Civility

[LuckyR]

Civility is a description of style, not content. It is possible to present extreme criticism in a civil style, just as one can present neutral content in a very abrasive style.

The advantage of civility is that the presenter's content (regardless of how caustic it's content) isn't generally dismissed as the product of overemotionalism.

[Alexiev]

Actually, my analysis is objective, because:

- Tan coat uttered Fighting Words.
- Fighting words directed at an individual are not protected under the first amendment of the constitution.
- Fighting words are uncivil.

- As The Wikki tells us:
“The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#See_also
- Listen to the Wikki.
- Tan coats cannot freely chirp their fighting words and not expect a fight.

- This brings up an interesting constitutional point:
- The First Amendment can be abridged, however the Second Amendment cannot.
- Leftists like Tan Coat at Harvard have it backwards with their unmannerly corruption of civility.
- They think their hate speech is protected, and they think the right to bear arms can be abridged.
- They've confused a one and a two.
- This is why the US is now a post-constitutional Republic, because public policy is governed by the corruption of civility and the corrupted constitution.

Fighting words are not necessarily "uncivil" (i.e. impolite). Back in the days of dueling, people were careful to issue their challenges politely ("My friends will call upon your friends" -- and if a challenge isn't "fighting words", what is?). Of course if dueling pistols had been banned, and duels were fought with less lethal weapons, Alexander Hamilton would be alive today (if he lived to be 270 years old). And Broadway would have fewer hit shows.

One more thing: civility means courtesy and politeness. I"m not sure "civilization" has any monopoly on politeness. The notion that we humans "advance" from savagery to polite, civilized behavior is a modernist view. Because science is the foundation of modern culture (and because Newton saw farther by standing on the shoulders of giants), many modernists assume (or posit) that humans advance in other ways as well. But even in intellectual pursuits, we can see this is incorrect. Has English produced a better playwright than Shakespeare? Aren't Homer and Dante as accomplished as modern poets? It's possible (even likely) that people in civilized societies are ruder than those living in simpler times. After all, we live among strangers, and the primitive "savages" live in small groups where maintaining cordial relations with their fellows is important to their economic and social well-being.

[Walker]

- Fighting words that are not uncivil are threats, sometimes delivered with a smile.
- This is why people sometimes ask, "Are you threatening me?" when civility is masking the threat.
- Less sincere people may ask that question for other reasons, such as a tactic to distract.

This is an interesting analysis.

6-10-2022
Fighting Words Today
R. George Wright
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/c ... ontext=plr

[Alexiev]

- Fighting words that are not uncivil are threats, sometimes delivered with a smile.
- This is why people sometimes ask, "Are you threatening me?" when civility is masking the threat.
- Less sincere people may ask that question for other reasons, such as a tactic to distract.

This is an interesting analysis.

6-10-2022
Fighting Words Today
R. George Wright
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/c ... ontext=plr

I glanced through your article and I agree it's interesting. Before reading, I'd assumed that since "fighting words" constitute an assault, punching someone who said them to you could be considered legitimate self-defense. It appears (from what little of the article I read) that the assault resulting from fighting words can also be prosecuted in court. Perhaps some members of this forum (not me, I hope) should be clapped in irons!

I'm a free speech proponent, and although I agree that certain insults merit a punch in the nose (although not a bullet to the heart), I'm not sure the government should be jailing people for insulting other people.

Of course the dueling that I mentioned in my last post had the effect of limiting insults. However capable one was with a pistol or rapier, he probably wanted to avoid the dueling grounds (in the later days of dueling, when it was illegal, you had to flee the country if you killed your opponent, not to mention the danger of being killed yourself). The anonymity of the internets has promoted incivility -- which supports my point that the more civilized (technologically advanced) we become, the less civilly we behave.

[Walker]

... my point that the more civilized (technologically advanced) we become, the less civilly we behave.

- A lack of civility creates limitations, which is often the intent of incivility.
- Limitations can be severe enough to cancel out guest speakers at a university.

- It follows that civility transcends such limitations in dialogue, and action.
- However, civility in thought can create limitations.

“Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work.”
- Gustav Flaubert

[Mr. Civility]

Them fighting words, eh? An interesting take on the matter and certainly an improvement over arbitrary assumptions, but it does not resolve the point of contention.

