Yes to all this. It’s also the reporter telling an activist she is a bad person for calling Boris Johnson a racist. We live in a culture where being called a racist is worse than being a racist. Not on my watch!
Politeness is a tool of the cisheteropatriarchy so no thanks.
Being polite is defined as being respectful and considerate of other people. The definition doesn’t mention whether it matters if the other people are worthy of respect or deserve consideration, nor does it specify what guidelines one might use to make those distinctions. Should one be polite to everyone? Is your polite behaviour still valid if you actually don’t believe the other people are either worthy or deserving? Is it more important to act with politeness or with integrity? Is it more important to act conventionally or to be true to one’s self? Is politeness something to practice no matter when or at what cost or should the context of the situation make a difference? Does one need to be polite to someone who is not polite to others?
Is politeness the goal itself or is politeness the means of achieving a goal? Is politeness just going along to get along? Is politeness necessary to preserve order and harmony within a society and between societies. A worthy goal but then this begs the question, is it working? Can it work when many people deny the right of others to be respected and considered? Can politeness work if it is not practiced universally, if it is only practiced within the confine’s of one’s own polite society? If black and brown and indigenous people have been told for hundreds of years to be polite and considerate and respectful and it will all get better yet nothing much has changed for those hundreds of years, does politeness work?
I am comfortable deciding for myself that I prefer to be polite to others even if they are not polite to me, because regardless I am in the privileged position of having an okay life. I am not comfortable with imposing that decision on people who, through no fault of their own, but totally the fault of decisions impolitely made by others, do not have an okay life.
I agree with much of what you've written here, Ms. Valenti. People who are in the spotlight, chasing the spotlight, should be willing to and be accountable for what they say. They should most certainly be able to handle criticism, being so good at just sayin' stuff.
But when it comes to civility, there is no excuse not to be civil unless facing real danger. It isn't true that it is a lie about politeness being a demonstration of our goodness, it is that if we practiced civility we would be better. What we are dealing with, all of us, is feeling really hurt, demoralized, insecure. If we gave just a speck of a moment with a clear, interested eye to listen, to ponder, and then to reply --civility -- we would feel better about ourselves which would slowly extend its way to others. And then we could achieve a little peace.
We could discuss what we mean by the words 'civil' or 'polite', but what I think this column is is a call to defend ourselves, and others, when no one else will. I'm not sure what you mean by 'to listen, to ponder'. 74 million people in this country have signed up for hate, lies, and nonsense; there's nothing to listen to or ponder there. And when you say, 'unless facing real danger' - we came very close to losing our country several months ago, and there's a very real risk of reoccurrence. Recognizing the threat too late, and saying woulda, coulda, shoulda, is not going to be good enough.
It’s also very descriptive: “ Calling one of the worst people on earth the worst person on earth is not harassment or cruel. It’s not out of line or impolite; it’s ethical and justified.”
I struggle with this. I refuse to let this crap get in the way of long held relationships, but damned, folks that buy in to this are … not of sound mind. Literally, where’s the damned Kool-aid?
How do we keep people in our circles while excluding them from prescient conversation? They are not going to swayed by me telling them truths, because they whole heartedly believe the conspiracy.
January 6 was the worst event ever to take place on US soil in modern history. This usurps Pearl Harbor and 9/11 BECAUSE of the discord and divisiveness that has spread like COVID-19.
Agree with your comment on January 6th. One could live with it if these people never get near power again, but I don't know if that will be the case. And of course at the state level they ARE in power and are trying their best to do lots of damage. I really believe it's like a civil war, just with less violence (so far), and I hope it doesn't have to get worse to get better. And I don't know what to do about those who are lost as you point out.
