bobbyp - I read your link and I will admit that I have thought the same thing about our situation more than once.
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it, and a lot of pushing through structural changes to shore up the weakest parts that are making it so hard to prevent the willful vandalism and disregard of the rule of law. I don't think that their critics are wrong to say that they used extra-constitutional means to achieve their ends, but part of their end in both cases was not just to preserve the union, but to preserve the constitution and keep continuity of government.
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
My fear is that this time the current GOP will force a suspension of the constitution and turn tyrant with the intent of undoing the constitution and replacing it with a Christian Nationalist authoritarian government. If so, then I don't know how the union is going to hold.
About a decade and a half ago, I used to pursue and comment on a form similar to this one. One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
I was glad to see the "outcasts" included because they are almost always part of the mix. A lot of them have serious mental and psychological issues. They include folks like the guy that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed for the crime of throwing a bag at him.
Geriatrics are much easier (and less negatively) to explain than Kruse's characterization - they (i.e., we) show up because we're retired and don't have jobs and kids to deal with. Which is to say, we have the time.
Kruse describes folks affected by ICE activity as "out for retribution", which strikes me as wrong. I wonder if she actually knows anyone, or has talked with anyone, who has actually been affected - had friends or family members incarcerated or deported. In my experience they just want to bear witness to their own experience, they aren't out to "get" anybody.
Kruse's characterization of antifa seems extreme, even a bit cartoonish. "They all dress in black and will kill to suppress dissenting views" - again, I have to ask if she has ever actually been around real live antifa or antifa-adjacent people. Some fit the strict definition of domestic terrorism as defined in US law, some don't. And "domestic terrorism" is a very dangerous label to toss around in the current climate.
To the degree that I understand it, at its heart antifa are people who believe many hard core right wingers are fascists and are violent and unreasoning people, who will not respect the law and institutions of governance and so must be met with force. It's not an approach I agree with or support - I think they are basically poking the bear and giving Trump et al an excuse to double down. But neither are they completely wrong about their opponents.
Stakes:
I attend two churches pretty regularly. One is an Episcopal church whose congregation is about 60% Latino. They hold two services a week, one in English, one in Spanish, with a bilingual service once a month. The other is a UU church that has a significant population of gays as well as some trans people. We just hired a minister who is a lesbian.
I live in a very white bread town that is adjacent to towns with sizeable immigrant populations. Dominecan Republic, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Haiti, Russia and Eastern Europe, Ireland. When I say "adjacent" I mean these towns are within 2 or 3 miles of my home. The city of Salem is literally around the corner from me. Most of my daily is in and around Salem, which is about 15% Dominican. I contribute to and have volunteered at a local food bank whose clientele is primarily immigrants.
I make a somewhat haphazard but continual effort to follow a spiritual path that is very much centered on concern for less privileged people - the poor, immigrants, outcasts of any type. By "haphazard" I mean I'm not great at it, mostly because I am temperentally irascible, judgemental, impatient, and have a kind of restless and unruly mind. Nonetheless, I cannot escape the overwhelming and consistent message that god, whoever and whatever that personage is, loves everyone but really really really cherishes and champions less fortunate people.
I often wonder what judgement this country is storing up for itself. Not in the sense of some kind of supreme being throwing bolts of lightning at us, but just in the sense of karma. I really do believe we will pay a price for the crap that is going on here right now.
Ultimately, for me it comes down to a really simple thing - we are obliged to treat other people as fellow human beings, deserving of respect and consideration. "Obliged" not necessarily for some religious or spiritual motivation, but just freaking because. Because there they are, a person like yourself. Treat them as you would be treated, at minimum.
So that's where I'm at with all of this. I spend a lot of time spinning my mental and emotional wheels trying to understand how to live in this moment. I really don't know where it's all gonna lead.
I appreciate having ObWi as a place to vent and work through my own thoughts about all of it. And I appreciate all of your forbearance while I think out loud, at length. Mental flailing, but I'm grateful to have a venue for it.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
Are we really to get our panties in a bunch based on the (cherry picked) actions of a small number of anti-fascist demonstrators? THEY ARE NOT THE ONES STEALING OUR LIBERTY!!!!
About stakes, we all have our individual ones. A lot of people seem to have a stake in the I/P conflict that demands they support Israel, but if examined closely, that crumbles. And if one has discussions about this, it's a point to consider.
But I also think of the phrase 'it's not always about you'. People are influenced by not only their past, but also to lots of other things that are happening in their life. People also hold positions on lots of things that they don't directly affect them. My feeling is that if that is the case, they need to be careful to make sure that their arguments can be checked for their logic and their facts can be verified. Charles posting about the Portland ICE facility reveals that the damage happened in June, before Operation Overpriced Kombucha was even an unformed notion in the Dear Leader's mind seems like one of those things that people can be doubtful as to what it represents. It could be said that I am being uncivil in pointing this out, but I think Charles has enough of a record lauding libertarian ideals of taking the government out of everything that one has to wonder when he applauds unrequested military intervention to protect 4 month old broken doors.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women. And if one has that as a main focus or even an important focus, that's fine. But when you have people using that as a justification for intervention, if they don't examine their motivations, they can't be surprised if someone else does it for them, perhaps unfairly. The answer to me is [the generic] you need to examine your motivations and set them out or have it done for you.
