Over here **Starving Artist opined:
To which I challenged him:
Being the friendly, helpful, and cooperative sort that I am, here’s a thread for him to do it in.
Oh why ,oh why do you encourage him? He is even an embarrassment to the other righties.
LOL, civility being a problem that Liberals created. That’s funny. I see two pigs in the mud, not one.
It should be the Problems with Partisanship
Hmmm… Joe McCarthy wasn’t noted for his civility.
Personally, I think SA considers that civility declined with the advent of public protest movements. There may be some merit to that concept, but the loss of civility was by no means all or even primarily from the liberal side.
Bull Connor setting dogs on southern protestors for equal rights? Well, perhaps all those Klan lynchings were civil? George Wallace standing in front of the entrance to the state college?
That’s not what he means.
SA leads an entirely unexamined life. He makes decisions based entirely on gut emotional reactions to his limited personal experience–he’s admitted this proudly–and makes no attempt to analyze them logically.
See, when SA was a youth, and underwent that universal experience of learning that the world was not the idyllic place our childhood makes it, the world around him was at the same time experiencing something of a liberal awakening. So he unconsciously equates the two. The idyllic world–when people were civil and the streets were clean and the mom was always home and the laundry smelled of sunshine–SA’s sheltered childhood–was the Fifties. When the Sixties came along, and suddenly the ugliest parts of the world–people who appeared different from SA, who thought differently; women and races who began demanding a piece of his idyllic pie–all of these changes struck SA as, well, impolite. You don’t get pie by demanding it, you get it by asking nicely.
When SA laments the passing of civility, he isn’t comparing the behavior of present day Republicans and Democrats. He’s comparing Gloria Steinem to June Cleaver; Malcolm X to Uncle Tom. “Civil” means everyone in their place, not complaining, politely grateful for whatever pie they’re given, and never asking for more.
This will only end in lots of very annoyed people and absolutely nothing will be solved. Some times people say something so blatantly stupid that you should just go ahead and ignore anything else they say rather than try to understand whats going on in their fucked up heads.
Just of of curiosity, where would you place Dr. Martin Luther King? Civil or uncivil?
Not to speak for SA, but I’d also say that a better comparison would be Gloria Steinem and Madonna.
Or perhaps Al Sharpton vs. MLK.
If you just want problems that liberalism has caused, how about the breakdown of the black family, which is exacerbated by welfare.
Of course, on reflection, it is hard to believe you really want any kind of discussion, or you would have started this in GD instead of the Pit. So apparently you are merely calling for a Two Minute Hate.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, no, I think that SA has a few good points which are something like ponies in the manure pile, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. And I want to find out what his issues with liberalism are, where he’s not hijacking other threads, and being taken to task for it, with the idea of refuting his positions where I believe he’s wrong.
In point of fact however, there is a point, roughly 1967-68. when Ralph Abernathy and the Kings on one side were being termed “Uncle Toms” by a more radical and less civil group led by Malcolm X, Eldredge Cleaver, et al. That stands out in my mind, and I suspect in SA’s as well. I think there was a place for each in bringing home the point against discrimination, just as over in the gay movement, there’s a place for HRC’s* low-key lobbying and for ACT-UP.
A few people in the political threads have made the point that the traditional conservatism of W.F. Buckley, Goldwater, and the like has been eclipsed by the populist, rabble-rousing conservatism of people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh – who, whether you like them or not, you must admit are out for controversy and not for calm reasoned discourse.
Let’s see what SA has to say before we pass rash judgment – on hom or on me, huh?
- Human Rights Campaign, of course. Only a few conservatives seem to use it regularly for the Secretary of State.
Malcolm X was not leading anybody circa 1967-68, having been assassinated in February 1965.
I wouldn’t worry about what this guy does and does not consider civilized behaviour. He supports torture and wraps it in his flag then considers himself to be a decent human being, so his view of how civilized people behave is clearly somewhat twisted.
Hey, no need to rush. I’m willing to spend up to five minutes if needed.
Where would you put Bull Connor? What is annoying about SA is that he takes correlations to be significant when he wants them to be, and insignificant when he doesn’t. Let us grant him, for the sake of argument, the enormous assumption that things are less civil now than in the 1950s. SA finds the correlation between the loss of civility with the rise of liberalism significant. The fact that the dominance of conservatism pre-1960s was correlated with endemic racism and systematic denial of civil rights? Not a significant correlation, of course. At least if you ask SA.
And that was the first time someone called another person a nasty name during a political argument, hence giving birth to uncivility?
Again, this has nothing to do with “political” incivility. It’s about the golden era when women wore pearls when the scrubbed the floor, and didn’t backtalk their betters in Supreme Court arguments.
Indeed. This is a belief of Starving Artist’s that he treats as fact. There is little logic to it, or if there is I’ve not seen it stated. Arguing about it is akin to arguing angels on pinheads clapping one handed in a forest with no mimes around. It’s just not going to work. Add to it that these conversations inevitably get hijacked into accusations of racism and it becomes a pile on mess equal to any thread started about how bad cyclists are.
As an aside, what was wrong with Shodan’s example/question? Granted, he may have been accurate in that being in the Pit this is just that–a pitting of SA and all questions are rhetorical in nature. And, of course, perhaps the OP meant to limit it just to SA, so it didn’t really count.
There are several things that are arguable in this. What is the “breakdown of the black family”? How did welfare contribute to it? Were there other causes (assuming there is agreement that black familial relationships are worse today than they were in the past, and assuming that the breakdown is worse (whatever that means) than for other societal segments)? Were those other causes “liberal” in nature, or are they an extension, end product, or offshoot of centuries of discrimination and racism?
While I don’t agree with the notion that liberalism caused the decline of the black family, I certainly find internal validity in the argument that welfare leads to state dependency and destruction of the family.
Agree with it or not, it does address the OP.
By “liberalism” do you mean SA’s version, which includes things like less emphasis on marriage? Because I’d blame the breakdown of the black family on that long before I’d blame welfare, and having married parents is one of the biggest predicters of a child’s success (and therefore likeliness to graduate high school, get a job, buy a house, not kill people, etc.) Because there’s an interesting discussion there, away from SA’s ridiculous viewpoints which lissener explained so succintly.
You guys do it too!!
At the same time.