If fighting words were indeed illegally uttered (as deemed so by a judge after the fact perchance?) then is the legally allowed response to fight over such words by tackling whoever to the ground (with the aforementioned small change for death)? Nah. How about immediate arrest instead? There might be states among them united states where escalation is allowed in this situation too, but calling such states civilized in this particular matter is subjective.

The general idea should be that non-violent crimes do not excuse violent responses. I.e. the responder remains legally responsible for such actions. The threshold for defensive violence is crossed, for instance, when someone makes threats with a weapon in a situation where harm could be dispensed within seconds. The threshold is not crossed when someone utters words (even if those words were found fighting/aggressive/offensive).

Tolerance implies tacit approval, which is not the case here as no-one has yet argued that the loudmouth should have been allowed to continue ruining the event for everyone else without any repercussions.

[Alexiev]

... my point that the more civilized (technologically advanced) we become, the less civilly we behave.

- A lack of civility creates limitations, which is often the intent of incivility.
- Limitations can be severe enough to cancel out guest speakers at a university.

- It follows that civility transcends such limitations in dialogue, and action.
- However, civility in thought can create limitations.

“Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work.”
- Gustav Flaubert

I think I get it. But I'll point out that the direct impact of civility ("politeness") is to "create limitations". In other words, civility limits rudeness. Incivility, on the other hand, accepts rudeness.

I'll grant that shouting down a speaker so nobody can hear him is both rude and limiting (it limits the ability of others to hear the speaker). But protesting a speaker so that his speaking engagement gets cancelled is not rude or uncivil. Why would it be? Universities bring in and pay speakers. Members of the University (faculty, administrators and students) have every right to take part in the decision of which speakers should be invited.

Protesting a speaker sounds like banning a book -- but it isn't very much like it. It's more like deciding which professor to hire or give tenure. It doesn't affect the speaker's right to speak; it merely denies him one particular venue, a venue which, if the speaker IS hired to speak, denies everyone else the same opportunity.

By the way -- I guess that you don't want woke mobs protesting conservative speakers. But I wonder if you would object to the exclusion of Communist speakers (in the 50s perhaps), or other speakers whose speech YOU find objectionable.

One of my favorite writers, GK Chesterton, wrote a Newspaper column for years. I have a book of (I think) three years worth of columns. IN one of them, he makes fun of Sufragettes shouting down a speaker employed to offer the Cabinet's position on women's votes. "Votes not words," chanted the protesters, loudly enough that the speaker could not be heard. Chesterton wondered what the speaker was supposed to do. Run back stage and produce a ballot box? So I'll grant that some rude "cancelling" can be both limiting and a bit silly.

Also, it does not "follow" that "civility transcends such limitations in dialogue, and action." Civility does not demand we read every book, hire every speaker, or listen politely to every obnoxious blowhard. Instead, it offers polite ways of declining to do so.

[Alexiev]

Them fighting words, eh? An interesting take on the matter and certainly an improvement over arbitrary assumptions, but it does not resolve the point of contention.

If fighting words were indeed illegally uttered (as deemed so by a judge after the fact perchance?) then is the legally allowed response to fight over such words by tackling whoever to the ground (with the aforementioned small change for death)? Nah. How about immediate arrest instead? There might be states among them united states where escalation is allowed in this situation too, but calling such states civilized in this particular matter is subjective.

The general idea should be that non-violent crimes do not excuse violent responses. I.e. the responder remains legally responsible for such actions. The threshold for defensive violence is crossed, for instance, when someone makes threats with a weapon in a situation where harm could be dispensed within seconds. The threshold is not crossed when someone utters words (even if those words were found fighting/aggressive/offensive).

Tolerance implies tacit approval, which is not the case here as no-one has yet argued that the loudmouth should have been allowed to continue ruining the event for everyone else without any repercussions.

Fighting words are considered threatening. Let me ask, suppose a man with a gun holds up another man and demands his money. The victim turns out to be a karate expert, who kicks the gun out of robbers hand, and punches him repeatedly until he runs off. This, of course, is an example of a non-violent crime (the robber has threatened, but not committed violence) that is met with a violent response. Are you suggesting this violence cannot be "excused".