In Afghanistan, for example, consider how Trump signed the withdrawal in May 2020 and ordered a RIF down to 2,500 5 days before Biden's inauguration. Biden carried it out and was accused of neglecting the rights of women, like in this Heritage Foundation piece by Anthony Kim
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/the-tragic-betrayal-afghan-women-year-after-bidens-botched-troop-withdrawal
There were some on the left who complained about this, and I'd take what they said seriously. But when conservatives who supported Trump come up with that, really?
Now, Anthony is not here, but if he were, couldn't we wonder about his other positions and how they mesh? And do we serve civility by pretending to take all his comments at face value?
This is one reason I'm so noisy about providing links rather than 'I read this on X and [opining]' I realize that not everyone has time to do this, and information has gotten a lot more diffuse so it can sometimes be impossible to reference something seen in passing, but that should demand a lighter touch in presenting it as evidence, imho.
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
Sorry, the penultimate paragraph was supposed to be a clear quotation!
But since Gay starts her essay with Vance’s demand for civility, don’t you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay’s argument by not even noting that?
Oh, it seemed clear to me that after starting with a denunciation of Vance's hypocrisy and cosplay of civility, when Leslie goes on to talk about Gay and says Last week the academic and essayist Roxane Gay denounced Vance’s words in a column for the New York Times. She didn’t just criticise his double standards; she denounced the idea of civility itself, calling it “a fantasy”. (my bold) that he is absolutely noting that.
But anyway, textual analysis aside, your points about stakes seem worrying to me. People's biases seem relevant, and if one has no history with someone one can tease them out in argument and discussion, but "stake" seems to imply a personal involvement versus a principled position. Actually, that makes me realise I'm not sure what you mean by stake. Do you mean personal involvement or history with the issue? For example, when you mention "the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries", (I'm assuming e.g. Afghanistan for the purpose of this conversation) who do you think needs a "stake" (and if so, what sort) to complain about it? If you mean that some people are complaining about it who are perfectly OK with women being treated poorly in countries they support, that hypocrisy is easy enough to bring up in the argument, isn't it?
i>But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
I completely agree with you on this. In fact, the possibility that "civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement" seems to me absurd; I have certainly never heard of it, or meant it.
I think "bought the farm" for dead dates back to the days when small family farms lived precariously from one season to the next, always struggling to get their mortgage paid off.
"Drank the Kool aid" is relatively new.
Different places have different directions to indicate failure. "The deal went south" maybe comes from "being sold down the river" etc? I read somewhere that in Ireland your deal doesn't go south; it goes west. Does anyone know?
It's remarkable how recurrent the pattern is: a group exists which I will call "Our Nation". Outsiders move in. At first, when the outsiders are perceived as such a tiny minority as to not make much difference, they are received fairly well; however, as time goes on and more outsiders arrive, a reaction is triggered. The reaction has predictable elements: Our Nation first! Talk about the inherent cultural superiority (and often genetic superiority) of those who are real true members of Our Nation, flag fetishism, militarism, women sidelined out of leadership (unless they can out-hate the male leadership or are physical exemplars of the preferred genotype), the use of Othering to gain power, etc.
I think this territoriality, cult of a strong leader, and fear of the Other is hardwired into our species.
There's Russian saying, "Man is wolf to man."
Sure, Leslie isn't implying that. But since Gay starts her essay with Vance's demand for civility, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay's argument by not even noting that? Unfortunately, he starts off by taking issue with Gay in order to valorize civility when Gay places it in a particular context.
I found what is close to a transcript of Gay's TED talk here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/bad-feminist-roxane-gay-extract
About stakes, I think it is worthwhile to work from cases we might all agree with and then move out to edge cases where we have to tease out things. So, a case that might serve would be the weaponization of anti-antisemitism. While I'm thinking of the Trump administration going after universities because of a claimed failure in dealing with antiseminism. I think, if you look at this in hindsight, you can draw a line to the antisemitism accusations against Labour and Corbyn. It doesn't absolve anyone from charges of anti-semitism, but recognizing that many of the people who are baying for blood have absolutely no stake in it, except as a way to undercut their political opposition is essentially a question of 'stakes'. Going back to civility, if the accusations were being made by a person who actually acknowledged how much their stake is, I think we would have some foundation for civility. But when it is done by someone who has no 'stake' in the issue, it means that civility is a sham.
