I read this statement from a UK minor celebrity

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Civility is not the cure to division, it is the cause.

Civility allows people to be polite in their speech, but radical in their beliefs. It creates a culture of duplicity, in which people say one thing in public, but do another in private.

They never share their beliefs, so they never have to examine or defend them. They cloister in insular communities, and scapegoat everyone outside of them.

The one good thing that came of the Trump presidency is that it got all of the bigots to feel comfortable enough to say the silent part out loud. They revealed themselves for who we all knew they were all along but pretended not to be.

The cure to division is radical honesty and accountability. We are not going to pretend that one man's ignorance is equal to another man's knoweldged anymore. That is over.

The "facts over feelings" crowd needs to be presented with the facts, and shut down. We are not debating the merits of their conspiracies against reality. This is what is true, this is what is going to happen, end of discussion.

Stupid people need to stop being coddled, and allowed to have "alternative facts," and alternative media, and separate divorced-from-reality realities.

I had to tell them it's hard to have civil discourse when we can't even come to a working foundation of what reality is. I told them I'm not just going to except their misinformation because you want to hold equal weight to reality.

Originally posted by Newjak
I actually had to have this conversation with a family member at one point when they asked why we can't have "civil" discussions.

I had to tell them it's hard to have civil discourse when we can't even come to a working foundation of what reality is. I told them I'm not just going to except their misinformation because you want to hold equal weight to reality.

Like Brittani Telfair once wrote, "You are not entitled to 'civility.'"

Civil discourse does not always have symmetric asks of everyone involved. For instance, a person of color may be asked to defend why marginalized communities should have equal rights if their oppression pleases white people and makes the latter better off. If they respond with frustration, they may be accused of being "uncivil." However, this would be a misplacement of blame. To demand that some people defend their presence, their identity, and their very existence is an uncivil act, regardless of how politely the demand is posed. Anger or frustration in a person's response does not invalidate their argument, as they are responding to an act of aggression.

As James Baldwin said, "We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist." We can discuss many things calmly and politely. My worth is not one of them, and no one is entitled to conversation, civility, or respect if they think otherwise.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Who the **** things Boris is affable? He's a ****.

His character really works on some people, I don't get it to be honest, he seems like an unlikeable idiot to me.

Originally posted by Artol
His character really works on some people, I don't get it to be honest, he seems like an unlikeable idiot to me.

Originally posted by Blakemore
That's the likeable factor. He doesn't seem like a posh git. I get that it's mostly an act, but I'd rather have him than a lot of the other Tories... Or labour.

Hmm, to me he seems like a certain old timey stereotype of a posh git. Like the kind of self deprecating, colonialist type, who will definitely eat your children while you die in a diamond mine for him, but he'll make a self aware joke about it...

The rest aren't much better imo 😬

Originally posted by Artol
Hmm, to me he seems like a certain old timey stereotype of a posh git. Like the kind of self deprecating, colonialist type, who will definitely eat your children while you die in a diamond mine for him, but he'll make a self aware joke about it...

Originally posted by Newjak
I actually had to have this conversation with a family member at one point when they asked why we can't have "civil" discussions.

I had to tell them it's hard to have civil discourse when we can't even come to a working foundation of what reality is. I told them I'm not just going to except their misinformation because you want to hold equal weight to reality.

If someones being facetious, I agree.

Doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to he hostile against someone who's arguing in good faith. At the least, it's educational to pin down why they feel as they feel.

Very interesting, i agree