You are to be commended for your intellectual honesty. Regarding your point, what is the justification for the premise that societies at their zenith are polite, which is implied by saying that they grow less polite as they decline? You’ve already been given two counter-examples. Another would be Rome. It was hardly a polite thing to feed people to lions. On the other hand, one can scarcely imagine a more polite society than Imperial Japan, whose inhumane acts of war were legendary. The OP’s reference just seems to be grabbing one of those Adlerian premises that seems to give insight at first, but upon further inspection is quite full of holes.
Certainly. But I do not call a scheduled oil change “the most alarming symptom” that my car is “on the skids”.
Fine, Lib. You now have my complete consent and approbation to speak as you will regarding what this country and the world may need. I thought maybe I might be saying something useful towards breaking down the walls of hostility that have been built up. But it’s clear that trying to fix the system we have, and calling citizens of America to behave as Americans (and not explicitly including in that our responsibility as members of the human race generally) was a mistake.
May your ideals never come back and bite you on the ass, sir. And I do mean that sincerely; they have, me, several times, and I would not wish it on you, of all people.
Thank you, Poly. I know that you mean that with all sincerity. You did, however, misread me. I think you have offered a wonderful suggestion for, as you put it, “breaking down the walls of hostility that have been built up”. My problem was not with that, but with the Adlerian notion from Heinlein that politeness or impoliteness is pro causa toward either a rise or decline of any civilization. We should be more polite, not because our nation will fall if we aren’t, but because those who are polite benefit as much from the praxis as those to whom their politeness is directed. It is in the same sense that forgiveness heals the forgiver.
[quote=Liberal]
If a government has so neglected its people that they no longer feel safe and happy, then despite what Andros or Tom says, it is time for that government to disappear. It is lucky for us that our founders were not leftists, I reckon.[/liberal]
Can any developed country now afford revolution? Seems to me that the cost of revolution would be too great to ever justify having one, in particular the vast array of public bodies that govern and provide for everyday life. Public utilities, etc etc.
We aren’t self sufficient any more - revolution would mean the death of many who live in the cities, and the “winners” would definitely be those who controled the armed forces. Sure, maybe some hardcore gun nuts could run a guerilla campaign, but MILLIONS would die in the meantime.
No way revolution would be possible, or desireable. If you think your government is shit, focus on peacefuls ways of getting them out, and replaced in a manner that causes the least disruption. If polarisation occurs, killing everyone and re-writing the constitution is NOT a solution.
Lib, I don’t know that I ever indicated I agree that a country that is at its zenith is also at its most polite, and if I did I didn’t mean it in that way. I think your analogy above best sums up my attitude regarding politeness. Your car would function better and more smoothly as a result of keeping your oil changed on schedule; in my opinion the country functions better and more smoothly if politeness and consideration for others are the norm. Politeness functions as a social lubricant, if you will, to reduce friction among the populace. 
And what Starving Artist says is exactly what I meant, and IMO what Heinlein meant by the remark as well. Like a runny nose, rudeness is not a cause but may be a symptom of a deeper malaise.
Rudeness in an argument only works if the audience accepts it. I don’t feel that Americans in general have gotten that far down the road to torch-carrying mob mentality. Not even this message board has gone that far.
(O’course, I haven’t been here all that long.)
_
_
Starving Artist, do you really think rudeness is all us liberals’ fault? Really? Stop and think for a minute about whether you really think we started this. And think about the irony of your having posted something like that (something that, to me, seems like a really, really, unredeemably nasty thing to say) in the midst of a thread calling for togetherness.
Maybe you really don’t see how rude you (yes, you, on occasion) and many of your cohorts have been, here on the SDMB and out in the real world. I volunteered with an organization dedicated to prevent the passage of Michigan’s Proposal 2 (anti-gay marriage and civil union amendment - we lost.) One of my friends, while volunteering, was spit on - obviously not all social conservatives are quite as virtuous as you. Anne Coulter has called for the forcible conversion of Muslims to Christianity and has famously implied that liberals ought to be executed. Rush Limbaugh made jokes on air about a fourteen-year-old girl’s physical appearance. Need I go on?
