#civility

And that thought made me recontextualize all those angry shouty videos about how awful gen-Z-ers are for having that stare and not responding. Or rather, it made me recontextualize the people making them.

I think it's also something you do when you know that interacting with someone is just going to make their behavior worse, and maybe draw you in to the point where you'll say something you regret, or that they can weaponize against you. But you also know that if you give them attention but no reaction or actual stimulus for long enough, they'll give up and go be angry somewhere else.

I’ve been reflecting on the state of political discourse in this country, and I keep coming back to one truth: no matter our beliefs, we are never justified in murdering someone.

Opposite political views? No justification.

Different race or national origin? No justification.

Sexual orientation or gender identity you don’t agree with? Still no justification.

Our differences do not justify violence. Full stop.

I wasn’t a fan of everything Charlie Kirk had to say, but the rhetoric we’re seeing—across platforms, across ideologies—has reached a flash point. We’re inching closer to something dangerous, and it’s not just shocking anymore. It’s predictable. And that should terrify us.

Whatever happened to live and let live? To you do you, and I do me? To civility?

If America is going to step back from this precipice, we need to calm down and try something radical: listening. Not to agree. Not to convert. But to understand.

I teach my students this every day: Understanding is not the same as agreement. You can hear someone’s story, grasp their reasoning, and still hold your own convictions. That’s not weakness. That’s maturity.

We’ve become so entrenched in our own belief systems that we treat anyone who thinks, votes, looks, or loves differently as the enemy. That’s not patriotism. That’s fear masquerading as righteousness.

It’s time to choose a different path. One rooted in empathy, compassion, courage, and understanding.

Demands for mannerliness and propriety are increasingly being replaced by demands that those in conflict just tolerate their disagreements. The civility of politeness, in other words, is being supplanted by what I term an “agree-to-disagree civility.” This emergent civility, I argue, legitimizes reactionary stances and valorizes the status quo. Such agree-to-disagree civility is on clear display in the seemingly cordial statement issued by all the US Presidential Foundations and Centers in anticipation of the acrimony of the recent election cycle. The leaders of the Obama Foundation, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and 11 other similar organizations admit that they hold “a wide range of views across a breadth of issues.” Still, they insist that “these views can exist peaceably side by side.” The statement goes on to affirm that “debate and disagreement are central features in a healthy democracy,” and that “civility and respect in political discourse, whether in an election year or otherwise, are essential.” One might be moved, perhaps, to see politicians of different parties standing together against the violent bigotry of the Trump campaign. But look closer. To be sure, the civility of this statement is more productive than repressive, more interested in prompting speech than foreclosing it. Yet while the centers valorize the clash of countervailing perspectives, they’re also conspicuously silent regarding how such disagreements might be resolved. Basically, the Centers’ statement suggests, we should all just agree to disagree. It’s easy to see the appeal of this agree-to-disagree civility, because the tolerance it calls for is often taken as a transcendentally good ideal. As the political theorist Wendy Brown reminds us, though, there’s reason to look upon tolerance talk with a more ambivalent eye. For Brown, toleration is less a political ideal than a “practice of governmentality,” a body of commentary and rhetoric that sets the terms for political discussions, and not always in salutary ways. “There are,” she notes, “mobilizations of tolerance that do not simply alleviate but rather circulate racism, homophobia, and ethnic hatreds.” Agree-to-disagree civility, I argue, circulates and sustains such malign paradigms by neutralizing critique and forestalling social change. This civility robs us of our ability to say “x is wrong”: Its principles make racism, homophobia, misogyny, and the like perspectives to be respected, not paradigms to be defeated. Endlessly tolerating divergent outlooks on social inequities is categorically different than working to discern and pursue the most ethical and efficacious modes of redress. In short, this civility allows nothing to happen.

We're running out of vocabulary to describe Trump. Words like vile and loathsome simply don't cut it any more. Where are people like William Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson when we really need them?

If somebody said about the killing of St. Charlie MAGAdalene what Trump said about Rob and Michele Reiner then that person would be halfway to Alligator Alcatraz before I finish this sentence.

Trump has become so thoroughly disgusting that even a few usually tepid Capitol Hill Republicans are cautiously speaking out against Trump's hate speech.

Republicans rebuff Trump's post on Rob Reiner

Trump’s ugly Rob Reiner post undercuts the GOP’s post-Charlie Kirk claims to civility