There's a scene in the Rooney Mara / David Craig version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo that I've never been able to get out of my mind. SPOILERS and if you've never seen the movie perhaps examine your life choices. Craig as Blomkvist *knows* that Stellan Skarsgård as Michael Vagner is the brutal serial killer. He (Blomkvist) is lurking outside Vagner's house hoping to catch a glimpse, find a clue. Vagner opens the door, and invites Blomkvist in. That's all. A genteel invitation. Thanks to Craig's performance, you can see the doubt and hesitation flash across his face. But in the end, social mores win out. Bereft of polite ways to decline, he walks willingly into the lair of a serial killer. Because it would have been rude to refuse. I think back to that scene a lot. The thing is we don't owe serial killers manners. We don't need to walk willingly into their clutches because it would be impolite not to.
**Important note: Ticker is not a serial killer. He's an asshole with a megaphone. But the same dynamic applies.
I get really angry when men pull the “not in front of my daughter or other subordinate female” crap. It is so mafia, so omerta, so macho, just the epitome of toxic patriarchy, that this alone enrages me. Enough with the toxic male crap already: it’s at the root of everything else.
Yes, I think so. I hear the argument that it's mostly about race, and while I don't want to minimize that at all, it feels to me like the toxic masculinity and patriarchy are deeper roots of the problem.
Yes!!! It drives me crazy when they say it's about 'political beliefs' or a 'point of view'. When you deny others' right to exist or to be equal in their humanity to you, that's not an 'opinion'.
The only thing that troubles me is I don't always know the best way to express that righteous anger. We're in something akin to a war right now, and we need as many people on the right side as possible, and I'm always somewhat afraid of people making a false equivalence, if they perceive both sides to be equally angry and close-minded. I guess what we need is moral clarity, especially when the adversary seeks to obfuscate and divide. And then of course I'm always afraid that there may not be a majority for what's moral and right, but that more people are persuaded by self-interest.
I've noticed that more people on the left seem to be fed up with the "be nice" directives. Being "nice" and "understanding" with these people has NEVER worked and I wish we'd realized that before hundreds of thousands of Americans had to die to show it.
Yes to all this. It’s also the reporter telling an activist she is a bad person for calling Boris Johnson a racist. We live in a culture where being called a racist is worse than being a racist. Not on my watch!
Politeness is a tool of the cisheteropatriarchy so no thanks.
On this line https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/stay-tuned-with-preet/id1265845136?i=1000527480186
When there is an opportunity to confront someone for their wrong doings and lies, take it. Silence=Death
Being polite is defined as being respectful and considerate of other people. The definition doesn’t mention whether it matters if the other people are worthy of respect or deserve consideration, nor does it specify what guidelines one might use to make those distinctions. Should one be polite to everyone? Is your polite behaviour still valid if you actually don’t believe the other people are either worthy or deserving? Is it more important to act with politeness or with integrity? Is it more important to act conventionally or to be true to one’s self? Is politeness something to practice no matter when or at what cost or should the context of the situation make a difference? Does one need to be polite to someone who is not polite to others?
Is politeness the goal itself or is politeness the means of achieving a goal? Is politeness just going along to get along? Is politeness necessary to preserve order and harmony within a society and between societies. A worthy goal but then this begs the question, is it working? Can it work when many people deny the right of others to be respected and considered? Can politeness work if it is not practiced universally, if it is only practiced within the confine’s of one’s own polite society? If black and brown and indigenous people have been told for hundreds of years to be polite and considerate and respectful and it will all get better yet nothing much has changed for those hundreds of years, does politeness work?
I am comfortable deciding for myself that I prefer to be polite to others even if they are not polite to me, because regardless I am in the privileged position of having an okay life. I am not comfortable with imposing that decision on people who, through no fault of their own, but totally the fault of decisions impolitely made by others, do not have an okay life.
I agree with much of what you've written here, Ms. Valenti. People who are in the spotlight, chasing the spotlight, should be willing to and be accountable for what they say. They should most certainly be able to handle criticism, being so good at just sayin' stuff.
