Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-14-17, 09:07 AM   #51
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 12,756
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by mspmms View Post
Vibiana - I have never met them, however I have read your posts.

That's me, baby .... raw and uncensored.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 09:40 AM   #52
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,157
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibiana View Post
I, personally, am in favor of:

1. People using whichever public restroom they feel like, doing their business, cleaning up after themselves, refraining from bothering anyone else who's using the restroom for the purpose it was intended for, and not whining about somebody else making them "uncomfortable" for the great crime of existing.

2. Single payer health care, which appears to work just fine in every civilized country except the United States of America, where we apparently think health care is only for those who "deserve" it.

3. Not requiring minor children to disrobe in a communal atmosphere, no matter what naughty bits are involved, as part of a curriculum.
What's the deal with #3? Are you talking about gym class? Seems oddly specific.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 09:43 AM   #53
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 12,756
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Yes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 10:36 AM   #54
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,344
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomStranger View Post
I would strenously disagree with that assertion in some groups of people. It is obvious that some suffer great emotional stress when confronted with a worldview diametrically opposed to their own beliefs. The visible emotional stress is proof of the cognitive dissonance they are feeling.
Those worldviews being things like, "You aren't fully human," "You don't deserve the same rights as other people," and "You don't belong in this country."

Look, if you want civil discourse, you have to accept the basic rules of society, including equality for everyone regardless of race or religion. If that minimal buy-in is too much for you, fuck off. You can't expect civil treatment when your working to remove civil protections from people.
__________________
Goodnight, everyone. Tomorrow will be worse.
Blog
Twitter
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 10:51 AM   #55
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 23,872
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Agreed - If your "worldview" is that you don't like something someone else does that doesn't affect you at all, you've got a shittt worldview.
__________________
XBL GamerTag: Draven Sinclair
PSN: DravenSinclair
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:16 AM   #56
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,716
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Agreed - If your "worldview" is that you don't like something someone else does that doesn't affect you at all, you've got a shittt worldview.
There are two immediate problems with what you said (there may be others):

(1) It isn't being applied consistently.

(2) It assumes that "your" view is the only correct view and that any other view is invalid; therefore, the person doesn't deserve civil treatment.

That is exactly what the professors and the authors of the article were talking about. People justify engaging in what they would label "vile, insulting behavior" toward other viewpoints because they personally are offended by the other viewpoints. If the other side uses the same tactic, civil public discourse breaks down and everything turns into contests to see who can shout the most hateful rhetoric loudest.

And that's the entire point of the thread. Some welcome uncivil discourse and cloak it in self-righteous justifications; others from all different worldviews see it as appalling and counterproductive behavior.

As the Time article said, "The point is not to debate but to dominate."

And that manifests itself not only engaging in consistent, repeated personal attacks (as the liberal author said) but in trying to ban speech in pubic and on websites rather than to persuade through argumentation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:27 AM   #57
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,716
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Draven, let's take your recent comment "You're intolerant of my intolerance also never gets old" and examine it.

What seems to be missed is that that sentiment cuts both ways. The assumption seems to be (on the part of the speaker) that one person's "intolerance" is morally correct. It appears that the speaker is dogmatically asserting his/her conviction without affording that same right to the other speaker.

Now, both speakers have the right to hold their convictions, and both have the right to think that the other speaker is wrong. But if that results in shutting off conversation and substituting browbeating in an attempt to "dominate" and "subdue" the other party, not only does it end up polarizing the community and stubbornly reinforcing preconceived notions (and fueling resentment).

Each person feels that the other is being "intolerant" of the other's. And each person may feel personal moral convictions that affirm that his/her view is the correct view which brooks no discussion. So it becomes a struggle not of ideas but of power and aggression...the rhetorical version of an arms race.

"I'll call, see you one bigot, and raise you two hypocrites." Sounds like a good basis for fostering progress, doesn't it?

And, as others have alluded, that seems to be the goal of some. "Let's just burn this ___ to the ground and start over." It's a scorched-earth policy that creates divisions desired by some but deplored by others as potentially destructive. Sometimes revolutions may be necessary, but they often end up harming those who desire the revolution and have unintended negative consequences, as 20th-century history has demonstrated.

Last edited by creekdipper; 03-15-17 at 01:15 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:34 AM   #58
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,344
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Christian moral relativism, post-modern white nationalism ... what's next, 'pataphysical monarchism?
__________________
Goodnight, everyone. Tomorrow will be worse.
Blog
Twitter
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:43 AM   #59
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 23,872
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

There are viewpoints that aren't worth debate, yes? We don't tolerate those who think black people are subhuman and shouldn't attend schools and drink from water fountains with white people, yes?

So if a white supremacist says that people are being intolerant of his views, he's right. Because we all agree that it's abhorrent to think that way. Yet 50-60 years ago, it was a common view that many agreed with.