I won't bring up recent events here, except to say that when someone drops in to specifically set people against each other, that is not linked to any definition of civility in my dictionary, and it would suggest that the person would argue the opposite side if they thought it would achieve their aims.
There is also the problem of fighting distant problems while turning a blind eye to problems closer to home. Chinese must feel this happens when they see people going on about Uyghur and Taiwan, or the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries. These problems definitely exist, but looking at who has a 'stake' in it can be relevatory.
I've been reading the Memoranda of Conversations in the run up to Nixon going to China. Basically, Kissinger was throwing Taiwan under the bus in order to achieve a rapproachment with China
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d139
Now, Nixon had to take all this back to Congress and the China Lobby basically took out a lot of these things. Understanding US history and politics can make this understandable, but when viewed from the Chinese side, it seems like Taiwan is not something that the US is interested in unless it is a way to undercut China. I don't suggest that we cede Taiwan to China, though I'm not sure how far the US should go in defending it (cf Ukraine), but it reveals, at least to me, that people who make Taiwan their key point in opposing China are perhaps responding to prejudices they have about China rather than considering the actual history and circumstances.
If I were to speak to your particular situation, I'd need to have a pan-opticon view of your exchanges and ideas and the context of those, so yes, in the absence of having complete knowledge of that, one has to grant people principles that they feel they hold deeply. To transpose your example, Australians have been at the forefront of anti-racism efforts and the efforts by individual Australians, such as Peter Norman. But when politicians argue that somehow they, by being members of an Australian polity, are somehow anti racist, that seems a bit strained, not only given Australia's problems of race relations, but also in regard to specific policies and programs. Those principles can and should be examined to reveal places where they might not match up with other principles brought forward. And if those become the topic of conversation among individuals, folks should give the respondent the time and space to make their case, something that is not always easy or even possible. But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on. Fortunately, we are all works in progress and we do have the possibility of change so ideally, in an environment that has civility, people will be able to change. However, if civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement, it is, as Gay points out, performative.
Not quite Russell-esque in length and certainly not in content, but we do our best.
That's because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That's not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
I'm not saying we should be uncivil to them. I'm saying that we fall outside of their view of what counts as civitas.
...the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I've decided that Trump-enabling Republicans, which is most of them, are the enemy of humanity in general, and the United States in particular. So you could "both sides" that one.
But I see no reason to be uncivil.
__
I am anti-fascist.
Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in “war-ravaged” Portland...
Two wrongs don't make a right. The protesters are unlikely to have any positive influence on anyone who counts, especially the Trump administration. The protests are more likely to be counterproductive, especially with the locals who are sick of the months and years of chaos in their lives.
And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the “evidence” of people like honeybadgermom?
I've seen videos from several sources showing protestors engaging in bad behavior. Assaulting individuals. Throwing objects and fireworks at ICE personnel. Damaging property. People have the right to protest. They don't have the right to break the law.
...why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
I'm at a loss as to which consequences I have staunchly defended.
russell 5:02 pm: First, “antifa” and the related term “radical left” have become so vague as to be almost meaningless. [...]
Here's another breakdown of the protestors.
"Members of the anti-ICE crowd in Portland can be divided into one of four main categories. There is some overlap – rioters fitting into more than one group – but these categories encompass nearly everyone there." Brandi Kruse
nous, the "GOP and their core voters" and their base, and MAGAs, are clearly not available for civil discussion, and maybe they never will be. But some soi-disant conservatives, and not just outliers like wj, are, and maybe eventually the public discourse, Overton Window etc will shift back somewhat (when healthcare disappears from millions perhaps?), and the habits of civility will be useful among larger populations. One can hope, and try to keep the home fires burning....
Charles, as someone who has been (understandably) piled on, you certainly have my sympathy. But I pay you the compliment of hoping and believing you don't mind an ongoing conversation, question and answer etc, and I hope you take it that way. I find your ongoing explanations and glosses valuable too.
lj, my reading of that Leslie piece was that he was in not implying that Vance is in any way at all "practising civility". He seems to make this pretty clear when he says:
So – cancel culture is bad, but if you see someone posting a dumb tweet about Kirk, it’s your patriotic duty to get them fired. This is before we get to the absurdity of claiming to believe in civility while acting as head boy to a president who glories in insulting opponents and using the f-word. You might suspect Vance of self-parody if he weren’t so joyless.
Sorry if the formatting made any of it unclear, I'm finding the inability to proofread before posting, and uncertainty about the new rules etc, inhibiting when copying and pasting. Hopefully, some of that will get better.