But when it comes to civility, there is no excuse not to be civil unless facing real danger. It isn't true that it is a lie about politeness being a demonstration of our goodness, it is that if we practiced civility we would be better. What we are dealing with, all of us, is feeling really hurt, demoralized, insecure. If we gave just a speck of a moment with a clear, interested eye to listen, to ponder, and then to reply --civility -- we would feel better about ourselves which would slowly extend its way to others. And then we could achieve a little peace.
We could discuss what we mean by the words 'civil' or 'polite', but what I think this column is is a call to defend ourselves, and others, when no one else will. I'm not sure what you mean by 'to listen, to ponder'. 74 million people in this country have signed up for hate, lies, and nonsense; there's nothing to listen to or ponder there. And when you say, 'unless facing real danger' - we came very close to losing our country several months ago, and there's a very real risk of reoccurrence. Recognizing the threat too late, and saying woulda, coulda, shoulda, is not going to be good enough.
It’s also very descriptive: “ Calling one of the worst people on earth the worst person on earth is not harassment or cruel. It’s not out of line or impolite; it’s ethical and justified.”
I struggle with this. I refuse to let this crap get in the way of long held relationships, but damned, folks that buy in to this are … not of sound mind. Literally, where’s the damned Kool-aid?
How do we keep people in our circles while excluding them from prescient conversation? They are not going to swayed by me telling them truths, because they whole heartedly believe the conspiracy.
January 6 was the worst event ever to take place on US soil in modern history. This usurps Pearl Harbor and 9/11 BECAUSE of the discord and divisiveness that has spread like COVID-19.
Agree with your comment on January 6th. One could live with it if these people never get near power again, but I don't know if that will be the case. And of course at the state level they ARE in power and are trying their best to do lots of damage. I really believe it's like a civil war, just with less violence (so far), and I hope it doesn't have to get worse to get better. And I don't know what to do about those who are lost as you point out.
Amen.
There's a scene in the Rooney Mara / David Craig version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo that I've never been able to get out of my mind. SPOILERS and if you've never seen the movie perhaps examine your life choices. Craig as Blomkvist *knows* that Stellan Skarsgård as Michael Vagner is the brutal serial killer. He (Blomkvist) is lurking outside Vagner's house hoping to catch a glimpse, find a clue. Vagner opens the door, and invites Blomkvist in. That's all. A genteel invitation. Thanks to Craig's performance, you can see the doubt and hesitation flash across his face. But in the end, social mores win out. Bereft of polite ways to decline, he walks willingly into the lair of a serial killer. Because it would have been rude to refuse. I think back to that scene a lot. The thing is we don't owe serial killers manners. We don't need to walk willingly into their clutches because it would be impolite not to.
**Important note: Ticker is not a serial killer. He's an asshole with a megaphone. But the same dynamic applies.
*Tucker
I get really angry when men pull the “not in front of my daughter or other subordinate female” crap. It is so mafia, so omerta, so macho, just the epitome of toxic patriarchy, that this alone enrages me. Enough with the toxic male crap already: it’s at the root of everything else.
Yes, I think so. I hear the argument that it's mostly about race, and while I don't want to minimize that at all, it feels to me like the toxic masculinity and patriarchy are deeper roots of the problem.
Yes!!! It drives me crazy when they say it's about 'political beliefs' or a 'point of view'. When you deny others' right to exist or to be equal in their humanity to you, that's not an 'opinion'.
The only thing that troubles me is I don't always know the best way to express that righteous anger. We're in something akin to a war right now, and we need as many people on the right side as possible, and I'm always somewhat afraid of people making a false equivalence, if they perceive both sides to be equally angry and close-minded. I guess what we need is moral clarity, especially when the adversary seeks to obfuscate and divide. And then of course I'm always afraid that there may not be a majority for what's moral and right, but that more people are persuaded by self-interest.
It's about time that someone gave these idiots a piece of their mind.
I've noticed that more people on the left seem to be fed up with the "be nice" directives. Being "nice" and "understanding" with these people has NEVER worked and I wish we'd realized that before hundreds of thousands of Americans had to die to show it.