Civility

NationalTitles18 · Jun 27, 2018

Intl.Aperture said:
They start off immediately on the wrong foot by not specifying and agreeing on what "civility" is.
So I really can't find any value in what they say as they've failed to define the term over which they are talking about and when they DO back into a definition it's either one I don't agree with or far too narrow a facet of the term as to be useful for the purpose of their discussion.

Civility is a mindset - not a mode of speech. Civility pays respect, whether amiable or wary, to the position, attitudes and methods of your opponent. You may not respect all 3 at the same time but respecting any of the 3 governors your behavior towards them.

So, when Dems were in power, I didn't respect their attitude and their methods were spotty here and there but I respected the position of power they held. By "Respect" I don't mean false deference, but acknowledging the power, significance, or bearing that they held at that point in time. We were in the middle of a vastly different type of cultural movement during the Obama years and disrespecting the tidal flow of power dems exercised over the federal and state governments would have curried no favor, changed no minds, and become an obstacle to my own personal education. It's why current Republicans in Congress look even more pathetic. Their entire effort was spent in thwarting Obama and shoveling mud at him that they failed to unite and form a cohesive plan of what to do when they regained power. Their disrespect was only toxic to their own goals when it came to policy.

To me, civility matters not just because of the golden rule but because I find it a tactically defensible mentality.

The bolded is what is happening on the other side of the isle now and the price will be paid for that in time as well.

Intl.Aperture · Jun 27, 2018

NationalTitles17 said:
The bolded is what is happening on the other side of the isle now and the price will be paid for that in time as well.

It was my attempt to insinuate that. It's why I believe throwing civility out of the window and going after your opponent full-stop is not only over the line, but also not tactically sound.

Bamabuzzard · Jun 27, 2018

92tide said:
what it helped me with the most was being able to listen better to folks who have experienced discrimination and bigotry and gain an understanding that while i was against all of those things, vocally in many cases, i didn't realize how pervasive it was (it's a lot more than having some lunatic yelling racial slurs at you while you are trying to work) and that i still brushed a lot of things off as just complaining. i have begun to learn how it basically dictates your life when you are subject to it and what you end up doing to try to avoid and/or ignore it. things i have never had to deal with.

The old folks used to say "You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. You need to listen twice as much as you talk." LOL! I can hear my great grandmother now saying that. But there's some wisdom in that old saying. Listening to someone helps not only to understand their behavior, thoughts, mindsets, experiances etc. It also gives an opportunity to see them as a person, their "humanness". When we demonize others we do so (whether we consciously mean to or not) in order to dehumanize them to make it easier to talk to them and treat them like an object, rather than as a person. I think that's why the black man I mentioned above had such success with his approach because he was able to get those racist individuals to talk to him, listen to him and as they did so they saw his humanness. It broke down a lot of barriers. That was one of the most moving stories I've seen in a long, long time.

92tide · Jun 27, 2018

Bamabuzzard said:
The old folks used to say "You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. You need to listen twice as much as you talk." LOL! I can hear my great grandmother now saying that. But there's some wisdom in that old saying. Listening to someone helps not only to understand their behavior, thoughts, mindsets, experiances etc. It also gives an opportunity to see them as a person, their "humanness". When we demonize others we do so (whether we consciously mean to or not) in order to dehumanize them to make it easier to talk to them and treat them like an object, rather than as a person. I think that's why the black man I mentioned above had such success with his approach because he was able to get those racist individuals to talk to him, listen to him and as they did so they saw his humanness. It broke down a lot of barriers. That was one of the most moving stories I've seen in a long, long time.

i think legalization of gay marriage moved relatively quickly (at least quicker than i thought it would) because there are a lot of folks who personally knew someone affected by it and could see past the nasty rhetoric.

Bazza · Jun 27, 2018

Friend of mine posted this on FB......thought it was pretty good:

So I think Maxine Waters is onto something though I wish she’d included all of Congress and herself, I’m calling for mass harassment of everyone for everything, because by god, somebody somewhere has ....ed us off or we disagree with them. I’m personally starting with all employees at Ping and Titleist and any related companies , golf courses, golf carts etc etc because I can’t drive the ball straight and I’m sure it’s their products and everyone at Big Machine records for ruining country music. I’m sure I’ll think of more. We’ve really just become part of a real life Monty Python movie.

