Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
"Nucular combat" on "Civility" : Roxanne and Pure "Duke" it out
Carried over from the Duke thread:
Carried over from the Duke thread:
Sherry Hawk:Roxanne:
Pure, I have seen you behave in a very human manner in non-political threads, such as sympathy or milestone threads. Even be very sweet.
In the political environment you are very different person, however.
You don’t seem to grasp the difference between making a rhetorical argument and making an accusation of malevolence. Therefore, to you there is no distinction between the following two statements:
- “Even mentioning the race or class background of an individual in the context of a criminal prosecution is no different in kind than the action of a racist cracker sheriff who arrests the first black man he sees after a crime report, because it is judging an individual not on the basis of his guilt or innocence, but on some alleged group characteristics.”
- “You are a malevolent racist.”
Most people have no difficulty recognizing the difference between these two statements.
No, I’m not saying that your accusations are that naked, but in almost every post in which you respond to someone who is right of center, you make it very clear that you believe even occupying that ideological position is proof of malevolence, and therefore relieves you of any duty to be civil and to accord the individual the presumption of good will.
Instead, you behave as if the other person’s beliefs give you license to be as cruel as your powerful intellect allows, and to behave as if the individual is not worthy of being treated with respect and dignity.
We all get “hot” in contentious debates that stir our passions, and when our blood is pounding sometimes we go over the line of civility. What you do appears very different. It appears to be “cool,” and based on the belief that civility is not required or merited toward those who hold certain viewpoints different from your own. The message of your posts is that your opponents are not just misguided, they are evil.
Roxanne, what's the difference between doing it publicly, as you claim Pure does, and reverting to nasty namecalling in private? Which is worse?
I'll take honesty any time.
Roxanne:Pure:
dear rox,
here we go again on civility and incivility--does comparing someone to a southern sheriff count as the latter, or does a delicate turn of phrase exonerate?
my characterizing someone as 'evil'-- any examples??
as i explained before, i don't see anyone around here as evil; some of you, however, are 'professional' apologists for class privilege-- amicus does so in an ignorant manner and you do so in an intelligent articulate [WSJ] manner.
===
rox before, in part:
“Even mentioning the race or class background of an individual in the context of a criminal prosecution is no different in kind than the action of a racist cracker sheriff who arrests the first black man he sees after a crime report, because it is judging an individual not on the basis of his guilt or innocence, but on some alleged group characteristics.”
rox most recent, in part,
What you do appears very different [from getting 'hot' in a debate]. It appears to be “cool,” and based on the belief that civility is not required or merited toward those who hold certain viewpoints different from your own.
I don't really understand your question, Sherry. What I am talking about are standards of civility that apply to civil discourse in public. Backbiting in private may indicate a lack of good character, but that's a different issue.Originally Posted by Sherry Hawk
Roxanne, what's the difference between doing it publicly, as you claim Pure does, and reverting to nasty namecalling in private? Which is worse?
I'll take honesty any time.
Where democratic habits and institutions (broadly defined) prevail, it is generally agreed that for humans to live together in peace, it is necessary to treat those with whom one disagrees with dignity and respect, and to accord them the presumption of good will. In other words, it's OK to tell a person she is wrong or mistaken in her premises or reasoning, and that the outcome of the policies or positions she advocates would be harmful to individuals, groups or society. It's not OK to presume that she wants to harm individuals, groups or society, and take that as license to abandon the standards of civility when engaging that person in public. To do so makes civil discourse impossible. Where this principle does not prevail, the only way people have to resolve differences is through violence. It's a fragile and precious thing, as we can see when looking at places where the principle does not prevail.
There are certain viewpoints that are not considered legitimate, because their proponents announce that they do not have good will toward all humans. The KKK is an example. But outside of those exceptions, no individual is privileged to determine for him or herself that holding certain points of view is itself proof of malevolent motives, and that this gives license to abandon the standards of civil discourse with regard those who hold those different viewpoints.
No one has to agree with me (obviously) on any given issue, and vice-versa, but everyone must agree that all of us are entitled to the presumption of good will, and therefore entitled to dignity and respect, whatever the issue. When we see an individual failing to accept this and behaving as if the standards of civility do not apply to him, we should not tolerate it, and should speak out, even if the person is "on our side" in a particular debate.
This is not saying that dicourse has to be mamby-pamby, or that we must adopt the artificial politeness affected in political bodies (for which there is a good reason, BTW.) We can be rough and tumble, and throw lots of elbows. Also, in the passion of the moment all of us sometimes step out of bounds.
It is saying that no individual may determine as a matter of course that he or she has license to abandon the standards of civility when engaging those holding a particular different point of view.
~~~~
In the previous post Pure claims that he is not guilty of the thing I'm talking about here, which is failing to accord his ideological opponents in this forum the presumption of good will. In the next sentence he says that his opponents "are 'professional' apologists for class privilege."
In other words, that they are not motivated by good will toward all humans. And therefore, Pure has license to abandon the standards of civility when engaging them.
Pure:
quite pathetic, rox. a thread on race and justice and class, and all you can talk about is hurt feelings.
Sherry Hawk:
Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
In the previous post Pure claims that he is not guilty of the thing I'm talking about here, which is failing to accord his ideological opponents in this forum the presumption of good will. In the next sentence he says that his opponents "are 'professional' apologists for class privilege."
In other words, that they are not motivated by good will toward all humans. And therefore, Pure has license to abandon the standards of civility when engaging them.
What I am saying, Roxanne, is that you are very quick to accuse Pure of doing something that you, yourself, do.
Cloaking it in four-syllable words makes no difference. Condescension is just as nasty, whether it's subtle or blatant.
Roxanne:
I don't think I do that, Sherry. I know for certain that do not fail to accord the presumption of goodwill to all in this forum, including Pure. I do not believe that I have license to abandon the standards of civility when engaging those who hold a given point of view.Originally Posted by Sherry Hawk
What I am saying, Roxanne, is that you are very quick to accuse Pure of doing something that you, yourself, do.
Cloaking it in four-syllable words makes no difference. Condescension is just as nasty, whether it's subtle or blatant.
I accept that I am sometimes probably guilty of condescension. I accept that can be a violation of the standards of civil discourse, and while it is not necessarily such, I accept that my use of it is sometimes a violation.
When I am guilty of this or any other violation of civility and catch myself, or it is pointed out, I hope that I correct my error.
Failing to always live up to standard is very different from believing - and all but announcing - that one is exempt from that standard when engaging those of a certain opposing viewpoint.
It's not a matter of "hurt feelings." It's about standards that make possible a substantive exchange of views and civil debate possible, even where there are deep and passionate disagreements.
)