By the way I was fascinated by your concept of people arguing a position which they do not have a stake in. Who would make the decision about what commenters' stakes in their various arguments were, and therefore which were permissible? I was thinking for example of myself: a white, upper-middle class British woman from a reasonably privileged background. Someone who did not know my background (parents who left a successful and privileged life in South Africa in the 50s with very little money because of their opposition to apartheid) might wonder why I am so concerned with racial inequality, what my "stake" in it is. (In fact, in DC in the 70s, I was much more interested in racial discrimination than some of the black Republicans I met.) How on earth would one know unless told, and why would there need to be an background check? Surely people are allowed principles which do not have an easily explicable origin story?
Following on russell's comment, I'm going to talk Carl Schmitt again. I know I've written some of this before, but that's all in the archive now, so here it is again for the new site.
I get why russell says that civility is no longer on offer. US conservatism has taken a hard turn into political theology (as described by Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political) since 9/11. Schmitt was very concerned with the concept of sovereignty and where the authority to govern resides. For him the sovereign is the person, or entity, that is authorized by the people to make the distinction between friend and enemy, and decide who is or is not a part of the people when conflicts become existential - the State of Exception. I see this political theology deeply reflected in pretty much everything that the Roberts court has given us. They are always thinking about executive sovereignty and crises.
Civility is not on offer because the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction. If you doubt this, just look at what Vance has said about the shutdown. He says that the Democrats are "holding the American people hostage." That literally puts Democratic officials - and all the Americans who elected those officials - on the side of the enemy with which the GOP will not negotiate.
The GOP and their core voters do not see this as a political disagreement to be negotiated over. They see Democrats as the enemies of America, to be expelled or subdued in the name of The People.
Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in "war-ravaged" Portland without putting them in the context of what Trump has empowered ICE to do nationwide, which they are enthusiastically and in many cases illegally doing, in defiance of the states' wishes? And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the "evidence" of people like honeybadgermom? If Trump is what you say we all agree he is (I myself would add several adjectives, particularly "corrupt"), why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
Leslie plucks a small bit out of Gay's essay (the full essay (from a facebook friend) is at
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/opinion/civility-fantasy-power-kirk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok8.2ekW.yooo9wXkJKQX
but seems to have missed the first paragraph
After encouraging podcast listeners of the recently deceased Charlie Kirk to become online vigilantes in search of anyone “celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance said last week: “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
Vance was doing what conservatives often do — conjuring people up so his followers have someone specific to foment against. This brand of demagoguery is incredibly dangerous, because when informally deputized vigilantes realize that few real enemies exist, they accept any substitute. They direct their manufactured ire toward innocent people, marginalized groups and, eventually, one another.
I'm curious if Leslie thinks Vance (and others) are practicing 'civility' by making claims that a large portion of the left was somehow celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. It seems to me that civility has to start with some sort of acceptance of reality, not creating a false one and then demanding that everyone kowtow to that.
Gay also gets a shot in at Klein when she writes; In the fantasy of civility, if we are polite about our disagreements, we are practicing politics the right way. If we are polite when we express bigotry, we are performing respectability for people whom we do not actually respect and who, in return, do not respect us. The performance is the only thing that matters. Ouch.
A couple more paragraphs And the notion of two groups— civil and not — is predicated on the idea that we’re all playing by the same rules, and we’re standing on equal footing, untroubled by the inequities and bigotries of the world. As I said, civility is a fantasy, because our political discourse never happens in a vacuum. It happens in the beautiful mess of the real world. It is naïve, at best, to believe civility is more important than who we are, what we stand for and how.
and these two Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between “us” and “them.” It is the demand of people with thin skin who don’t want their delicate egos and impoverished ideas challenged. And it is a tool of fearful leaders, clinging to power with desperate, sweaty hands, thrilled at the ways they are forcing people, corporations and even other nations to bend to their will but terrified at what will happen when it all slips away.
Good stuff, and I recommend her book 'Bad Feminist'. Her TED talk is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxt_MZKMdes
For berserk, there are two etymologies, one is bare-shirt (suggesting that the warriors wore no armor) or bear shirt (wore bear skins). It's in Old Norse, but doesn't appear in Old English. My Old English teacher favored the bear shirt etymology, because of the etymology of the word bear, 'brown one' in Indo European, This is because the actual word for bear (*rktos) was a taboo word, and no one wanted to summon or anger one of those bad boys. Which is precisely the opposite of having something like 'going postal' become an everyday phrase of annoyance.
They speculate it could be about compensation for the farmer whose land was destroyed, but I also wonder if it isn’t a humorous extension of “plowing” into the ground.
I seem to recall it referencing the 6' by 3' patch out ground for a grave. Ground which wouldn't be built on, and so was forever rural.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
bobbyp - I read your link and I will admit that I have thought the same thing about our situation more than once.
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it, and a lot of pushing through structural changes to shore up the weakest parts that are making it so hard to prevent the willful vandalism and disregard of the rule of law. I don't think that their critics are wrong to say that they used extra-constitutional means to achieve their ends, but part of their end in both cases was not just to preserve the union, but to preserve the constitution and keep continuity of government.
