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.
I believe this comes from accounts (probably even a film, most likely 8 mm) of chimpanzees (or maybe gorillas?). This behavior seems to occur where humans would shout insults, without reaching the point of physical altercation. But naturally American viewers would see anything but stuff being thrown and hitting others -- i.e. a physical altercation, and with weapons.
I haven't commented much on Trump because I thought everyone here was pretty much in agreement that he is a self-absorbed, narcissistic, immoral, unethical boofun running roughshod over the law, the Constitution, and people's lives.
OED says "bought the farm" is recent (1950s) USAF slang originally for a fatal plane crash. 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.
The berserkers were apparently Norse or Germanic warriors:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
Going ape-shit
I have no idea regarding the etymology...
On a more positive note, Farsi can be quite dramatic and poetic even when it cones to everyday expressions.
So you might hear "ghorbunet beram" 10 times a day, especially when there are children around. It literally means "I would sacrifice myself/die for you" but translates as "I love you (so much" or "you are so lovely / sweet" :)
The minor property damage and a bit of unwelcome noise that constitutes the alleged "unlawful behavior" on the part of the demonstrators does not come within a billion parsecs of the lawless violence being unleashed by our government upon its own citizens. A dyed in the wool glibertarian should be up in arms about this (ya' know, small government, FREEDUMB, yadda' yadda')....but all we get is the sanewashing of fascism.
One can't profitably debate anything with Trumpists - they don't believe in facts, or reason. But one be civil when explaining that.
I welcome CharlesWT's presence here. It's helpful to have someone to show us the evidence of unlawful behaviour by protesters in Portland. Before his comments, I had a slight concern that there might be facts I was unaware of which could shift my view: now I am sure there are not. Still, I'd welcome it if he were to acknowledge that what he's reported is a long, long way away from Trump's "the radical left's reign of terror" in a "war-ravaged" city.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
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.
"
Going ape-shit
I have no idea regarding the etymology…
I believe this comes from accounts (probably even a film, most likely 8 mm) of chimpanzees (or maybe gorillas?). This behavior seems to occur where humans would shout insults, without reaching the point of physical altercation. But naturally American viewers would see anything but stuff being thrown and hitting others -- i.e. a physical altercation, and with weapons.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I haven't commented much on Trump because I thought everyone here was pretty much in agreement that he is a self-absorbed, narcissistic, immoral, unethical boofun running roughshod over the law, the Constitution, and people's lives.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
OED says "bought the farm" is recent (1950s) USAF slang originally for a fatal plane crash. 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.
"
Going berserk
The berserkers were apparently Norse or Germanic warriors:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker
Going ape-shit
I have no idea regarding the etymology...
On a more positive note, Farsi can be quite dramatic and poetic even when it cones to everyday expressions.
So you might hear "ghorbunet beram" 10 times a day, especially when there are children around. It literally means "I would sacrifice myself/die for you" but translates as "I love you (so much" or "you are so lovely / sweet" :)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
The minor property damage and a bit of unwelcome noise that constitutes the alleged "unlawful behavior" on the part of the demonstrators does not come within a billion parsecs of the lawless violence being unleashed by our government upon its own citizens. A dyed in the wool glibertarian should be up in arms about this (ya' know, small government, FREEDUMB, yadda' yadda')....but all we get is the sanewashing of fascism.
Come on folks....perspective, please.
What does Portland think of this?
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/02/nx-s1-5558406/oregon-officials-and-residents-say-portland-isnt-war-ravaged
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Or perhaps to commit suicide by hanging by standing on a bucket and kicking it out from under the feet.
"
"Kick the bucket" is an 18th-century phrase where bucket is another name for a beam. Perhaps kicking while hanging from a beam.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
One can't profitably debate anything with Trumpists - they don't believe in facts, or reason. But one be civil when explaining that.
I welcome CharlesWT's presence here. It's helpful to have someone to show us the evidence of unlawful behaviour by protesters in Portland. Before his comments, I had a slight concern that there might be facts I was unaware of which could shift my view: now I am sure there are not. Still, I'd welcome it if he were to acknowledge that what he's reported is a long, long way away from Trump's "the radical left's reign of terror" in a "war-ravaged" city.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
"gotta go see a man about a horse"
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.