Neither side has the monopoly on rudeness, and I don’t think you can blame either side for starting it. Mote/beam/eye and whatnot; please try for a brief period to improve the tenor of political discourse; the snide, arrogant, and rude comment in quotes is below you.
I was going to call bullshit, but upon reflection it’s more a nitpick.
Man by nature is a “pack animal”. We must belong to some group. We are social creatures by nature and feel a need to belong to a group. Centuries ago it may have been grouping together to have farmers, militiamen, seamstresses, cooks, blacksmiths, etc. They may not have agreed on how every aspect of society would be set up, but they worked for the common good. Think of it this way, as information was improved between societies:
Families>Tribes>Villages>Co-Ops>Territories>States>Nation-States>Nations>Kingdoms>Empires. We’ve evolved into greater societies over time. Not every individual is represented in a majority, but the ideal is to incluse them in the system as a whole. Not everyone will be completely content. It’s impossible unless you find people that agree with you wholly and set up camp on a deserted island. Many disagree with Bush for some of his stances, and so do I. But as a whole, I believe in more of what Bush does than Kerry.
And** polycarp**, I may have in the past, but the OP is the first time I remember agreeing with you in a pit thread OP.
[QUOTE=Tabby_Cat]
I don’t think millions would die, but there is a different reason that I do not advocate revolution. It is always the case that Tweedle-Dum replaces Tweedle-Dee, and the beat goes on. “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka
The notion that people have the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to secure their rights does not mean that they must do so by armed uprising. Our founders revolted with arms because they had endured too much for too long. As they put it:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
I agree to that point. The question, as I see it, is whether the group that a man belongs to is or is not one of his own choice. Just because you have drawn lines on maps, and people were born within them, does not give you ethical authority to constrain and tame them according to the likes and dislikes of you or your majority. Government is legitimized by the consent of those it governs. Another word for a man who is governed without his voluntary volition is “prisoner”.
I knew I hit ‘submit’ too soon. No, sometimes the group isn’t a chosen group. But it’s the group, nonetheless. This is where migration came in (at least in part). Someone wasn’t happy with the current condition, and either migrated to another tribe/clan/take-your-pick, or accepted the society. This happens today, as well. Don’t like the city you’re in because of social norms/jobs/family moving? Go. Follow the trail that leads you to happiness, or at least contentment. (Remember, the Dec of Ind says “pursuit of happiness”, nothing about a guarantee). It also explains why so many want to immigrate to the US. Or Canada, or England, or Australia, et al.
I know it’s fun to throw about, ‘Love it or leave it’, but it’s what has been happening for centuries. If Exodus is any indication, man has been searching for his place for a long time. Otherwise, if they were held to a piece of land, they would have to concert all those under Pharaoh (sp?)
If a man could secede, I would have no problem with your model. But you are claiming eminent domain over his rights and property. He must abandon what he has established by his labor and his wits, and start anew as though his life had had no meaning until now. Love it or opt out is fine by me. But love it or leave it is an ethical abomination.
No, ‘Love it or Leave it’ is an extreme way to view it. I neither claim eminent domain, nor do I think it’s in any way fair. A single individual can secede, to a point. (Think Kaczinsky (sp?)) You can effectively drop out of society.
He doesn’t have to abandon all. He can sell his house, car, stocks and any other assets. The cash will convert to any other currency. Even if you want to move it to Cuba, you use Canada as a middleman. It can be done.
His labor and wits, whatever they may be, will translate well to any society if they are needed. For instance, if someone in Chicago knows how to fix a Volvo, he’ll be able to ply his trade in Canada, Mexico, Germany, Japan, Russia, <insert country here>.
Love it or opt out is the same as love it or leave it, to me. It’s a simple question of adapting to your environs. If the majority believes different than you, move on. If it’s acceptable (and it is if you stay) then work for change, but accept the fact you may not get your way.
I can’t think of any Western country that forces a citizen to remain a citizen. If you want to stay and fight a “regime” you abhor, fine. That’s what the US was built on. But if it doesn’t work out and a person wants to say, “Well, <insert country name> does it this way, why can’t we?” when the majority doesn’t want it, well, nothing is keeping that person here.
