Is civil discourse dead?

Religion always co-existed with civil discourse, infact more peolpe were more religious 20 or so years ago.

I think it’s more a matter of a change in peolpe’s behaviours over time. We are less patient in general. We are used to reaching everywhere fast, sending messages instantaneously etc. So we’ve lost this part of us that allowed us to be patient and so we are not tolerant of other people’s views.

I believe it no longer exists or atleast is very rare. Another reason is that sometimes people will appreciate a loud, aggresive speaker as opposed to the quiet one making sense but not talking as loud. It’s our fault for allowing this to happen. We shouldn’t put up with it.

It’s a dog eat dog world and people feel the need to be heard over and above others. Since it’s a slipperly slope, one person deviates from civil discourse and all of a sudden no one is willing to remain calm.

p.s. why is this in general?

@sarahhhhh : It’s in general to keep it civil and to discourage idol chit chat about pancakes, etc.

It ought to be dead. Crimes such as the theft of a presidential election, followed by the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars should not be tolerated in any way.

Gadzooks, the incivility is not house only in the ranks of the faith-based. ”Civil discourse cannot survive in the face of rabid religiosity.” I feel it won’t survive if one doesn’t know what house one is playing to. Non-religious people can, and often, are just as rabidly stubborn and unyielding. When one is speaking of things of faith it stands on a different criteria than those things that are not.

Things dealing apart from faith, off facts, theories, conjecture, and speculation should entertain the widest latitude of probability but often don’t. Some people want so much not to have to be accountable to nothing that any ideal other than what can be measured, felt, smelt, seen, theorized, or conjectured, is too unfathomable to deal with. No one wants to be incorrect because somehow that means someone else maybe right. The ideal is not to have them correct in any part because that whittles away at the truth a given party wants to believe. Once you have to resort to catcalls, insults, and the likes, I feel it is because your argument ran out of steam or could no longer hold water.

I will look at anyone’s argument, if you can show it to me airtight like gravity with no possible other way, then I would agree. If there is a shadow that something else could be probable or plausible then I would except that plausibility and say maybe the argument has some merit, but I am not going to buy it hook line and sinker. If the argument is strong, the person can make it with their words. Even if you do not care for the issue if there is any plausibility there are facets of it that is positive or correct. If one applies, logic with a calm demeanor is better than knee-jerk emotion because you don’t care to admit any part of it is correct and logical as if that agreement of the facts or logic is a de facto admission of support.

I have no idea, really. It could be a number of things. Some people are tired of being the quiet, sensible ones, while watching all the loud people be heard. Some people are really passionate and honestly believe their way is right, regardless if it is or not (that’s a different discussion). Many people aren’t taught civil discourse or debate (I wasn’t). Maybe older people tend to be set in their ways more, and think there are objective truths, values, and ways of life which should be followed. Maybe some people let media scare them, so they are always in that mode of urgency about today’s problems (omg we have to do something now!).

@hawaii_jake I completely agree with the final paragraph posed in your question.

I know that is only one small example of having no civil discourse, but it’s extremely true.
I am an athetist. but that doesn’t mean I will completly diminish a ‘believers’ opinion/argument about the existence of god. But on the flipside, I am disreguarded for not believing.

I think there are many factors at work here, but I personally believe that the “cheapening” of language plays a role. And I’ll lay the blame on the social media. It’s easy to express an opinion in a public forum—I’m doing so now. And there is no special knowledge that I possess that allows me to climb on the soapbox. We also exist in an era of entitlement. I’m entitled to climb on the soapbox and offer up my rant. As a society, we have blurred the lines between information and communication.

The extreme right has done much to destroy civil discourse. Firstly, they distrust science. Secondly, they see compromise as a dirty word. I do not know how the validity of factual statements can be determined without science and I do not know how democracy, let alone civil discourse can be maintained without a willingness to listen to the other side.

I see the decline of civil discourse as part of a much larger phenomenon. The past few decades have seen a greater and greater willingness, especially in America, to question the rules of conduct that have governed social interaction for centuries.

This has had many, many benefits. Society had become quite rule-bound, and many of the strictures were founded on erroneous beliefs or were just plain silly. We have needed for a long time to weed out the nonsense from our social rules. Some of those rules still serve to make society function better, though. The weeding-out process will necessarily involve learning by trial and error which rules we can do without.

