''do unto others'' .... not always but often. Plus, however much one feels like imposing invective and even expletives .. it is a useful excercise to step back and approach with civility - because in general civility breeds civility.

I do take Hillbilly's point tho that ultimately with a few folks .. the rope gets stretched just too far and then it's either ignore (preferable on THR) or ... give back some of same... seeming that it may be all they understand.

Oleg's email sequence also shows a useful approach .... no conversion but - a finish on better terms that started ... always useful.

 

[Stand_Watie]

"And Jesus went into the temple and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves."Be civil while you can. But realize there comes a time when civilty needs to end.

"You can kill a man, but be polite while you do it..."

I would argue that Jesus' actions were the ultimate expression of civility. He just chose to be civil to God's house over man's greed.

 

[PATH]

I like the post Preacherman. Civility is a wonderous thing.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Thanks Preacherman. While it's unfortunate you were made to feel the need to post this sort of thread, I am glad for the chance to read it.

 

[MikeJ]

Thank you Preacherman for reminding us of this value that we should all adhere to on THR.

Over the years, and there have been many of them, I have changed my mind on a variety of issues. I am proud to say that these changes were a direct result of questioning what had been told to me and deciding for myself exactly how I felt about the subject and not simply accepting something that had been handed down to me as a truth or by what is considered to be the correct political position. The reason I am bringing this up is because I can vividly remember people on either side of several issues adopting the attitude that they were right and good and anyone that disagreed with their point of view must somehow be not only stupid and ignorant but downright evil as well. And yes, I do believe that there are evil people out there, why do you think I carry a gun, but for the most part I truly believe that the great great majority of people really have good intentions and their opinions aren't born of stupidity but rather of their own perspective on the world and how they think problems can be solved. Civility to me means trying to understand the other person's point of view and if unable to do so at least allowing them to have it without name calling or engaging in other self righteous behavior. This is what we all can do on this forum when we don't see eye to eye, be civil to each other. This is, afterall, the internet and as I sit here and type this I feel nothing but appreciation for the fact that I have this medium to exchange knowledge and learn a great deal from the various members that belong to it. Excuse me if I have gone on longer than I should but this is a topic I feel very passionate about, the obligation of every free thinking person to engage in civil discourse and respect for the opinions of others.

 

[joe sixpack]

Thank you very much for the excellent post Preacherman.
This is totally befitting "The High Road". If this is not a "sticky"
it should be made one.

cheers, ab

 

[Dr.Who]

Nice Find, Great message, Wonderful Posting... Thanks...

 

[Gordy Wesen]

Civility: training in the humanities. Courtesy, politeness. A polite act or expression.

This fellows argument, while persuasive is simply a euphemism for virtue and virtue is an appeal for Godliness in character. This points to a root that is distinctly Christian in character.
I thought Hillsdale was a Christian college, so why would they bring in a fellow who would beat around the bush?

 

[Freedomv]

Very well said, Mike. I could not agree more with what you said and wish that I could convey my thoughts so well.

Having said that I realize that many misconceptions about people and their ideas comes from the lack of good communications. which is both speaking and listening skills.

Vern

 

[MP5]

Be civil while you can.

In today's American society, "while you can" is usually painfully short. Patience, self-control, and respect for self and others--those are closely linked--are no longer virtues for most people. Rather, the highest commandment is "If it feels good, do it right now and ignore the consequences," or in its simpler version, "F--k it!"

Along similar lines, few people bother to take the time to understand where others are coming from, which quickly leads to incivility. I've seen tons of it around here since arriving, particularly with the RKBA issue.

An excerpt from a related post of mine from another thread:


When dealing with so-called "antis" or "non-gun people" on RKBA issues, don't bring your own prejudices and bad attitudes to the table. If you aggressively confront someone on an issue, you back them into a corner where they feel they have to defensively cling to their viewpoint even harder.

Rather, politely have a real two-way conversation and try to understand the other person's views and concerns. Then you can legitimately say, "I see where you're coming from now, but have you considered this?" or "...but what do you think about this idea?" Doing that puts the ball in their court in a polite, non-confrontational way. You can't force someone to change their views, but you can potentially nudge them into changing their views on their own (and in a way that lets them save face). Asking those "do you think?" questions instead of making proclamations is very helpful in that effort.

Like Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War:

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

and

"If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

So the question is, do you just want to get into futile arguments for kicks, or do you genuinely want to encourage someone to shift their views?