You're being intolerant of my intolerance is something a white supremacist would say. I never what to be on the same side as a white supremacist.

The same thing will happen with homosexuality in about 20 more years. We'll look back at those who oppose gay rights the same way we look at those people holding up signs about keeping schools segregated.
__________________
XBL GamerTag: Draven Sinclair
PSN: DravenSinclair
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:43 AM   #60
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,716
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
Christian moral relativism, post-modern white nationalism ... what's next, 'pataphysical monarchism?
Please explain how this relates to this thread. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 11:43 AM   #61
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 9,118
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
Christian moral relativism, post-modern white nationalism ... what's next, 'pataphysical monarchism?
Yeah, let's all be concerned if the KKK, and others with a goal of treating others with the worst form of disrespect, had their feelings hurt. Ummm, no.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 12:03 PM   #62
DVD Talk Legend
 
creekdipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,716
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven View Post
There are viewpoints that aren't worth debate, yes? We don't tolerate those who think black people are subhuman and shouldn't attend schools and drink from water fountains with white people, yes?

So if a white supremacist says that people are being intolerant of his views, he's right. Because we all agree that it's abhorrent to think that way. Yet 50-60 years ago, it was a common view that many agreed with.

You're being intolerant of my intolerance is something a white supremacist would say. I never what to be on the same side as a white supremacist.

The same thing will happen with homosexuality in about 20 more years. We'll look back at those who oppose gay rights the same way we look at those people holding up signs about keeping schools segregated.
Actually, according to the First Amendment, we do have to tolerate such speech. And we offer counter-arguments which persuade the public. If we don't want the ideas disseminated, we boycott their books, protest outside venues where they are speaking, write letters protesting their appearances to the organizers of the events, etc. We can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, but we do have to allow controversial ideas which are rejected by the general public.

What we don't do is shout them down when they are invited guests( especially when the intent is specifically to rebut their ideas, as in the Middlebury incident), attack them physically, try to get them banned from public spaces to which they have a right, fine them, put them in prison, etc. Remember the "First they came for them" adage? Banning unpopular speech starts with the most extreme examples and then proceeds to the next target until only one voice is left. Isn't that one of the main criticisms about President Trump's attitude toward the media?

The First Amendment exists not to protect popular speech but that which is controversial. You say atheists are a minority; would you want to see atheist speech banned due to its being considered "unpopular" or "hateful" by a majority? Be careful what you wish for.

Which do you prefer and find more valuable? Open debate of ideas in a protected environment? Or shutting down debate altogether? One does not have to respect either the speaker or his/her ideas, but can one not show respect for the First Amendment? To suggest otherwise seems to be advocating for authoritarian government control of speech...or, at very least, mob rule.

Isn't that the antithesis of what you personally believe?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 12:08 PM   #63
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 9,118
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Ironically, it's always been quite clear that the goal of many, and at least a few here at DVDTalk, is a Christian Taliban like theocracy where atheist (and de facto atheist) speech would be banned.

Last edited by hdnmickey; 03-14-17 at 01:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 12:20 PM   #64
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 35,749
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdnmickey View Post
It's always been quite clear that the goal of many, and at least a few here at DVDTalk is a theocracy (Christian Taliban) where atheist (and de facto atheist) speech would be banned.
Blasphemy to all those who dare question or criticize! You wouldn't want to hurt the lord's feelings or else he'll send you straight to hell.
__________________
The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.

- Machiavelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 12:35 PM   #65
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 23,872
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Actually, according to the First Amendment, we do have to tolerate such speech. And we offer counter-arguments which persuade the public. If we don't want the ideas disseminated, we boycott their books, protest outside venues where they are speaking, write letters protesting their appearances to the organizers of the events, etc. We can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, but we do have to allow controversial ideas which are rejected by the general public.

What we don't do is shout them down when they are invited guests( especially when the intent is specifically to rebut their ideas, as in the Middlebury incident), attack them physically, try to get them banned from public spaces to which they have a right, fine them, put them in prison, etc. Remember the "First they came for them" adage? Banning unpopular speech starts with the most extreme examples and then proceeds to the next target until only one voice is left. Isn't that one of the main criticisms about President Trump's attitude toward the media?

The First Amendment exists not to protect popular speech but that which is controversial. You say atheists are a minority; would you want to see atheist speech banned due to its being considered "unpopular" or "hateful" by a majority? Be careful what you wish for.

Which do you prefer and find more valuable? Open debate of ideas in a protected environment? Or shutting down debate altogether? One does not have to respect either the speaker or his/her ideas, but can one not show respect for the First Amendment? To suggest otherwise seems to be advocating for authoritarian government control of speech...or, at very least, mob rule.