By the way, as a matter that may be of some interest, I've read one or two books by Oliver O'Donovan, the former Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford (and son of the short story writer Frank O'Connor, a pen name). He claims that self-defense does not excuse a violent response, because we are commanded to "turn the other cheek". However, the Christian excuse for violence (or warfare) is injustice. Although self-defense cannot excuse violence, Justice is a Christian virtue, and returning the world to a state of justice may be "justifiable". Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.

It is certainly possible that words can threaten Justice.

[Walker]

I think I get it. But I'll point out that the direct impact of civility ("politeness") is to "create limitations". In other words, civility limits rudeness. Incivility, on the other hand, accepts rudeness.

Re: limitations.
- civility limits incivility.
- Incivility limits civility.
- Both civility and incivility display the intent to change, inhibit, or advance a purpose.
- Tan Coat displayed the intent to inhibit civil discourse and advance his purpose.

[Alexiev]

I think I get it. But I'll point out that the direct impact of civility ("politeness") is to "create limitations". In other words, civility limits rudeness. Incivility, on the other hand, accepts rudeness.

Re: limitations.
- civility limits incivility.
- Incivility limits civility.
- Both civility and incivility display the intent to change, inhibit, or advance a purpose.
- Tan Coat displayed the intent to inhibit civil discourse and advance his purpose.

Incivility encourages further incivility, but it doesn't "limit" civility. One (not me, of course, but a more saintly individual) could respond politely to rudeness, turn the other cheek if slapped, or offer one's "cloak also" when one's coat is stolen.

Obviously, you are right about tan coat. But a violent response to his rude insult may have been just what he wanted. It probably would have really gotten his goat to respond, "Thank you for your feedback, tan coat. I really appreciate the heart felt expression of your opinion." This is an example of the outwardly "civil" response being more hurtful than the uncivil one. It shows that his words don't aggravate you into rudeness, and belittles him by the contrast of your manners with his.

[Mr. Civility]

Fighting words are considered threatening. Let me ask, suppose a man with a gun holds up another man and demands his money. The victim turns out to be a karate expert, who kicks the gun out of robbers hand, and punches him repeatedly until he runs off. This, of course, is an example of a non-violent crime (the robber has threatened, but not committed violence) that is met with a violent response. Are you suggesting this violence cannot be "excused".

No, I suggested the opposite. That example is within the limited scope for defensive violence as outlined in the earlier message:

The threshold for defensive violence is crossed, for instance, when someone makes threats with a weapon in a situation where harm could be dispensed within seconds.

The scope is limited in another way too. Defensive violence turns offensive if the original attacker has already been subdued, but the violence continues. This was not necessarily the case in your example though.

By the way, as a matter that may be of some interest, I've read one or two books by Oliver O'Donovan, the former Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford (and son of the short story writer Frank O'Connor, a pen name). He claims that self-defense does not excuse a violent response, because we are commanded to "turn the other cheek". However, the Christian excuse for violence (or warfare) is injustice. Although self-defense cannot excuse violence, Justice is a Christian virtue, and returning the world to a state of justice may be "justifiable". Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.

Interesting. That sounds like a contradiction to me . Is it according to his view of justice to allow an attacker to continue attacking in a situation where fleeing is not an option? In a perfect world self-defense would never harm the attacker, for sure, but even attempts at disarming someone can accidentally turn uglier than intended. Maybe "turn the other cheek" originally referred to avoiding continual circles of revenge instead of completely prohibiting immediate violence in self-defense?

I would say that self-defense has to be part of any functional set of laws and that violent self-defense should also be justified within the limited scope. Figuring out how to enforce these vague ideas in reality is what the justice system is for.

It is certainly possible that words can threaten Justice.

Yes, for instance, threats of violence are illegal in many (most?) countries. Nonetheless a violent response to threatening words alone is usually not legal. It is the existence of a weapon (or behavior that strongly implies upcoming physical assault) that should decide the matter in these sort of cases.

Then again, maybe you had some other example of Justice (with a capital J ) in mind?

[Alexiev]

Fighting words are considered threatening. Let me ask, suppose a man with a gun holds up another man and demands his money. The victim turns out to be a karate expert, who kicks the gun out of robbers hand, and punches him repeatedly until he runs off. This, of course, is an example of a non-violent crime (the robber has threatened, but not committed violence) that is met with a violent response. Are you suggesting this violence cannot be "excused".

