I’m posting this in Conservative because Discourse Magazine is produced by The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a conservative think thank.
It’s always fascinating to me when reactionary institutions produce pieces like this.
In her new book “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves,” Alexandra Hudson makes the case that these trends are real and disturbing. But she argues that addressing the merger of politics and entertainment and the politicization of the quotidian doesn’t require big, elite-driven social change. Rather, it begins with each of us—and daily decisions we make about how we relate to others.
Here’s something to consider in regards to civility in politics
Should anyone be civil to nazis?
Personally, I’d say so. It’s a common leftist trope that nazis are just fundamentally bad people that deserve death.
In contrast, I think most nazis people are redeemable. Nazi-ism grows in a certain environment. Outside of that environment, it dies in the crib because it’s unsustainable.
Nazis believe in the wholesale extermination of entire groups of human beings who deserve their own life, dignity, and happiness. I do not respect a belief system that advocates for the extermination of jews, trans people, gay people, people of color, or any human being based on their religion, culture, ethnic background, or sexuality. I will absolutely respect any person for their beliefs no matter how poorly informed, so long as that person accepts that people who are different than them–ALL people–deserve all the same rights, protections, and opportunities that they fight for themselves.
I will absolutely respect any person for their beliefs no matter how poorly informed, so long as that person accepts that people who are different than them–ALL people–deserve all the same rights, protections, and opportunities that they fight for themselves.
Right…except Nazis, of course. There’s always an exception. And then someone comes along to expand that the exception is in fact the norm. And suddenly, exceptions are everywhere! Oh no! We gotta kill people to make everything better!
Every time.
C’mon. I know what Nazis believe.
I’ve listened to Tucker Carlson, for example. And you know what? His identification of the problem is often not controversial. Rich people are fleecing the poor? Of course they are. Political elites are treated favorably by the justice system? Obviously. Inflation is making Americans poorer. Yep.
But his solutions are the problem, primarily because he doesn’t offer solutions, just an unending stream of how people are being taken advantage of to rile up their anger. And he channels that anger into reactionary politics.
Many of the problems he identifies are worth discussing. I will die on this hill. But that’s not an implicit endorsement of his or any Nazi solutions.
Well depends what a Nazi is. Few people limit it to just 1940s Germany.
That depends. Can you name any nazis? How do you define or identify a nazi?
Found the nazi
Ah yes, Nazis, surely the most relevant political movement of our time
But the article aside, the main issues are ones we all know. (GOP vs DNC)
-
Dems murder babies. That is cartoonishly evil.
-
Dems want to disarm us. That is insidisously evil.
-
Dems want to let in everyone north of the Darien Gap. That is idiotically evil.
-
Dems want to force leftism onto our kids. That is spreading evil.
I can go on, but it turns into smaller and smaller issues.
Dems continue onto act like they’re the good guys, and we’re the bad ones. Its straight up lying, and you can’t fix a failing relationship with lies.
Jesus christ do you really believe that?
Yes.
Does “murder babies” refer to just abortion or do you think people who lean politically left are like killing babies in the street?
Abortion. Unborn babies are still babies.
Well done. You owned him with facts and logic instead of resorting to ad hominems like conservatives always accuse leftists of. It just goes to show how stereotypes don’t always apply
Not a single one of those points is accurate or true. You are deeply misinformed about leftist goals.
Republicans want to force children to have babies. Evil. Republicans want to institute a theocracy. Evil. Republicans want an ethnonationalist state. Evil Republicans hate gay people. Evil (to me). Republicans rape and pillage the planet for short term profits. Evil.
See how easy that is? Just saying shit is evil doesn’t make it evil.
Because you, to me, are evil. But you don’t think you’re evil.
the article aside
That’s the problem.
“Civility,” she writes, “is a disposition, a way of seeing others as beings endowed with dignity and inherently valuable.
In contrast, you say that Dems are evil.
And how does one deal with evil? Do you makes deals with evil? Compromise with evil? Deliberate with evil? Exist along side evil? Say hi to your evil neighbor as you go about your day?
No. In fact, you do the exact opposite. You destroy and extinguish it every chance you get.
You and a lot of Republicans do not respect other people as people, but think of them as evil. You, like specifically you, and everyone else that think Dems as a group are evil, are, by definition of the article, uncivil. You do do not value Dems as people with differing views on how to achieve things we all have in common. You think they’re out to quite literally destroy civilization on behalf of Satan or whatever.
Interestingly, what is rule #2 of this instance?
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
Be civil.
I’m not sure what that means here.
Dems continue onto act like they’re the good guys, and we’re the bad ones. Its straight up lying, and you can’t fix a failing relationship with lies.
You’re right. If you believe Dems are evil, then you’re lying to yourself.
Ngl, it takes a lot for me not to hate Republicans, too. It’d be easy to. But part of not hating them is just not wanting to. Like, Republicans are a part of my family and my work life. Why would I want to hate these people? It seems asinine to hate people merely because they’re Republicans. The other part is not caricaturing them, also known as intellectual integrity. Thinking people are evil can only happen if you don’t talk to them. Sure, psychopaths exist, and they are evil, but most people aren’t psychopaths. They’re just regular people who wants wants best for them, their family, and their little corner of the world. Some of think abortions saves lives and preserves autonomy, others think it murders babies. Neither view is evil in any meaningful sense of the word. And the people who hold either view probably aren’t evil either. But it takes understanding why people believe what they believe from their mouths to truly understand that.