How often do you hear the word “honor” used in modern America? It used to be an important and quite topical concept. Generally, it referred to how well one constrained one’s impulses and abided by society’s explicit and implicit rules of conduct. One’s honor was one’s most cherished possession. For many other cultures, that’s still the case. There was a huge social penalty for failure to adhere to the rules. Loss of honor was social death.

What we’re now seeing is that there is far less social enforcement of the rules. There’s little to no social penalty for transgressions such as overly casual or revealing dress, gender-crossing behaviors, tattoos, swearing, etc. All of that would have been socially punished decades ago. Now it my raise some eyebrows at most. The concept of “honor” can’t really thrive in this environment. For the most part I’m not mourning its demise; in many ways it has ill-served humanity.

Social discourse is about rules, too. There are some things you just don’t say because they impinge on the other party’s honor, or defile your own. People are now more willing to question the necessity of those discursive rules, too. They’re seeing what public discourse is like without those rules. I think we’re now finding that some of those rules really do help society function better.

The discussions both in public and a lot here have descended into more personal attacks. It’s easy for tempers to flare when the attack is not about the issue but rather about the person. There seems to be much more focus on the motives. It’s what they’re proposing but why they’re proposing. They want to steal your money or they are socialists or they are religious nuts. If you can convince others that the reason for the proposal is evil, the proposal itself gets lost and the debate is focused on the individual or the group. If you can paint someone as extreme or radical, then thier position by default is extreme or radical. If you can paint someone as a racist or bigot, then thier position by default is an evil one.

This whole strategy is not new, just much more prevalent than I’ve seen in the past. Attack the person and you don’t have to deal with the issue. And if the person responds to the personal attack, you’ve proven your point. It’s like calling someone a drunk, if they deny it, it only proves they are. So the rhetoric escalates.

Was it ever alive, is a better question?

What @Simone_De_Beauvoir said. I don’t think has to do with being religious as much as it has to do with being human.

Unless our brains evolve into that of Spock, I don’t think it was very easy to maintain civil discourse ever, it won’t be long before your emotions catch up with you and steer your discourse off-course. Sorry, sorry…

@thorninmud Honor is only irrelevant if you decide it is, but I think it has just changed in the context of modern times. As I see it, honor deserves credit for all forms of altruism (a perfect example being an anonymous donation to a charity). Unfortunately, the meaning of concepts such as honor, seem to have been twisted, and may be stigmatized (depending on who you listen to).

These days it is acceptable, even admirable, to be unyielding in the face of opposition. We hold on tight to our values because they keep us grounded. Therefore, in an election for example, it stands to reason that one should simply vote for the party that claims the same values as you – but therein lies the problem. What they’re saying, and what they’re doing, are often loosely connected at best. I think because honor has been mostly lost in the fray, it is much harder to tell who has all of our best interests in mind.

I’m short on time, so this is the paragraph where I explain how politicians are subject to corruption because conglomerates profit greatly from the pyramid scheme that is our economy. I go on to explain how lobbying (in politics and in the media) is destroying our country because of three facts: (1) money talks (2) educated people are better at rationalizing their actions (also known as deception) and (3) when we are distracted, we are more susceptible to the various influences that surround our daily activity (which is completely understandable when many of us have families to think of, and our electronic world is a nice escape from harsh realities). I wrap up by saying that we can change all of this by holding people and businesses publicly accountable for their actions, and having appropriate consequences (for example, if people stopped watching FOX saying that they wanted unbiased news, FOX would be forced to re-structure in order to regain an audience – I don’t think FOX should simply be shut down)

By giving an individual or organization our loyalty, we relinquish our own opinion to them. Our ability to discern right from wrong should not necessarily depend on any particular brand. The solution is simple in principle, but difficult in application – realize that we can never be too sure about someone else’s intentions (especially if they stand to gain power, class, prestige, or money), and we must be skeptical of anything that could do harm to others. Think about what is happening in this moment- is this in the best interest of humanity? If you answered “no, its for survival.”, that is way better than “no, it’s for the money, power, and bitches.”)

As I’ve said before, the problem isn’t that any one side is wrong – we can just be so pigeonholed that valid points get shot down simply because the overall message doesn’t align with ours. On Fluther, this type of response is removed for being a “personal attack” or “unhelpful”.