 

[griz]

I guess it comes down to the definition. As has been quoted, you can kill a man "politely". I remember having a conversation about Clinton's administration reprimanding some GI's for painting something like "happy Ramadan" on the bombs they were dropping. My sister thought that was uncivil; I thought it was necessary to allow the soldiers to hate the enemy. Maybe my position isn't too far from Hillbilly's.

 

[spartacus2002]

Thank you, Preacherman, for posting this.

This thread dovetails nicely into the other thread about laying off the cop-bashing. I've participated in the cop-bashing threads myself, and I've regretted the incivility of some of my remarks. This is The High Road and its focus is on the community of firearms enthusiasts, and that is where we should keep that focus.

I came here as a refugee from The FAL Files, where the current events and news fora are feeding frenzies everytime one of a certain set of members makes any comment -- even with agreeing with an adversary!! THe hatred and bile are disgusting. It was hard to see a good board fall so far, and as a result I now spend 95% of my time here.

I heard a quote from G. Gordon Liddy once, that politeness and civility are the lubricant that makes the gears of society function.

Let's keep the focus on firearms, not politics, on THR, and if we disagree with a poster, let's disagree with his comments, not him/her. Remember, a poster here is a fellow member of the community of firearms enthusiasts, and thus more of a brother than not, regardless of profession.

 

[TonyB]

I believe in civility...but just like Jesus and the moneychangers..sometimes you reap what you sow.
I try to always be polite....however I don't imagine that any of us would be too polite if some dirtbag was about to rape and kill a member of our family......on the web we're all just pretty much monday morning quaterbacking and blowing our own horn...petending to actually know what we're talking about......so we SHOULD be polite..it's only the freaking internet..not life and death....everyone relax and BREATHE.....

 

[Joe Demko]

We've been down this road before. We've discussed it in countless threads. The core of the issue is that we have a subset of members who believe that it is acceptable, even necessary, to speak of their "enemies" in contemptuous terms since they believe those people to be worthy of nothing better.
Art Eatman and I discussed this once via pm. For too many of our members, it isn't enough that the opposition (whoever they are) be wrong. They have to be evil, murderous, inspired by Satan, and wear ugly ties too.
I never thought I'd say this, but THR has become tiresome of late. The same-old same-old every blessed day in the fora where politics are discussed. The crap is seeping over into the other fora too.
The best part of all of it is that neither of the candidates who are the inspiration for all the hostility are worth their weight in dog droppings.

 

[MeekandMild]

a subset of members who ... speak of their "enemies" in contemptuous terms...crap is seeping over ... neither of the candidates ... are worth their weight in dog droppings.

Venn diagrams?

 

[fallingblock]

MeekandMild.....

 

[Byron Quick]

I think that some are confusing civility with passivity or pacifism. Sir Winston S. Churchill, while Prime Minister of the British Empire, was once soundly criticized in Parliament for his very mannerly correspondence with the ambassador of the Japanese Empire after its suprise attack on the British Empire. His reply to the criticism was,"Just because you have to kill a man is no reason to be impolite."

I will be polite right up to the time that I am ready to enter into lethal hostilities...and after.

I'd like to add that we moderators cannot read every post in every thread. We have other duties and responsibilities which vie for our time. There is a button labeled "report this post to the moderator." In the event that some member does not hold to the standards of THR please use this feature. If they are, in fact, engaging in incivility...they will be warned. If they cannot heed the warning, they will be shown the door. With civility.

 

[Pug Puppy]

I remember reading historical accounts of how people conducted themselves in the 1920s: people of the outlaw persuasion were actually jailed for bad--mouthing people known to be "nice gals and guys."
This applied equally to both genders. It was a misdemeanor offence, and only applied to false social accusations-like scrawling on the bathroom room wall that RB got DR pregnant.
It any case, the penalty was a week in jail.
Dueling? NO! What if somebody's young sister or brother avenged their
fallen brother or sister, by showing up at a pistol fight with an SKS?!
Today's lawsuits: NO!
The 1920s system: YES!
Respect must be earned by first being given.
Truly an insightful thread, Preacherman.
God be with you always, my friend.

 

[Tom Bri]

In my experience, rudeness, insults and rough language are for close friends. People who understand you already. I have had some serious arguments with harsh language spoken, then bought the guy the next round and we went on being friends.

Politeness is for strangers, aquaintances, workmates. Cold formalistic politness is for enemies.

Several times (ahem) I have shot off an angry post on the internet, and got flamed back. If I send another mail, stating that I still think I was right, but apologizing for being rude, I get a smooth reply back, and we can continue the discusion reasonably.

If you like getting bit, go around kicking dogs.