Well, let me begin by saying I had logged out for the night but checked my email and saw your post, and I want to answer it both because of a disconnect between what I’m saying (or think I’m saying) and what you are hearing; and secondly, because of the polite and earnest and respectful way you phrased your post. It seemed rude to me to let it wait until tomorrow. ( 
)
As I said, I believe there has been a disconnect between what I intended to say and what you heard. Part of the reason for this, I believe, stems from the fact that while I was speaking of liberal influence (i.e., liberalism), I was speaking of its influence over the last thirty or forty years. You seem to feel I’m talking about the current crop of liberals, both here at the Straight Dope and in the country at large.
And yes, I definitely feel that the decline in civility and politeness in American society over the last thirty or forty years can be attributed to the liberal influences that I mentioned. Prior to the social upheavals that began in the sixties, societal behavior was much more polite and well-behaved than it is now. And I think it is a result of a deliberate turning away from the commonly accepted modes of behavior at that time by the liberal contingent in society who were rebelling against the so-called button-down, gray-flannel conservatism of the time. Politeness, a more conservative way of dress, short hair…all these became stereotypes of the conservative old guard in society, and in a misguided effort to divorce themselves from their conservative enemies, it became the norm to adopt behavior and modes of dress that flew in the face of the predominately conservative society of that time. Hence the term: counter-culture. And it is my opinion that much of what is wrong in interpersonal behavior in society today has its roots in that time. Now, however, many people have grown up knowing nothing other than the common modality of behavior and see nothing wrong with it. I, and two or three other posters around here ( 
) are old enough to have experienced life during this previous era and remember from first-hand experience how things used to be, and we’ve watched them change along with the changes in society since that time. I can guarantee you that the difference between what you see on the street today vs. the way people looked, dressed and acted prior to the late sixties is not the result of conservative influence in this country.
I will say that much good has also come about due to the influence of liberalism during this time. The issues of racial equality, women’s rights, and gay rights, for example. I often have less of a problem with the ambitions of liberalism than I do with its propensity to throw out the baby with the bath water in its efforts to effect change. Politeness is one of those babies.
Ahem…this is the Pit, you know.
But seriously, what I said and what I’m saying now is part of the dialog. It seems to me that if we can come to an understanding of how these things come about – and can see from a previous era that things don’t have to be the way they have become – that people might be more willing to look at some of these values that used to make life more pleasant and civilized and be more willing to give them a try and see if life in this country indeed might not be better that way.
Ahem…leaving aside the issue of whether or not these are gross or hate-inspired exaggerations (Limbaugh excepted, and the thing you mention is why I stopped listening to him), surely you don’t think that for my points to be valid, every single individual in the country should be abiding by them? Of course there are rude and hate-filled conservatives. And there are polite and considerate liberals…some of whom I have been fortunate enough to befriend here. I’m talking about American society as a whole.
I agree neither side has a monopoly on it, but the simple fact of the matter is that the liberal contingent, both on this board (though not right at this moment or even in this thread) and in the country at large is much more given to rudeness, hate, disgust, etc. – and to voicing or otherwise expressing it – than the conservative contingent. Even here on this board I’ve seen it mentioned several times in different threads by different people that had Kerry won, one would not have seen anywhere near the type of hateful, vile, vulgar and insulting behavior from the right as has been the norm here among the left as a result of Bush’s re-election. In general, people on the right are just more mannerly and less vociferous in their responses to things than is the left. This bespeaks adherence to a certain set of values that are not held in as much esteem by the other side.
Thank you for the compliment. I am indeed trying to do as you ask with this very post. I hope I have been successful.
Regards.
Well, from what I seem to recall from what I’ve seen of your posts, it’s good that you are here. I hope that you’ll decide to stay.
Regards.
Uh, oh…two posts in a row ending in “Regards.” If I’m not careful, Shodan be kickin’ my butt!
In short, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” I think a very tall president with a beard said that.
Marc