sigh.

[taiki]

So I've been keeping up with the Penny Arcade Dickwolf debacle(See here Major Warning: Discusses rape).

Phil Plait once gave a talk on the tone argument in a skepticism context. You can find it here. He talks about Skepticism and how to turn people to the light. He brings up several basic questions. First off, what are you trying to

Comments

[taiki]

Civility isn't necessary for any movement or even for education. Should the civil rights movement have been civil? Do you think it would have accomplished as much if it had? Pretty much a guarantee it wouldn't have.

But it was. That was the corner stone of Martin Luther King's non-violence philosophy. It's why we remember him and instead of the numerous other civil rights leaders who advocated for more extreme measures and solutions.

"Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

Less critique of the message and more thought about how to present the message (or your version of it) would be more effective. I've noticed that's something you do often on twitter, critique the message/people presenting the message. Yeah, I do it too, I think the democratic party are a bunch of corporate shits and leftism in America is pathetic/fairly weak, but spending the majority of time infighting doesn't make things better.

I've noticed though that when you critique that, it suddenly becomes personal. When it shouldn't.

[dr_teng]

Non-violence doesn't imply civility. Nor does being angry imply one must hate one's opponents. You're linking things that aren't naturally linked with each other.

Boycotts and illegal actions (sit-ins and the like) aren't "civil". Breaking the law is pretty obviously not a civil action. Nor was the civil rights movement entirely MLK. I doubt you'll find many historians, aside from ones whitewashing it, that will ignore the contributions of more extremist members like Malcolm X.

-----

As for your second point, I'm not sure what you mean. Elaborate?

[taiki]

In the context of conversation and discourse, civility is a matter of how you deal with the opposition. Do you throw a trashcan through their window or do you sit outside and picket their doorstep? While yes, serious historians do remember extremist wings of the civil rights movement, the point I'm making is, who had more effect, Huey P. Newton or MLK?

What i meant on my second point was that people who are on this side of the debate often can't tell the difference between, "Your argument is crap" and "you are crap."

[dr_teng]

Many people would (and have) said that any illegal actions aren't civil. If you were a business owner and you had people protesting your business by occupying it, would you consider that civil? I find that unlikely. My point here is that civility isn't a requirement and never has been. Non-violence is an entirely different matter so linking the two really makes no sense.

It doesn't matter who had "more" of an effect. Without Malcolm X, the civil rights movement wouldn't have went as far as it did. He's considered one of the most important civil rights activists of all time by a great many people, so it's not like you can ignore his contribution. Just because MLK is considered more highly doesn't mean much, it's not a game of who scored the most points. Their cumulative effect was what mattered. It's a fairly common belief that so many people warmed up to MLK because there were more extremist factions, the whole good cop/bad cop situation.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, many people have issues with tying their form of presentation to their own opinion. I've went through phases where I was a total troll, completely civil, to my current mix of a bit of both, so I'm fairly detached from how I present my message. I simply find extensive critique of an already weak community somewhat counter-productive.