No, I suggested the opposite. That example is within the limited scope for defensive violence as outlined in the earlier message:

The threshold for defensive violence is crossed, for instance, when someone makes threats with a weapon in a situation where harm could be dispensed within seconds.

The scope is limited in another way too. Defensive violence turns offensive if the original attacker has already been subdued, but the violence continues. This was not necessarily the case in your example though.

By the way, as a matter that may be of some interest, I've read one or two books by Oliver O'Donovan, the former Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford (and son of the short story writer Frank O'Connor, a pen name). He claims that self-defense does not excuse a violent response, because we are commanded to "turn the other cheek". However, the Christian excuse for violence (or warfare) is injustice. Although self-defense cannot excuse violence, Justice is a Christian virtue, and returning the world to a state of justice may be "justifiable". Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.

Interesting. That sounds like a contradiction to me . Is it according to his view of justice to allow an attacker to continue attacking in a situation where fleeing is not an option? In a perfect world self-defense would never harm the attacker, for sure, but even attempts at disarming someone can accidentally turn uglier than intended. Maybe "turn the other cheek" originally referred to avoiding continual circles of revenge instead of completely prohibiting immediate violence in self-defense?

I would say that self-defense has to be part of any functional set of laws and that violent self-defense should also be justified within the limited scope. Figuring out how to enforce these vague ideas in reality is what the justice system is for.

It is certainly possible that words can threaten Justice.

Yes, for instance, threats of violence are illegal in many (most?) countries. Nonetheless a violent response to threatening words alone is usually not legal. It is the existence of a weapon (or behavior that strongly implies upcoming physical assault) that should decide the matter in these sort of cases.

Then again, maybe you had some other example of Justice (with a capital J ) in mind?

I don't want to speak for Oliver O'Donovan (I read the book many years ago). But Justice involves respecting the rights of every man and giving to each his or her due. Not only are threats of undeserved violence unjust, but so is reneging on promises, breaking contracts, owning slaves, etc. etc. In his Paradisio, Dante puts Joshua and Roland in the circle of heaven honoring the Just (of course Roland once went mad, as chronicled in Orlando Furiosso and slaughtered dozens of innocents). Good thing Astalpho flew Pegasus up to the moon and retrieved Roland's wits, which were kept in a jar there.

I'm probably not the best person to explain the position, since I'm not a Christian, and I don't "turn the other cheek". But imprisoning someone is clearly a form of "violence" (if he won't go, he'll be clapped in irons and dragged). In most countries, you can be imprisoned for fraud, burglary, gum chewing (in Singapore), and any number of other non-violent crimes. If self-defense is the only justifiable excuse for violence, Bankman-Fried would be a free man today.

[Mr. Civility]

I don't want to speak for Oliver O'Donovan (I read the book many years ago). But Justice involves respecting the rights of every man and giving to each his or her due. Not only are threats of undeserved violence unjust, but so is reneging on promises, breaking contracts, owning slaves, etc. etc. In his Paradisio, Dante puts Joshua and Roland in the circle of heaven honoring the Just (of course Roland once went mad, as chronicled in Orlando Furiosso and slaughtered dozens of innocents). Good thing Astalpho flew Pegasus up to the moon and retrieved Roland's wits, which were kept in a jar there.

I'm probably not the best person to explain the position, since I'm not a Christian, and I don't "turn the other cheek". But imprisoning someone is clearly a form of "violence" (if he won't go, he'll be clapped in irons and dragged). In most countries, you can be imprisoned for fraud, burglary, gum chewing (in Singapore), and any number of other non-violent crimes. If self-defense is the only justifiable excuse for violence, Bankman-Fried would be a free man today.

Interesting mythology there . Justice with a J sound just like justice with a j.

I wouldn't expand the definition of violence to include imprisonment. Soon such expansion will take over taxation too (if he won't pay, he'll be clapped in irons and dragged). The threat of violence is behind every freedom limiting action of the government, but not every freedom limiting action of the government is violent.

Deprivation of rights, such as imprisonment, can occur as discrimination (some are arbitrarily deemed unworthy of a right) or as punishment for breaking the law (some are factually deemed unworthy of a right). It would be nice, if everyone (including the government) played ball and respected the rights of all individuals. Until that day is upon us, let punishment be dealt justly.