Civility

[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.

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.

Since I would have expected a thread on civics to be found in the Political discussions rather than Applied Ethics, I did not recognize the topic of the thread. For that mistake I apologize.

I have always enjoyed discussions with you, even when I disagree. Only when I am exasperated by what appears as obstinate repetition am I likely to respond with unkind remarks.

As for clarity of transmissions, the idiosyncratic definition of civility—look it up—was not explained from the outset as it should have been.

As for perception of personal accusations, referring to my confusion was an insulting ad hom and not directly related to content.

As I am more a critical thinker than a creative one, my contributions will most likely consist of short disagreements.

Keep in mind that, in effect, I simply asked what this thread is about.

[Walker]

Keep in mind that, in effect, I simply asked what this thread is about.

Your more substantive posting illustrates what the thread is about, for you.

And that's cool. You need to know rather than find out.

[Walker]

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.

Here's a reference. References such as these abound, so should be incorporated into The Social Cosmology of Civility to make it more relevant than theory.

Uh oh.
This fellow in the tan coat is confused.
He is no longer in social media. He is in reality.

In reality, a woman so behaving would just receive a patronizing escort to the door, which is how it should be. In civil society women and children are afforded the luxury of carelessness.
https://twitter.com/jarvis_best/status/ ... 2880280802

[Walker]

This thinker makes an interesting case that because of irrational, uncivil stupidity against one another that shapes civics, modern humans are not so civilized after all.

- Although, he doesn’t put it exactly like that. See for yourself at the link.
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... hange.html

In other words:
- Within a secular, God-denying sub-society, the inherent worship gene is still activated.
- Climate is the Father of Weather.
- In the name of The Climate and The Weather … anything we want or need.

[Mr. Civility]

Here's a reference. References such as these abound, so should be incorporated into The Social Cosmology of Civility to make it more relevant than theory.

Uh oh.
This fellow in the tan coat is confused.
He is no longer in social media. He is in reality.

Well, in the end all terminally uncivilized (civilization destroying) actions happen in reality. In this case things escalate from rude disagreement with a politician to violence! This is a good example of an uncivilized response to impoliteness, because when this kind of response is allowed in the small, it will eventually be allowed in the large.

For instance if thousands are rudely protesting government actions in a public place, should the government be allowed to disperse them violently because of rudeness in particular?

Short answer: If the government is allowed get away with it, it will happen.

In reality, a woman so behaving would just receive a patronizing escort to the door, which is how it should be. In civil society women and children are afforded the luxury of carelessness.

Reality always offers a mixed bag of examples to draw from, many of which are discriminatory.

The civilized response to this situation would be the same for all individuals without discrimination:

1. Inform the heckler that their behavior is unacceptable in this (presumably public, informative) event.
2. Escort the heckler outside, if they don't stop their behavior immediately.
3. Only use physical force, if heckler resists being escorted outside.

In a civilized society individuals are not treated differently based on any attribute without a factual and individualistic reason. Age can be such a reason in some situations, sex very rarely. The latter should make no difference in this situation. The former makes a small difference (parents have to be informed about what is going on).

[promethean75]

Further now there's a man of taste
Of talent and precision.
To work and strive at his artform
Has been his life's decision.

The stage is set, the perfect show
Is put before the mass
Only to be ridiculed
By some slimy, pompous ___.

The Heckler

[Walker]

Well, in the end all terminally uncivilized (civilization destroying) actions happen in reality. In this case things escalate from rude disagreement with a politician to violence! This is a good example of an uncivilized response to impoliteness, because when this kind of response is allowed in the small, it will eventually be allowed in the large.

In that situation, that was not a rude disagreement. That was an unprovoked verbal assault, and it was appropriately neutralized according to the rules of modern civilization.

If it was 400 years ago in Japan and some asshole approached a powerful man in that manner, he would have quickly lost his head. Literally. That he did not in this case is proof of civilization.

Situational awareness. Tan coat was so accustomed to getting away with being a verbally assaulting little p**** (rhymes with brick) on social media, that he forgot who and where he was. Worlds collide. The world of reality collides with the world in his noggin.

Brings to mind sanctuary cities. The cheap, sanctimonous, self-serving virtue signaling that exists in the noggin is now meeting reality in the Blue Cities of the USA that are now crying the blues because all the illegals are not out there somewhere else as a problem for someone else.

[Walker]

(continued) Cozy Chat

Brings to mind a dog I encountered the other day. I’m walking on sunshine … no, actually I’m walking on concrete. Row houses, cheek to jowl. There was this flimsy wooden fence connecting two of them, and a maniacal dog on the other side of the fence trying to tear his way out. He succeeded in working through a flimsy gap. He was about forty pounds, all black, a mutt, and with fur literally bristling with territorial rage. He was about ten feet away, and he rushed me.

I walk with a cane for protection. I simply pointed it at his nose and he skidded to a stop, about two feet from the cane. Either he had been beaten with a stick before, or his limitations caused him to perceive a very long and formidable arm. I think it was the latter.

He froze, staring at the tip of the cane cross-eyed, then made a move on the yogini at my side. Again the cane came between him and his focus, except this time he freaked and fell over, scrambled back up to his paws, domesticated claws clattering on the concrete, back to his safe lair, safe from the unknown. To be generous and not say he was all bark and no bite, he was just doing his dog job of advocating for his master’s territory, albeit a bit overzealously.

And get this. Two days later and about three miles away, an unleashed adolescent pit bull rounded a corner. He was not aggressive but frisky and quickly was looking cross-eyed and frozen, staring at the tip of the cane pointed at his nose.