92tide · Jun 27, 2018

Bazza said:
Friend of mine posted this on FB......thought it was pretty good:

So I think Maxine Waters is onto something though I wish she’d included all of Congress and herself, I’m calling for mass harassment of everyone for everything, because by god, somebody somewhere has ....ed us off or we disagree with them. I’m personally starting with all employees at Ping and Titleist and any related companies , golf courses, golf carts etc etc because I can’t drive the ball straight and I’m sure it’s their products and everyone at Big Machine records for ruining country music. I’m sure I’ll think of more. We’ve really just become part of a real life Monty Python movie.

if only we were talking about golf balls and not small children being taken from their parents.

jthomas666 · Jun 27, 2018

92tide said:
if only we were talking about golf balls and not small children being taken from their parents.

Trevor Noah has a great segment on the civility argument. Can't link to it, but it's easily found on the interwebs.

Bazza · Jun 27, 2018

92tide said:
if only we were talking about golf balls and not small children being taken from their parents.

Yeah but why go after Mad Dog Mattis? Or his staff? That was the point....some people should be held accountable but the entire administration? That IS like going after the company that makes your golf ball.

jthomas666 · Jun 27, 2018

Bazza said:
Yeah but why go after Mad Dog Mattis? Or his staff? That was the point....some people should be held accountable but the entire administration? That IS like going after the company that makes your golf ball.

Suggesting that a cabinet member not be held accountable for the actions of the administration is a little silly, don't you think?

Now, some low level functionary, sure. But if you help set policy or are in some other way the public face of the administration...then you're the public face of the administration.

rolltide_21 · Jun 27, 2018

TIDE-HSV said:
There's a lot of truth in what you say. One of the most regretful aspects of the polarization is that it leaves centrists out in the cold. I'm a social progressive (really libertarian) and a financial conservative. Once, there was a place for people like me in the Republican Party. Clearly, the party has moved off and left me on both counts. In fact, the only litmus test remaining seems to be pro or anti Trump...

This is where I stand politically too. I’ve never been able to state it as concisely as you have here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rolltide_21 · Jun 27, 2018

I would add a couple other aspects which keep NS from having a “civil” discussion. First there is the pack mentality and attacking one who disagrees with them. You disagree with one and here comes 2-3 more with snark, innuendo, and passive aggressive comments. It turns into three pages of unrelated, unreadable posts attacking an individual. I understand having thick skin and all but it’s hard to have a discussion when that is going on in the thread. There have been times when I felt sorry for a poster or two due to this. A pack mentality makes a civilized discussion almost impossible.

Second, regarding snark and passive aggressive statements, Bamabuzzard summed it up well in another thread- there’s a lot of courage which comes from sitting behind a keyboard. The “distance” of the internet allows someone to say things they would never directly say to another in person.

Sorry for the rant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bazza · Jun 28, 2018

rolltide_21 said:
I would add a couple other aspects which keep NS from having a “civil” discussion. First there is the pack mentality and attacking one who disagrees with them. You disagree with one and here comes 2-3 more with snark, innuendo, and passive aggressive comments. It turns into three pages of unrelated, unreadable posts attacking an individual. I understand having thick skin and all but it’s hard to have a discussion when that is going on in the thread. There have been times when I felt sorry for a poster or two due to this. A pack mentality makes a civilized discussion almost impossible.

Second, regarding snark and passive aggressive statements, Bamabuzzard summed it up well in another thread- there’s a lot of courage which comes from sitting behind a keyboard. The “distance” of the internet allows someone to say things they would never directly say to another in person.

Sorry for the rant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent post - thank you.

What you refer to is what I call the "piling on" effect.

One person drops a snark and others sensing a fresh wound follow suit.

I guess it really is a basic instinct similar to what we see in animals in the wild.

Does that say something about "us" humans?

chanson78 · Jun 28, 2018

While this may not be a popular idea, there are two parties to any conversation. There seems to be a lot of talk about civility in responding to posts. I think many confuse being challenged with combative or uncivilized. There are plenty of times where there have been drive by posts that when replies have asked for either more details or supporting information, the original poster shrugs and says “hey it’s just an opinion, don’t attack me.”

Any discussion has one or more parties. Expecting to be able to say whatever and not be challenged when on a discussion board seems just as uncivil as drive by snark responses.

Intl.Aperture · Jun 28, 2018

chanson78 said:
While this may not be a popular idea, there are two parties to any conversation. There seems to be a lot of talk about civility in responding to posts. I think many confuse being challenged with combative or uncivilized. There are plenty of times where there have been drive by posts that when replies have asked for either more details or supporting information, the original poster shrugs and says “hey it’s just an opinion, don’t attack me.”

Any discussion has one or more parties. Expecting to be able to say whatever and not be challenged when on a discussion board seems just as uncivil as drive by snark responses.