Honor, as a concept, is still a valuable mechanism to help us audit our own behavior; the only thing that has changed is that we care less when someone disputes our claims/actions. It is dishonorable to engage in useless squabbling in the face of mass poverty; lining your own pockets along the way. Instead, our uber-rich business and political leaders could choose honor – and use their vast resources to help pave the way to a better future for everyone.

Conversely, if they must prove they are worthy of leading, then as citizens we must also show that we’re capable of living in such a world. We must make steps to live with each other in harmony, instead of in competition (like our leaders) – which brings me full circle, back to the original question – No, civil discourse isn’t dead- it’s endangered.

If we could stop the constant inflammatory propaganda that’s skewing information and driving a wedge between us, we might be able to see that we really are mature enough to exist without incessant arguing. “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” – Of course the simplest answer to this problem is already a common (if not unpracticed) adage: the Golden Rule – We must learn to treat each others as we would like to be treated.

We have all defined our positions so thoroughly, there is little room for diplomatic maneuvering. This leads me to conclude that our beliefs could stand to be a little more elastic, and our judgments a little less harsh. Civil discourse is similar to the human journey – the goal is to enhance understanding…

No.

People tend to think the times they live in are somehow special. This is sometimes true, but not very often, and it is extremely difficult to evaluate in the moment. Humans are very similar now to how they were in the past.

A hundred and fifty years ago, open violence was done in our congressional buildings.

2000 years ago, we strung up thoughtful young men with new religious insights.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought There isn’t enough string in the world to tie up all of the insightful young people these days, and if a fight broke out in Congress it would be plastered all over the internet within minutes. The times we live in are special. Our modern society is uniquely equipped with the technology that allows us to move people, news, goods, and ideas at incredible speed. No, there’s not really new problems, but the means to do something about them have evolved significantly.

@rOs History may very well validate your claim.

I am thinking on what you say regarding the spread of false claims with technology at high speed. I am doing that while considering Bleeding Kansas in the 1850’s, or the 125 years of war following the reformation. Now I am thinking of the 100 years war.

History may well remember us as being an incredibly civil group of people.

@rOs

I was going to say without reading too closely, just skimming that what you said was “very eloquent (but wordy)”. But now that I have read it more closely I have to say that it is “just wordy”; I’m sorry, but it’s not even real.

I’m going to lay pretty hard into “what you said”, but it won’t be moderated as “personal attack”, because I wouldn’t dream of doing that to you. (To some, yes, but not to you.) It is perfectly simple to have a robust dialog without resorting to name-calling and personal attack, as long as we each (all) recognize that “we are not our ideas, our likes and dislikes, our personal preferences and our opinions”. So it is perfectly fine for you to strongly attack any of those things of mine, and I won’t even remotely consider them “personal attack”.

I agree completely that honor doesn’t have the “place of honor” (to be somewhat redundant) that it once enjoyed throughout our society. It has its place in certain institutions (and even there sometimes, such as “the military”, it’s a “nominal place” when it’s not really… um… honored), but it doesn’t permeate society as it once did. (In some ways that’s a good thing: fewer duels and honor killings, for example. But in more ways it’s bad, I’m afraid.) So I think we agree on this.

I do not agree with your bolded proposition that By giving an individual or organization our loyalty, we relinquish our own opinion to them. Absolutely not! I believe that as patriots or simply as “loyal and dedicated citizens” we owe our strong opinion – even or especially when it’s a negative one – to our fellow citizens so that we can have a chance to “get it right”. On a more personal note, I belong to a corporate organization that I believe does have strong and good ethics. When we make errors of policy and execution that cause us to stray from our normal “good, honest business” practices – it happens sometimes – I’ve never been chastised for expressing strong disapproval. In fact, that has been encouraged (tempered with reason and some diplomacy, since we’re dealing with other humans, after all, and cultural differences) so that we can improve our delivery and execution and reputation. We live by our excellent reputation in this company. I believe that the United States has “lived” the same way, and should continue to do so. If we simply shut up “because we’re loyal citizens”, then we will certainly not enjoy our future reputation!

As for the (apparently) vicious competition we see in the political arena these days, I think it’s not only necessary, but healthy for us. I could wish for more “competence” and “understanding of basic principles” on all sides; some of the positions that are staked out are laughably stupid, after all. But that we have the robust dialog is what makes for a functioning and worthwhile democracy.

