Through the magic of time travel and misattribution? 
You’re right. That one was in response to Sitnam’s attempt to spread the blame for the current impass.
This is just a variation on the “liberals are so shrill!” line of attack. As in, “if only liberals weren’t so shrill, conservatives would stop calling them traitors and degenerates.” It’s right up there with, “gay people should avoid flaming out because it makes conservatives uncomfortable” and “women should avoid confrontations if they don’t want to be called bitches”.
Reasoned discourse is for when the waiter serves you soup with a fly in it.
When the waiter serves you a shit sandwich over and over again the time for reasoned discourse is over and the time for shoving that shit sandwich where the sun don’t shine has begun.
Those arguments are all bad ones because the cause and effect relationship is false and, even if it were not, the cause involves an important personal freedom and the effect is irrational and the responsibility of the irrational party. By contrast, none of those things is true about the argument that angry rhetoric is less persuasive and just makes people angry.
(This post brought to you by the people who respond civilly when being disingenuously compared to misogynistic homophobes.)
The only difference between this response, and a response omitting the “absolute bullshit” and replacing it with “false,” is the likelihood of getting the result you seek.
Unnecessarily antagonizing your opponent accomplishes exactly nothing, other than making you feel a little better.
Does an angry vote count double?
Does an angry dollar fund extra lobbying and litigation?
Your mixed metaphor is conflating whether angry rhetoric is justified with whether angry rhetoric is useful.
That’s easy for a Misohomo gyniphobe to say!
As for the OP, another aoternative is just ignore that thread altogether. No one really cares whether you want to participate or not.
"who are turning our gov’t into a clown show"
Your use of the present tense is hereby mocked.
Angry voters organize and vote. Apathetic voters…don’t.
The reason to say “bullshit” is to let it be known that you recognize it when you see it, and that shovelling any more of it into the conversation will not be mistaken as a simple misunderstanding on both sides. For some of us it is time not to be calm, and for others, well…“How’s your sandwich, sir? Would you like to try a cup of our finest piss?”
True, but irrelevant, since the question is whether non-apathetic people (i.e., those posting on a message board about politics) have anything to gain by angry rhetoric.
So if you think apathetic folks are shaken out of apathy by tough talk about shit sandwiches and waiters’ assholes, then more power to you. I don’t think the apathetic third tunes out because the partisans aren’t belligerent enough.
I don’t really see the outrage. Sure one party is a bunch of corrupt warmongering corporate stooges who couldn’t care less about the common people (and the other party has Rs next to their names) but that’s the beauty of the system. Working as intended.
Like what? They want to harm pretty much everything. Malice is one of their core values.
That’s simply not so. Anger works. That’s why the Left is constantly told these days to not get angry; not being angry makes them weak, and gets them stomped on by the Right which is angry. Anger is one of the most effect means of driving political change, good or bad.
A false analogy. The Republicans are raving fanatics who aren’t going to make peace. The reality is exactly the opposite; the Democrat keeps fantasizing that any day now the Republican will offer peace, while in the meantime the Republican has progressed from slapping the Democrat over and over to holding him down and punching him in the face repeatedly. And every so often taking a break to go over and rape his wife while punching her in the face and calling her a whore.
Nonsense. It means pretending they are much better people they actually are, and amounts to cooperating with them to make yourself look worse than them since they certainly aren’t going to stop demonizing you.
Can’t be done with these people. These are enemies; they aren’t interested in living in peace with anyone.
Totally convinced. No doubt about it, I’m going full Minnesota. No more Mr. Not Nice Guy! I’m taking out some crates, gonna pack up all my snark and harsh rhetoric. Maybe donate to the Badwill Store. Maybe just haul it up to the attic…
OK, first step on my 12 step path to civility, done. Now, that second one there, about apologizing to all those people I’ve been harshly critical to? I dunno about that one, maybe could I get some slack on that, pay in installments? I’m not very good with that.
Tell you what, can we put in a sanity clause? I’ll be good, so long as they don’t do something to deserve it? Then, I get a pass? Not something piddling, but really nasty, something corrupt and unjust. Something that would make Barry Goldwater and Thomas Paine rise simultaneously from their respective graves and puke their guts out.
OK, its Thursday. What do you think, a week? Gee, that would be swell…
Civil doesn’t mean boring or non-confrontational. It doesn’t exclude humor. It doesn’t even require you to be especially nice.
It means not being a dick. It means not assuming the worst explanation or least supportable justification. It means that you focus on reasons, and when you question someone’s motives, you have a specific reason.
And, for the fifth time, whether being civil is a more effective means to an end is entirely separate from whether being a dick is justified, or how the other guy acts.
Yes it does. That’s why oppressed groups are constantly told to “be civil” by their oppressors. It’s a way of saying “shut up and take it, scum” while making yourself look morally superior.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Great Oppressor.
He seemed pretty angry to me. And Malcolm X had a point when he said “they talked to him, so they didn’t have to talk to me.”
Clearly, you are a much more evolved person that I. Feel kinda bad about that, but I’ll get over it a lot sooner than I’ll do anything about it.
Maybe you should read about him some time, so you know how he felt about civility and the lengths he went to humanize his opponents.
You’re the one talking about self-righteousness and moral superiority. I’m talking about what works.