I disagree on yours points 1-4, but I don’t think you’re evil. And I don’t think you’re misguided or a fool or “voting against your interests”, or whatever stupid ass thing weak-minded Democrats come up with assuage their insecurities either. I think your experiences have led you to believe the exact opposite of me. That’s all. And that’s fine.
For the record, there is no compromising with baby murderers. It is the single most evil thing you can do, except for maybe torturing then murdering.
But for the rest, I do think a lot of the average proponents are just victims of propaganda. Look at all the studies into gun violence and all the mass shooting headlines, all proclaiming its the tool and not the person, all propaganda, and no one (including me) is immune to propaganda. Leftists think gun control is a good thing. Similar thing with illegal immigrants, propaganda and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
So there is hope, that some will change their minds.
And I do appreciate that you don’t think of us as evil.
I do think a lot of the average proponents are just victims of propaganda.
Yeah, Dems say this, too:"They’re voting against their own interests! No, Republicans are not doing that. When Democrats do that, they’re lying to themselves just as much as you are. Because, honestly, do you think they don’t understand what abortion is? Like…really?
Look at all the studies into gun violence and all the mass shooting headlines, all proclaiming its the tool and not the person, all propaganda,
Again, what makes these scientific studies propaganda? What makes scientific studies by right-wing thinks tanks not propaganda?
I do appreciate that you don’t think of us as evil.
You can show your appreciation by putting in the work of undoing the truly insidious propaganda that’s made you think other regular people are evil. Maybe Nancy Pelosi is. Maybe Trump is. But regular people just to live our lives, right?
As much as I want to be high minded and try to understand them and reach across the aisle, I can’t do the mental gymnastics required. I simply can’t put gun control proponent with a good smart person who hasn’t been affected by propaganda. Maybe not straight up evil, that lies with the dems, but theres just no way.
Also, gun violence takes a bunch of unrelated things, murder, suicide, accidents, and groups them together by the tool. Of course removing the tool is the answer to reducing gun violence, thats the only thing tying them together.
For example, if you want to reduce suicide, better mental health, better economy, better life in general. Raise the minimum wage.
Accidents are just accidents. Teach gun safety in schools, just like sex ed.
Murder? Same solution for any other high crime rate.
But you group them together, theres nothing tying them together. Its so incredibly obvious that I honestly don’t see how anyone wouldn’t immediately think its bullshit.
And regular people do just live their lives, this is mainly dnc politicians
For example, if you want to reduce suicide, better mental health, better economy, better life in general. Raise the minimum wage.
Look at that a point of agreement already that goes against the usual conservative belief in free markets. I too believe that improving the material conditions would reduce suicide and improve mental health and life generally.
Also, gun violence takes a bunch of unrelated things, murder, suicide, accidents, and groups them together by the tool.
That’s an interesting view of those issues. I suppose I don’t understand why they shouldn’t be grouped together by the tool when firearms are common to each of those issues. How do you think they should be understood?
The problem is the action, not the tool. Murder is bad. Suicide is bad. Accidents are bad. But they have different causes and different possible solutions. The tool used isn’t a cause, its just the tool.
I suppose I don’t understand why they shouldn’t be grouped together by the tool when firearms are common to each of those issues.
Traffic jams, double parking, and car bombs all make use of the same tool as well, but it would be asinine to put them all into the same bucket when they have entirely different causes.
Look at it this way, nobody is trying to put self harm via knife in the same category as some drug deal gone south involving a knife. So why is it reasonable to do the same when the tool is a gun? Both murder and suicide happen regardless of guns, and looking at statistics across places with more/less guns regarding murder, guns are an entirely irrelevant factor.
Traffic jams, double parking, and car bombs all make use of the same tool as well, but it would be asinine to put them all into the same bucket when they have entirely different causes.
Changing your means of transportation fixes all of those problems (well, not really car bombs…). Cyclists don’t get stuck in traffic jams. In places where you can lane split, motorcycles can also avoid traffic jams. All of those problems (except car bombs) stem from the fact that
people suck at drivingcars, trucks, and SUVs are not efficient modes of transportation.Similarly, firearms are an very efficient mode of killing people.
Look at it this way, nobody is trying to put self harm via knife in the same category as some drug deal gone south involving a knife. So why is it reasonable to do the same when the tool is a gun?
I’m having a really hard time understanding this. It’s like saying we can push nails in with a hammer or the back of a screwdriver; why does it matter which we use? In either case, the nail secures two pieces of wood. But…hammers are made for driving in nails. That is their purpose. That’s why it matters the we use a hammer to drive nails rather than the back of screwdriver.
But you’re saying the purpose of the tool doesn’t matter, right? The intent is the same in either case, to kill someone else or one’s self. And it’s the intent that matters more the effectiveness of the tool.
Analogically, it’s totally reasonable to construct houses by driving nails in with the backs of screwdrivers because a house gets built, the real intent.
Oh, I think I’m beginning to understand our difference: I just assume people will want to kill other people. Safety for me isn’t eliminating the desire to kill (as nice as that’d be), but reducing the chances that I’ll die should someone try to kill me. Having neither been shot nor stabbed, research suggests that I should prefer the proliferation of knives over firearms if I’d like to live another day.
-
I honestly can’t tell if this is an ad for the book, the spark notes, or something else entirely.
A book review.