So there: I thought your idea was half-baked. A non-starter. Back to the drawing board. But you? I think you’re a peach. I hope you’ll respond in kind.

I am so glad I stumbled upon this thread. We’re living in a culture where people with differing viewpoints have been demonized & viewed as less than human beings. In this kind of culture being civil is nearly impossible.

I’ve been a member on another website where a lot of vitriol is expressed on the political boards. When people degenerate to the point of calling people they disagree with vile names or post horrifically distorted pictures of the First Family you know that all common decency has been thrown out the window.

@rOs I believe you’ve hit the nail right on the head. We have become so polarized it’s almost like a boxing match with us in our political corners. There are those in the middle who may be more solutions oriented & want to seek common ground with those on both sides of the political divide but the fringe (usually the right) deems those individuals as “RINOS (if they are Republicans) or some unspeakable name associated with Liberals, even if they aren’t true Liberals.

I love that you brought the Golden Rule into the discussion. If we want to be treated in a respectful manner than we must be respectful to others. The Golden Rule comes straight out of the gospels plus, it is in keeping with the law of sowing & reaping.

No matter how we look at it, especially since I’m speaking to my American brothers & sisters-We are in this together. If America fails we all fail. If America excels then we all are uplifted. A rising tide lifts all the boats in the harbor. We’re all going to either sink or swim together—it’s that simple.

@CWOTUS Thank you for responding to my comment! I’ve got to focus at work today – when I have time to consider how best to reply to your assertion, I will get back to you.

Until then, consider this speech.

@rOs GNAR!! Awesome speech. Thank you for that.

@rOs Great speech.

@rOs I think I got something in my eye. I have to excuse myself.

This appeared in the Washington Post today.

@hawaii_jake Hey that’s my family’s ancestral hometown!!! We never make the papers!!!
!

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought : Not even the police blotter?

@hawaii_jake they only have a police blotter because of my family

@hawaii_jake That was a great article. I remember the town hall meetings of 2009 & how conservatives had actually cued people on how to disrupt them & rattle the Democratic representatives. In a small way it felt good to see it turned around on the Republicans after Paul Ryan came out with his “Path to Prosperity” plan that would’ve thrown seniors under the bus.

Would anyone really have been able to sit here and watch this douchebag spill his rhetoric without saying anything? This is going way too far lol. I would find it really hard to be civil to this guy.

-Relevant link I found today:
It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood, if you choose to make it one. You
have strength beyond measure waiting to be unlocked somewhere deep in
your heart. All the “doctors” of history have done their damndest to tell you
exactly where to find it, if you’ll just shut off the crazy voices of the world in
your head for five minutes and really, sincerely LOOK and LISTEN. Turn off
the TV and unplug the phone if you have to, just to find a place to start. Never
believe that you cannot change the world, for it is really you and ONLY you
who can. That’s a fact, Jack. Learn it, love it, live it.

Will you step outside your self-imposed ego prison for just a brief instant and
see that the insane ideas, beliefs and attitudes you have been trained to accept
as “normal” are killing you and the whole bloody world spiritually,
psychologically, and even materially?

As it is has been written in every true medicine book in the world by better
doctors than me:

“Treat others as you would be treated, that is the only law.”

An Unusual Love Letter To The World, Or Whoever May Happen To Read It.
Excerpt from:
Anonymous Author, USA, 2010.

@CWOTUS I have had a hard time coming up with a way to respond to your retort – honestly I didn’t know how to reply to your less-than-flattering comments (e.g. “I have to say that it is ‘just wordy’; I’m sorry, but it’s not even real”, “I thought your idea was half-baked”)

I don’t feel like you really laid into my statement – it was more of a casual dismissal. As for your bolded proposition: I believe that as patriots or simply as “loyal and dedicated citizens” we owe our strong opinion – even or especially when it’s a negative one – to our fellow citizens so that we can have a chance to “get it right”.
I think you may have missed my point – I love America, but I am not America just like I am not my skin color. We owe our strong opinion to our fellow humans!

Two more quotes from my twitter feed this morning

When one’s expectations are reduced to zero, one really appreciates everything one does have ~ Stephen Hawking

When you generate a reasoned desire for others to be happy, your humanity increases in strength ~ Dalai Lama

Blessed is he that expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.

Of course, The Beatles have a great song about civil discourse.