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
My fear is that this time the current GOP will force a suspension of the constitution and turn tyrant with the intent of undoing the constitution and replacing it with a Christian Nationalist authoritarian government. If so, then I don't know how the union is going to hold.
"
About a decade and a half ago, I used to pursue and comment on a form similar to this one. One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
"
Here’s another breakdown of the protestors.
Seems sort of accurate.
I was glad to see the "outcasts" included because they are almost always part of the mix. A lot of them have serious mental and psychological issues. They include folks like the guy that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed for the crime of throwing a bag at him.
Geriatrics are much easier (and less negatively) to explain than Kruse's characterization - they (i.e., we) show up because we're retired and don't have jobs and kids to deal with. Which is to say, we have the time.
Kruse describes folks affected by ICE activity as "out for retribution", which strikes me as wrong. I wonder if she actually knows anyone, or has talked with anyone, who has actually been affected - had friends or family members incarcerated or deported. In my experience they just want to bear witness to their own experience, they aren't out to "get" anybody.
Kruse's characterization of antifa seems extreme, even a bit cartoonish. "They all dress in black and will kill to suppress dissenting views" - again, I have to ask if she has ever actually been around real live antifa or antifa-adjacent people. Some fit the strict definition of domestic terrorism as defined in US law, some don't. And "domestic terrorism" is a very dangerous label to toss around in the current climate.
To the degree that I understand it, at its heart antifa are people who believe many hard core right wingers are fascists and are violent and unreasoning people, who will not respect the law and institutions of governance and so must be met with force. It's not an approach I agree with or support - I think they are basically poking the bear and giving Trump et al an excuse to double down. But neither are they completely wrong about their opponents.
Stakes:
I attend two churches pretty regularly. One is an Episcopal church whose congregation is about 60% Latino. They hold two services a week, one in English, one in Spanish, with a bilingual service once a month. The other is a UU church that has a significant population of gays as well as some trans people. We just hired a minister who is a lesbian.
I live in a very white bread town that is adjacent to towns with sizeable immigrant populations. Dominecan Republic, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Haiti, Russia and Eastern Europe, Ireland. When I say "adjacent" I mean these towns are within 2 or 3 miles of my home. The city of Salem is literally around the corner from me. Most of my daily is in and around Salem, which is about 15% Dominican. I contribute to and have volunteered at a local food bank whose clientele is primarily immigrants.
I make a somewhat haphazard but continual effort to follow a spiritual path that is very much centered on concern for less privileged people - the poor, immigrants, outcasts of any type. By "haphazard" I mean I'm not great at it, mostly because I am temperentally irascible, judgemental, impatient, and have a kind of restless and unruly mind. Nonetheless, I cannot escape the overwhelming and consistent message that god, whoever and whatever that personage is, loves everyone but really really really cherishes and champions less fortunate people.
I often wonder what judgement this country is storing up for itself. Not in the sense of some kind of supreme being throwing bolts of lightning at us, but just in the sense of karma. I really do believe we will pay a price for the crap that is going on here right now.
Ultimately, for me it comes down to a really simple thing - we are obliged to treat other people as fellow human beings, deserving of respect and consideration. "Obliged" not necessarily for some religious or spiritual motivation, but just freaking because. Because there they are, a person like yourself. Treat them as you would be treated, at minimum.
So that's where I'm at with all of this. I spend a lot of time spinning my mental and emotional wheels trying to understand how to live in this moment. I really don't know where it's all gonna lead.
I appreciate having ObWi as a place to vent and work through my own thoughts about all of it. And I appreciate all of your forbearance while I think out loud, at length. Mental flailing, but I'm grateful to have a venue for it.
"
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
"
Are we there yet?
https://outsidethebeltway.com/has-the-constitution-failed/
Are we really to get our panties in a bunch based on the (cherry picked) actions of a small number of anti-fascist demonstrators? THEY ARE NOT THE ONES STEALING OUR LIBERTY!!!!
jfc
"
About stakes, we all have our individual ones. A lot of people seem to have a stake in the I/P conflict that demands they support Israel, but if examined closely, that crumbles. And if one has discussions about this, it's a point to consider.
But I also think of the phrase 'it's not always about you'. People are influenced by not only their past, but also to lots of other things that are happening in their life. People also hold positions on lots of things that they don't directly affect them. My feeling is that if that is the case, they need to be careful to make sure that their arguments can be checked for their logic and their facts can be verified. Charles posting about the Portland ICE facility reveals that the damage happened in June, before Operation Overpriced Kombucha was even an unformed notion in the Dear Leader's mind seems like one of those things that people can be doubtful as to what it represents. It could be said that I am being uncivil in pointing this out, but I think Charles has enough of a record lauding libertarian ideals of taking the government out of everything that one has to wonder when he applauds unrequested military intervention to protect 4 month old broken doors.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women. And if one has that as a main focus or even an important focus, that's fine. But when you have people using that as a justification for intervention, if they don't examine their motivations, they can't be surprised if someone else does it for them, perhaps unfairly. The answer to me is [the generic] you need to examine your motivations and set them out or have it done for you.