Isn't that the antithesis of what you personally believe?
I don't think racist views are worth tolerating. You can have them, but I can protest them or pressure venues to not provide a platform. Of course I don't want them thrown in jail or physically assaulted and I've never said otherwise. But a racist or bigot complaining that their views aren't being given a fair shake is ridiculous. And that's where "you're being intolerant of my intolerance" comes from.

Refusing to serve a homosexual is the same as refusing to serve a black person or a woman or a Jewish person. And objecting to those views is not oppressive. Encouraging them is.
__________________
XBL GamerTag: Draven Sinclair
PSN: DravenSinclair
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 12:49 PM   #66
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Lt Ripley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Llama School
Posts: 6,056
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

A few welcome civil discourse that poorly attempts to cloak their self-righteous justifications. Most on here see it as appalling and counterproductive behavior.

A bigots point is to dominate.
__________________
Christian sinners, stealing the emotional well-being of homosexuals everywhere
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 01:19 PM   #67
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,087
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Actually, according to the First Amendment, we do have to tolerate such speech. And we offer counter-arguments which persuade the public. If we don't want the ideas disseminated, we boycott their books, protest outside venues where they are speaking, write letters protesting their appearances to the organizers of the events, etc. We can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater, but we do have to allow controversial ideas which are rejected by the general public.

What we don't do is shout them down when they are invited guests( especially when the intent is specifically to rebut their ideas, as in the Middlebury incident), attack them physically, try to get them banned from public spaces to which they have a right, fine them, put them in prison, etc. Remember the "First they came for them" adage? Banning unpopular speech starts with the most extreme examples and then proceeds to the next target until only one voice is left. Isn't that one of the main criticisms about President Trump's attitude toward the media?

The First Amendment exists not to protect popular speech but that which is controversial. You say atheists are a minority; would you want to see atheist speech banned due to its being considered "unpopular" or "hateful" by a majority? Be careful what you wish for.

Which do you prefer and find more valuable? Open debate of ideas in a protected environment? Or shutting down debate altogether? One does not have to respect either the speaker or his/her ideas, but can one not show respect for the First Amendment? To suggest otherwise seems to be advocating for authoritarian government control of speech...or, at very least, mob rule.

Isn't that the antithesis of what you personally believe?
creek, this reads as if you're combining our actual freedom of speech with a made up 'freedom to be taken seriously by others'. Flat earthers are certainly welcome to their beliefs and can state them to anyone who is willing to listen. That doesn't mean any of us are obligated to listen to what they have to say or engage them in debate. Freedom of speech guarantees the government won't prevent you from saying something, but it doesn't mean the government will guarantee you a receptive audience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 01:33 PM   #68
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,344
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
Please explain how this relates to this thread. Thanks.
You're arguing moral relativism in defense of post-modern white nationalism ... what else do you need?
__________________
Goodnight, everyone. Tomorrow will be worse.
Blog
Twitter
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 01:59 PM   #69
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 35,749
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Anyone who believes in the extermination or oppression of people because of their gender, race, color, sexual orientation, etc... won't get my respect.
__________________
The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.

- Machiavelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 02:03 PM   #70
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,281
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

This thread is one massive sealioning attempt, which isn't surprising coming from our largest and most vocal sea lion.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 02:35 PM   #71
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,835
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 02:45 PM   #72
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 19,048
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

So the sea lion isn't fully human, doesn't deserve the same rights as other marine animals, and doesn't belong in the cartoon?
__________________
"Wishbone is spelled with an E not a 3..... *Be gone*" - Minor Threat
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 02:48 PM   #73
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: More drinks, more fun!
Posts: 13,084
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

Anytime that comic is shared, it's worthwhile to read the creator's update on the topic:
Quote:
"It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written.

But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made.

Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.

My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing.

As for their attire: everyone in Wondermark dresses like that."
__________________
"water boils at 24 spins per second" is not wrong, because it is not even wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 03:02 PM   #74
Time Lord
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 52,281
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

The idea that a civil tone is more important than the content of your ideas is ludicrous. Of course it may help get your message across to be civil, but if you're arguing that being civil while denying people rights is better than being rude while fighting to secure those rights, or worse that being civil justifies you denying people rights, while being rude invalidates a claim to those rights, is plain and simple disingenuous bullshit.

And despite people like creek saying many noxious things over the years, most responses to him have been civil. Despite this, he has continued to be condescending and offensive, albeit polite in his tone. At a certain point it's not worth the effort, when you realize that it's all water off a duck's back.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Check out my vinyl collection!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-17, 03:05 PM   #75
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 12,756
Re: Demise of Public Civil Discourse Toward Opposing Viewpoints

I'm NEVER civil to creek. Actually, I'm never civil to anybody, though, so at least he's not alone.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0