This is an interesting phenomenon and I think akin to a rattan chair in the nose of a lion. It has that same calming affect. It turns on the still switch in that pee wee animal brain that goes rushing in, all wired up to be barking like a fool … like Tan Coat, rushing into room of men like a fool.

If instead of pointing the chair one hits the lion with the chair, that probably wouldn't work out as intended. It's certainly bad optics to have the Bodyguard Lion shoot the intruder, not to mention disproportionate and of course, unethical with Life As The Measure ... seeing as how Tan Coat had yet to reach under the coat.

[Mr. Civility]

- 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.

Traditions exist for many reasons. Sometimes because of important life lessons learned over thousands of years, which are still relevant to the human condition and can be learned from.


Other times because someone powerful enough arbitrarily decided that some kind of actions (or people) are either proper or improper, leading to much close-minded conduct and gnashing of teeth over millennia.


One's self-concept better work with other people, that is, pick and choose with care.

- 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.

Affirmative. A healthy mind requires a healthy body. One cannot win a (hopefully defensive) war without both in ample supply. Better not let those recruits skip training of either, eh.

[Mr. Civility]

In that situation, that was not a rude disagreement. That was an unprovoked verbal assault, and it was appropriately neutralized according to the rules of modern civilization.

Let's shift the emphasis here. When verbal assault is immediately escalated to physical assault it is clear that civilization did not improve in the long run.

De-escalation requires understanding why someone would get insultingly verbal instead of giving them more reasons to dislike the other.

If it was 400 years ago in Japan and some asshole approached a powerful man in that manner, he would have quickly lost his head. Literally. That he did not in this case is proof of civilization.

Civility has increased only a little, if violence is still an accepted answer to loudmouths inconvenient to the elite . Sure, when it comes to use of force both intent and methodology matter, but tackling someone to the ground/wall/furniture always brings with it the risk of head trauma and even death. Talking rarely does.

Situational awareness. Tan coat was so accustomed to getting away with being a verbally assaulting little p**** (rhymes with brick) on social media, that he forgot who and where he was. Worlds collide. The world of reality collides with the world in his noggin.

We can only speculate on why this particular person decided to do what he did. Too bad he was tackled instead of talked to. Then we would actually know.

Brings to mind sanctuary cities. The cheap, sanctimonous, self-serving virtue signaling that exists in the noggin is now meeting reality in the Blue Cities of the USA that are now crying the blues because all the illegals are not out there somewhere else as a problem for someone else.

The innocent will always suffer, when those in power choose to disregard their duties. Civility would have gone a long way in that case, but it too is a choice.

[Walker]

- The key point you’re ignoring is that Tan Coat didn’t go to talk. (Obviously. Them's fightin' words he pulled out from concealment under his Tan Coat).
- He went there to shout, shout, let it all out and verbally assault. (Ipso facto.)
- He lives in a world where it’s a badge of honor to be an ignorant pig. (based on the new, higher education paradigm of discourse with invited guests).
- Worlds collide. (Academic aggression meets physical self-defense).
- One need not be an elite to appropriately respond to an ignorant pig. (Ignorant pigs often travel in packs on their home turf and their numbers change the dynamic of appropriate responses to ignorant verbal assault. He forgot that key element. The pack. He was a rogue pig).

- Instead of an elite, one could be a mother.
- If the bodyguard was Tan Coat's mother, the bodyguard would have appropriately pinned Tan Coat down and washed out his mouth with soap.
- That's another form of assault, appropriate for mama to inflict.
- The bodyguard's form of assault was also an appropriate response.
- The initial assault by Tan Coat was inappropriate.
- Tan Coat didn't get to determine his consequences ... or maybe he did. After all, who was filming? Good framing, all the key elements in the shot, steady hand. And then ... Surprise! Tan Coat!


- I predict, you will be interested in following the following link. (The Art of Peace).

*

"It is neccessary to develop a strategy that utilizes all the physical conditions and elements that are directly at hand. The best strategy relies upon an unlimited set of responses."
- Morihei Ueshiba
The Art of Peace
viewtopic.php?t=18287

[Walker]

A concluding principle revealed to me, made possible by dialoguing about the Tan Coat Video, thus proving the philosophical worth of forum civility: (Cha cha cha).

Tan Coat (Harvard, academic, Leftist) …
Planned to hoist (hang by the neck on the gallows) ...
A Democrat turncoat (Trump collaborator, ex-federal legislator Joe Manchin from WV) ...
By his own petard, which is usually a bomb to the Left. (Manchin’s petard is civility).

Makes sense to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evKPuIoGi-A

[Mr. Civility]

- The key point you’re ignoring is that [...]

The key point you seem to be ignoring is that all the claims you have made so far are only assumptions if more evidence is not provided.

The good news is that the civilized way to deal with such interlopers does not require making any assumptions about the interloper's past, present or future actions or state of mind.

The civilized response to this situation would be the same for all individuals without discrimination:

1. Inform the heckler that their behavior is unacceptable in this (presumably public, informative) event.
2. Escort the heckler outside, if they don't stop their behavior immediately.
3. Only use physical force, if heckler resists being escorted outside.

The response escalates only when factual evidence of resistance is gathered, which can occur very quickly by the way. This is why bodyguards and police officers draw too hasty conclusions sometimes, which is understandable, but not optimally civilized.

In conclusion I have now learned what makes sense to you in situations like these, which is hopefully useful information. Additionally, I thank you for the link, which I will read through given time. Also, that song is catchy .

[Walker]

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.

[Walker]

Corruption of civility:

The mindset of tolerance that defines morality as allowing some jerk to walk all over you with Tan-Coat-like verbal assaults … is the same mindset of tolerance that defines morality as allowing folks to crap on the public sidewalk. Such behavior erodes both civility and aromatic ambiance.