In Afghanistan, for example, consider how Trump signed the withdrawal in May 2020 and ordered a RIF down to 2,500 5 days before Biden's inauguration. Biden carried it out and was accused of neglecting the rights of women, like in this Heritage Foundation piece by Anthony Kim
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/the-tragic-betrayal-afghan-women-year-after-bidens-botched-troop-withdrawal
There were some on the left who complained about this, and I'd take what they said seriously. But when conservatives who supported Trump come up with that, really?
Now, Anthony is not here, but if he were, couldn't we wonder about his other positions and how they mesh? And do we serve civility by pretending to take all his comments at face value?
This is one reason I'm so noisy about providing links rather than 'I read this on X and [opining]' I realize that not everyone has time to do this, and information has gotten a lot more diffuse so it can sometimes be impossible to reference something seen in passing, but that should demand a lighter touch in presenting it as evidence, imho.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Another oddity: "turn and burn."
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
"
A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
Sorry, the penultimate paragraph was supposed to be a clear quotation!
"
But since Gay starts her essay with Vance’s demand for civility, don’t you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay’s argument by not even noting that?
Oh, it seemed clear to me that after starting with a denunciation of Vance's hypocrisy and cosplay of civility, when Leslie goes on to talk about Gay and says Last week the academic and essayist Roxane Gay denounced Vance’s words in a column for the New York Times. She didn’t just criticise his double standards; she denounced the idea of civility itself, calling it “a fantasy”. (my bold) that he is absolutely noting that.
But anyway, textual analysis aside, your points about stakes seem worrying to me. People's biases seem relevant, and if one has no history with someone one can tease them out in argument and discussion, but "stake" seems to imply a personal involvement versus a principled position. Actually, that makes me realise I'm not sure what you mean by stake. Do you mean personal involvement or history with the issue? For example, when you mention "the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries", (I'm assuming e.g. Afghanistan for the purpose of this conversation) who do you think needs a "stake" (and if so, what sort) to complain about it? If you mean that some people are complaining about it who are perfectly OK with women being treated poorly in countries they support, that hypocrisy is easy enough to bring up in the argument, isn't it?
i>But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
I completely agree with you on this. In fact, the possibility that "civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement" seems to me absurd; I have certainly never heard of it, or meant it.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
I think "bought the farm" for dead dates back to the days when small family farms lived precariously from one season to the next, always struggling to get their mortgage paid off.
"Drank the Kool aid" is relatively new.
Different places have different directions to indicate failure. "The deal went south" maybe comes from "being sold down the river" etc? I read somewhere that in Ireland your deal doesn't go south; it goes west. Does anyone know?
On “The DIY party”
It's remarkable how recurrent the pattern is: a group exists which I will call "Our Nation". Outsiders move in. At first, when the outsiders are perceived as such a tiny minority as to not make much difference, they are received fairly well; however, as time goes on and more outsiders arrive, a reaction is triggered. The reaction has predictable elements: Our Nation first! Talk about the inherent cultural superiority (and often genetic superiority) of those who are real true members of Our Nation, flag fetishism, militarism, women sidelined out of leadership (unless they can out-hate the male leadership or are physical exemplars of the preferred genotype), the use of Othering to gain power, etc.
I think this territoriality, cult of a strong leader, and fear of the Other is hardwired into our species.
There's Russian saying, "Man is wolf to man."
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Sure, Leslie isn't implying that. But since Gay starts her essay with Vance's demand for civility, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay's argument by not even noting that? Unfortunately, he starts off by taking issue with Gay in order to valorize civility when Gay places it in a particular context.
I found what is close to a transcript of Gay's TED talk here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/bad-feminist-roxane-gay-extract
About stakes, I think it is worthwhile to work from cases we might all agree with and then move out to edge cases where we have to tease out things. So, a case that might serve would be the weaponization of anti-antisemitism. While I'm thinking of the Trump administration going after universities because of a claimed failure in dealing with antiseminism. I think, if you look at this in hindsight, you can draw a line to the antisemitism accusations against Labour and Corbyn. It doesn't absolve anyone from charges of anti-semitism, but recognizing that many of the people who are baying for blood have absolutely no stake in it, except as a way to undercut their political opposition is essentially a question of 'stakes'. Going back to civility, if the accusations were being made by a person who actually acknowledged how much their stake is, I think we would have some foundation for civility. But when it is done by someone who has no 'stake' in the issue, it means that civility is a sham.
