Civility

[Walker]

Used to be a man could make a living with a factory job. One of my first slave-jobs. Straight time during the week, time and a half on Saturday, double time on Sunday. In other words, to make a living I lived at the factory, which was quite hot since it extruded metal into frames for portals, which it also manufactured. The factory employed a lot of people. The only equivalent to that now is service or building construction, or some specialty cottage industry. Biden has killed good jobs with the open borders and influx of labor. But, factory work was already doomed by the Globalist meme, a paradigm that sounds grand but simply means outsourcing for cheap labor to perform repetitive jobs. Now more cheap labor has been heaped on, without the jobs unless farmers are really going green, ditching the equipment because of climate change , and going back to hand picking cotton. They do have cotton-pickin' machines now, don't they?

[promethean75]

Yes, but they're making rap albums and playing basketball now.

omg did i just say that!?

[Walker]

Consider this. Some folks consider that the study of psychology, means the study of abnormal psychology.

That is the principle. That principle extends to all things. Some folks immediately leap to the aberrant, to the twisted, to the weird, to the abnormal ... to the freaky. Ergo, leaping to psychos is f*****g freaky.

That seems rather obvious.

The cause? Propaganda in the media. What's normal is boring, entertainment-wise. If it bleeds it ledes and psychos cause bleeding, like Biden's psycho dog, which we really didn't hear much about did we, until after 24 incidents of bad dog. Media hush up.

[promethean75]

Statement of intent: i allude only to the historical fact that at one time the negro was employed to harvest cotton from the fields, and that many negroes are now employed in the entertainment and sports industries. Please do not infer from these statements that I am a racist.

[Walker]

Statement of intent: i refer only to the historical fact that at one time the negro was employed to harvest cotton from the fields, and that many negroes are now employed in the entertainment and sports industries. Please do not infer from these statements that I am a racist.

Of course not. That meme has long been lost in history's dust, as least in the USA where about three quarters of a million folks died to end slavery, and a lot of horses too. Now the policies of Biden have brought slavery back in the form of indentured servants, although being indentured to organized crime is a bit different than what Mary Poppins had to endure.

[Walker]

Such industries pay pretty good slave wages.

[commonsense]

I thought this thread was about civility.

[Walker]

I thought this thread was about civility.

If you ever need to state something other than your confusion, perhaps you should define what civility means to you, in relation to that sentence you wrote there.

You could also relate that statement to something specific, in order to encourage a civil discussion about your confusion, which btw, is the model of civility that Prom and I have been demonstrating by finding points within one another's postings, and expanding those points with either agreement, a different angle of view, or disagreement over content.

That's more realistic than aimless comments.

[Walker]

- The United States media doesn’t broadcast this.
- TV news doesn't show this extent of the decline.
- Media suppression.

- Is the media being civil?

More importantly, to expand the showcase for those who philosophize in only sound bites, or who only sit back to pick at what others write, why is the media being, or not being, civil with their suppression of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNU8Ypk2hAI

Civil ... Civics.

[Walker]

I merely suggest that civility is more likely among those who abandon their [at times] caustic "my way or the highway" objectivist mentality and are, instead, willing to explore moderation, negotiation and compromise...given what some construe to be the best of all possible worlds: democracy and the rule of law.

(continued) random civility thoughts.
- Ego-stroking is a crude, elementary form of civility, but it does lead to situations conducive to civility, which is why it’s a natural technique.
- However, ego-stroking can be mistaken for either weakness or a necessary pro-forma, customary ceremony performed by the stroker.
- If the King of the Posting World were to issue an executive order to promote civility, the most effective would require that each transmission be prefaced with a paragraph of ego-stroking, or if that’s too much then a sentence, and if that’s too much then a word.
- Rather than lying flattery, this would be a good practice for life in telling the truth while being civil.
- Why is this the most effective of possible forced behaviors? Because, since positive affirmations are a good way to reach a child, then they're also good for peaceful adult interactions, although for adults it can be seen as patronizing and thus offensive, so the preface must be handled with understatement and tact so as not to appear satirical.
- For example, a proven good practice is to address little ones as Mr. and Miss. If this is not spontaneously generated then it can be a practice that will lead to spontaneity. It sets the adult tone of respect and the little ones grow up expecting no less of an attitude from strangers, and that forms their friendships.
- However, this could be complicated by the Alphabet People and the Pronoun Police who take radical offense if a word is out of place.

[Mr. Civility]

- Does advocating for civility consist of being civil?
- Do you think that civility is appropriate in every situation?
- Is the purpose of being civil in uncivil situations to determine if your civility is unaffected by conditions?
- If not, what condition do you think would challenge your civility?