Agreed.

Bazza · Jun 28, 2018

jthomas666 said:
Suggesting that a cabinet member not be held accountable for the actions of the administration is a little silly, don't you think?

Now, some low level functionary, sure. But if you help set policy or are in some other way the public face of the administration...then you're the public face of the administration.

OK here's an analogy that may represent what I think my friend (and I) was saying......

Let's say the University of Alabama's president (along with it's board of directors) decides to limit the number of scholarships to those coming in from out of state.

The next day you see Coach Saban in a restaurant.

Assuming you disagreed with this change in policy by the university......

Would you verbally assault Coach Saban because he's employed by the college at a high ranking position?

May not be exactly apples to apples but perhaps close enough to make the point that not everyone associated with a particular institution deserves to be harassed when you disagree with a particular change in policy - or how it's enforced.

92tide · Jun 28, 2018

chanson78 said:
While this may not be a popular idea, there are two parties to any conversation. There seems to be a lot of talk about civility in responding to posts. I think many confuse being challenged with combative or uncivilized. There are plenty of times where there have been drive by posts that when replies have asked for either more details or supporting information, the original poster shrugs and says “hey it’s just an opinion, don’t attack me.”

Any discussion has one or more parties. Expecting to be able to say whatever and not be challenged when on a discussion board seems just as uncivil as drive by snark responses.

or "hey, i'm just asking questions"

Bamabuzzard · Jun 28, 2018

chanson78 said:
While this may not be a popular idea, there are two parties to any conversation. There seems to be a lot of talk about civility in responding to posts. I think many confuse being challenged with combative or uncivilized. There are plenty of times where there have been drive by posts that when replies have asked for either more details or supporting information, the original poster shrugs and says “hey it’s just an opinion, don’t attack me.”

Any discussion has one or more parties. Expecting to be able to say whatever and not be challenged when on a discussion board seems just as uncivil as drive by snark responses.

I think a great rule of thumb (because my wife tells me this when we "discuss" things) is to stay away from sarcasm and snark and just address the issue or statement "you" disagree with. Matter of fact, I got myself in a bear trap of sorts last night because of it. The wife and I disagreed on something we were discussing and I inserted a snarky, sarcastic response in addressing something she said. I'll quote a country song from many years ago to describe the "benefit" of doing that:

"It's too hot to fish, too hot for golf, and too cold at home."

CharminTide · Jun 28, 2018

Bazza said:
OK here's an analogy that may represent what I think my friend (and I) was saying......

Let's say the University of Alabama's president (along with it's board of directors) decides to limit the number of scholarships to those coming in from out of state.

The next day you see Coach Saban in a restaurant.

Assuming you disagreed with this change in policy by the university......

Would you verbally assault Coach Saban because he's employed by the college at a high ranking position?

May not be exactly apples to apples but perhaps close enough to make the point that not everyone associated with a particular institution deserves to be harassed when you disagree with a particular change in policy - or how it's enforced.

Not even close to being comparable.

92tide · Jun 28, 2018

Bamabuzzard said:
I think a great rule of thumb (because my wife tells me this when we "discuss" things) is to stay away from sarcasm and snark and just address the issue or statement "you" disagree with. Matter of fact, I got myself in a bear trap of sorts last night because of it. The wife and I disagreed on something we were discussing and I inserted a snarky, sarcastic response in addressing something she said. I'll quote a country song from many years ago to describe the "benefit" of doing that:

"It's too hot to fish, too hot for golf, and too cold at home."

hey now, this is non-sports, not the strip

occasionally i am able to restrain the snark with my wife. lucky for me, she is also a smart arse.

Bazza · Jun 28, 2018

chanson78 said:
While this may not be a popular idea, there are two parties to any conversation. There seems to be a lot of talk about civility in responding to posts. I think many confuse being challenged with combative or uncivilized. There are plenty of times where there have been drive by posts that when replies have asked for either more details or supporting information, the original poster shrugs and says “hey it’s just an opinion, don’t attack me.”

Any discussion has one or more parties. Expecting to be able to say whatever and not be challenged when on a discussion board seems just as uncivil as drive by snark responses.

I had someone say to me "it wouldn't matter" when asked to clarify their statement when they responded to one of my posts where I expressed an opinion.

They were the one who challenged my opinion. Not the other way around.

I responded by saying something to the effect "OK.....that's fine."

Sure....I could have escalated things. But what would be the point.

Asked and answered as they say in court.

We're moving on.......

Civility

TideFans Legend

All-American

FB Moderator

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

All-American

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!