I won't bring up recent events here, except to say that when someone drops in to specifically set people against each other, that is not linked to any definition of civility in my dictionary, and it would suggest that the person would argue the opposite side if they thought it would achieve their aims.
There is also the problem of fighting distant problems while turning a blind eye to problems closer to home. Chinese must feel this happens when they see people going on about Uyghur and Taiwan, or the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries. These problems definitely exist, but looking at who has a 'stake' in it can be relevatory.
I've been reading the Memoranda of Conversations in the run up to Nixon going to China. Basically, Kissinger was throwing Taiwan under the bus in order to achieve a rapproachment with China
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d139
Now, Nixon had to take all this back to Congress and the China Lobby basically took out a lot of these things. Understanding US history and politics can make this understandable, but when viewed from the Chinese side, it seems like Taiwan is not something that the US is interested in unless it is a way to undercut China. I don't suggest that we cede Taiwan to China, though I'm not sure how far the US should go in defending it (cf Ukraine), but it reveals, at least to me, that people who make Taiwan their key point in opposing China are perhaps responding to prejudices they have about China rather than considering the actual history and circumstances.
If I were to speak to your particular situation, I'd need to have a pan-opticon view of your exchanges and ideas and the context of those, so yes, in the absence of having complete knowledge of that, one has to grant people principles that they feel they hold deeply. To transpose your example, Australians have been at the forefront of anti-racism efforts and the efforts by individual Australians, such as Peter Norman. But when politicians argue that somehow they, by being members of an Australian polity, are somehow anti racist, that seems a bit strained, not only given Australia's problems of race relations, but also in regard to specific policies and programs. Those principles can and should be examined to reveal places where they might not match up with other principles brought forward. And if those become the topic of conversation among individuals, folks should give the respondent the time and space to make their case, something that is not always easy or even possible. But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on. Fortunately, we are all works in progress and we do have the possibility of change so ideally, in an environment that has civility, people will be able to change. However, if civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement, it is, as Gay points out, performative.
Not quite Russell-esque in length and certainly not in content, but we do our best.
"
Pro Bono - But I see no reason to be uncivil.
That's because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That's not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
I'm not saying we should be uncivil to them. I'm saying that we fall outside of their view of what counts as civitas.
"
...the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction.
I've decided that Trump-enabling Republicans, which is most of them, are the enemy of humanity in general, and the United States in particular. So you could "both sides" that one.
But I see no reason to be uncivil.
__
I am anti-fascist.
"
Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in “war-ravaged” Portland...
Two wrongs don't make a right. The protesters are unlikely to have any positive influence on anyone who counts, especially the Trump administration. The protests are more likely to be counterproductive, especially with the locals who are sick of the months and years of chaos in their lives.
And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the “evidence” of people like honeybadgermom?
I've seen videos from several sources showing protestors engaging in bad behavior. Assaulting individuals. Throwing objects and fireworks at ICE personnel. Damaging property. People have the right to protest. They don't have the right to break the law.
...why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
I'm at a loss as to which consequences I have staunchly defended.
russell 5:02 pm: First, “antifa” and the related term “radical left” have become so vague as to be almost meaningless. [...]
Here's another breakdown of the protestors.
"Members of the anti-ICE crowd in Portland can be divided into one of four main categories. There is some overlap – rioters fitting into more than one group – but these categories encompass nearly everyone there."
Brandi Kruse
"
nous, the "GOP and their core voters" and their base, and MAGAs, are clearly not available for civil discussion, and maybe they never will be. But some soi-disant conservatives, and not just outliers like wj, are, and maybe eventually the public discourse, Overton Window etc will shift back somewhat (when healthcare disappears from millions perhaps?), and the habits of civility will be useful among larger populations. One can hope, and try to keep the home fires burning....
"
Charles, as someone who has been (understandably) piled on, you certainly have my sympathy. But I pay you the compliment of hoping and believing you don't mind an ongoing conversation, question and answer etc, and I hope you take it that way. I find your ongoing explanations and glosses valuable too.
lj, my reading of that Leslie piece was that he was in not implying that Vance is in any way at all "practising civility". He seems to make this pretty clear when he says:
So – cancel culture is bad, but if you see someone posting a dumb tweet about Kirk, it’s your patriotic duty to get them fired. This is before we get to the absurdity of claiming to believe in civility while acting as head boy to a president who glories in insulting opponents and using the f-word. You might suspect Vance of self-parody if he weren’t so joyless.
Sorry if the formatting made any of it unclear, I'm finding the inability to proofread before posting, and uncertainty about the new rules etc, inhibiting when copying and pasting. Hopefully, some of that will get better.