Ok, Time to throw my hat into the ring.

Definitions first. I made mine earlier here: viewtopic.php?p=698173#p698173.

Noticeably amiss is any reference to politeness or inoffensiveness. Those views on civility are unnecessary when it comes to any strict requirements on etiquette and potentially harmful when it comes to matters of offense. Anyone can claim anything to be offensive after all. It is arbitrary and a civilization filled with people making arbitrary political demands of each other will surely collapse or be engulfed by another civilization.

Now to the points.

1. The only way to successfully advocate for any way of live is to live by it yourself. This not only proves that you are serious about the idea, but also that it is practical. Saying one thing and doing another only proves that something shady is going on.

A civilized person will admit the pros and cons of the idea and improve it based on experience and feedback or just try something else instead if things are not working out.

2. Yes, until instability renders society violent. Wars are a prime example of this. "Kill or be killed" is the name of that gruesome game, which is utterly uncivilized (individuals simplified to enemies, facts about the situation discarded and honesty sacrificed to pump out pro-war propaganda)

3. No. There is a fuzzy line between a society that is mostly civil (improvable by an individual) and one that is mostly uncivil (lost cause to an individual). Knowing when that tilt has occurred is difficult at first, but...

4. In extreme situations it becomes clear that one person cannot help build a peaceful society against an arbitrary dictator and a violent regime. At this point there are two options:

a) Remain civil by leaving, advocating for international actions (e.g. sanctions) and waiting for the regime to collapse (which will eventually happen, but might take a lifetime!)

b) Take uncivil (potentially violent) action against tyranny (because in any case your individuality will not be respected, facts will not be considered and honesty will get you imprisoned and/or killed).

[commonsense]

I thought this thread was about civility.

If you ever need to state something other than your confusion, perhaps you should define what civility means to you, in relation to that sentence you wrote there.

You could also relate that statement to something specific, in order to encourage a civil discussion about your confusion, which btw, is the model of civility that Prom and I have been demonstrating by finding points within one another's postings, and expanding those points with either agreement, a different angle of view, or disagreement over content.

That's more realistic than aimless comments.

Let me rephrase my statement as a question you might better understand:

Why are slavery, horses and Mary Poppins mentioned in this thread?

Still aimless or were you mistaken?

[commonsense]

- The United States media doesn’t broadcast this.
- TV news doesn't show this extent of the decline.
- Media suppression.

- Is the media being civil?

More importantly, to expand the showcase for those who philosophize in only sound bites, or who only sit back to pick at what others write, why is the media being, or not being, civil with their suppression of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNU8Ypk2hAI

Civil ... Civics.

Civil…polite. Does this make my posts understandable? Do you see the miscommunication now? I do.

Always assume innocence before you criticize or accuse.

[Walker]

Now to the points.

1. The only way to successfully advocate for any way of live is to live by it yourself. This not only proves that you are serious about the idea, but also that it is practical. Saying one thing and doing another only proves that something shady is going on.

A civilized person will admit the pros and cons of the idea and improve it based on experience and feedback or just try something else instead if things are not working out.

- Pros and cons.

- For any way of life, this sounds like taking the perceived good and leaving the perceived bad of any tradition.

- However, the perceptions and understandings follow from what is known outside the tradition, which makes learning another exercise in self-referencing, i.e., bolstering one's self-concept.

- For example, some traditions require preparations to generate humility and compassion, and one who picks and chooses what they think is important or relevant to their life may find that critical aspect of the tradition inconvenient, thus burdensome, thus unnecessary for their personally perceived needs, when in fact they couldn’t be further from the truth.

- Another example: after the first days of basic training, military recruits would be prone to rationalize that the physical demands are unnecessary for their subsequent desk assignments, and they would move on to change basic training into a virtual, headset wearing experience of the obstacle courses and other basic training challenges, and experience that involves thrashing about a room reacting to a world that no one else perceives.

[Walker]

- The United States media doesn’t broadcast this.
- TV news doesn't show this extent of the decline.
- Media suppression.

- Is the media being civil?

More importantly, to expand the showcase for those who philosophize in only sound bites, or who only sit back to pick at what others write, why is the media being, or not being, civil with their suppression of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNU8Ypk2hAI

Civil ... Civics.

Civil…polite. Does this make my posts understandable? Do you see the miscommunication now? I do.

Always assume innocence before you criticize or accuse.

Then you would likely find it a beneficial endeavour to persevere for clearer transmissions, and clean up your own reception static that perceives personal accusations in every transmission that threatens to tip over your applecart.