By the way I was fascinated by your concept of people arguing a position which they do not have a stake in. Who would make the decision about what commenters' stakes in their various arguments were, and therefore which were permissible? I was thinking for example of myself: a white, upper-middle class British woman from a reasonably privileged background. Someone who did not know my background (parents who left a successful and privileged life in South Africa in the 50s with very little money because of their opposition to apartheid) might wonder why I am so concerned with racial inequality, what my "stake" in it is. (In fact, in DC in the 70s, I was much more interested in racial discrimination than some of the black Republicans I met.) How on earth would one know unless told, and why would there need to be an background check? Surely people are allowed principles which do not have an easily explicable origin story?
"
Following on russell's comment, I'm going to talk Carl Schmitt again. I know I've written some of this before, but that's all in the archive now, so here it is again for the new site.
I get why russell says that civility is no longer on offer. US conservatism has taken a hard turn into political theology (as described by Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political) since 9/11. Schmitt was very concerned with the concept of sovereignty and where the authority to govern resides. For him the sovereign is the person, or entity, that is authorized by the people to make the distinction between friend and enemy, and decide who is or is not a part of the people when conflicts become existential - the State of Exception. I see this political theology deeply reflected in pretty much everything that the Roberts court has given us. They are always thinking about executive sovereignty and crises.
Civility is not on offer because the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction. If you doubt this, just look at what Vance has said about the shutdown. He says that the Democrats are "holding the American people hostage." That literally puts Democratic officials - and all the Americans who elected those officials - on the side of the enemy with which the GOP will not negotiate.
The GOP and their core voters do not see this as a political disagreement to be negotiated over. They see Democrats as the enemies of America, to be expelled or subdued in the name of The People.
WTF are we supposed to do with that?
"
Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in "war-ravaged" Portland without putting them in the context of what Trump has empowered ICE to do nationwide, which they are enthusiastically and in many cases illegally doing, in defiance of the states' wishes? And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the "evidence" of people like honeybadgermom? If Trump is what you say we all agree he is (I myself would add several adjectives, particularly "corrupt"), why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
"
Thanks russell.
"
Leslie plucks a small bit out of Gay's essay (the full essay (from a facebook friend) is at
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/opinion/civility-fantasy-power-kirk.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ok8.2ekW.yooo9wXkJKQX
but seems to have missed the first paragraph
After encouraging podcast listeners of the recently deceased Charlie Kirk to become online vigilantes in search of anyone “celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance said last week: “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
Vance was doing what conservatives often do — conjuring people up so his followers have someone specific to foment against. This brand of demagoguery is incredibly dangerous, because when informally deputized vigilantes realize that few real enemies exist, they accept any substitute. They direct their manufactured ire toward innocent people, marginalized groups and, eventually, one another.
I'm curious if Leslie thinks Vance (and others) are practicing 'civility' by making claims that a large portion of the left was somehow celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. It seems to me that civility has to start with some sort of acceptance of reality, not creating a false one and then demanding that everyone kowtow to that.
Gay also gets a shot in at Klein when she writes; In the fantasy of civility, if we are polite about our disagreements, we are practicing politics the right way. If we are polite when we express bigotry, we are performing respectability for people whom we do not actually respect and who, in return, do not respect us. The performance is the only thing that matters. Ouch.
A couple more paragraphs
And the notion of two groups— civil and not — is predicated on the idea that we’re all playing by the same rules, and we’re standing on equal footing, untroubled by the inequities and bigotries of the world. As I said, civility is a fantasy, because our political discourse never happens in a vacuum. It happens in the beautiful mess of the real world. It is naïve, at best, to believe civility is more important than who we are, what we stand for and how.
and these two
Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between “us” and “them.” It is the demand of people with thin skin who don’t want their delicate egos and impoverished ideas challenged. And it is a tool of fearful leaders, clinging to power with desperate, sweaty hands, thrilled at the ways they are forcing people, corporations and even other nations to bend to their will but terrified at what will happen when it all slips away.
Good stuff, and I recommend her book 'Bad Feminist'. Her TED talk is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxt_MZKMdes
"
I haven’t commented much on Trump because I thought everyone here was pretty much in agreement...
Pretty much sums it up. I appreciate your comments about what a sane immigration policy would look like as well.
Common ground, y'all!
And I appreciate your grace in receiving the occasional pile on. It ain't always fun being the minority voice.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
For berserk, there are two etymologies, one is bare-shirt (suggesting that the warriors wore no armor) or bear shirt (wore bear skins). It's in Old Norse, but doesn't appear in Old English. My Old English teacher favored the bear shirt etymology, because of the etymology of the word bear, 'brown one' in Indo European, This is because the actual word for bear (*rktos) was a taboo word, and no one wanted to summon or anger one of those bad boys. Which is precisely the opposite of having something like 'going postal' become an everyday phrase of annoyance.
"
They speculate it could be about compensation for the farmer whose land was destroyed, but I also wonder if it isn’t a humorous extension of “plowing” into the ground.
I seem to recall it referencing the 6' by 3' patch out ground for a grave. Ground which wouldn't be built on, and so was forever rural.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.