ps As my last comment probably makes clear, but just in case not: I mainly believe in civility <b>to</b> the person/people with whom you are actually arguing. Civility <b>about</b> people you have strong and justifiable opinions on is a different thing, at least in my opinion.
2025-10-07 16:45:43
I cannot resist replying to you russell. I agree with every single word you say about Stephen Miller. I do not think it is demonisation to describe him as a bad person.
<i>A civility that just means “we don’t talk about that” is going to choke us.</i>
Agreed with every fibre of my being. I think my participation on ObWi shows very clearly that "not talking about that", and practising a civility that implies agreement, is not my way!
2025-10-07 10:21:27
Yup, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In my case because it looks to me like at the moment it is the "right" (if these categories are even useful any more) that is clearly being far more uncivil than most of the "left" (again IMO the "left" seems to specialise more in implied guilt, or at least invalidation, by association or history). And one thing is for sure, I'm definitely not in favour of "performative civility" which can definitely be used for "bad aims". I don't think calling for civility (as I understand civility) is about exerting power. I think it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation, and the inevitable descent into intractable silos, from which (as far as I can see) no good (or repair, in Gay's word) ever comes. And it is an attempt to remember, in Pro Bono's formulation, that one's ideological opposites are human. So be it. In russell's inimitable words, peace out.
2025-10-07 09:03:54
lj: I certainly don't think one should ignore someone's history if, like Kirk, they have a consistent record of saying the same kind of thing. But if they make good or interesting arguments, while being not particularly offensive, I consider it an irrelevant distraction to use their nationality, their previous professional experience or their ideological difference from oneself to discredit them or make their argument suspect, rather than something actually in the argument itself. It seems to me the very recipe for constructing a bubble around oneself.
On the other hand, I certainly consider it relevant in certain circumstances to consider someone's background to explain why they might make an argument with which one disagrees, because emotional past experiences certainly affect one's opinions, even if not in logically justifiable ways. So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans' dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn't make the argument right.
I often think this when bereaved relatives make understandably heart-rending arguments against their family member's murderer receiving parole, or life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Their suffering is real, and a life sentence. But, IMO, that does not and should not triumph over a rational attempt to do the right thing. And, again IMO, civility (respect and politeness not agreement or capitulation) is an essential ingredient for the possibility of continuing meaningful debate and even sometimes change.
2025-10-06 22:25:50
Josh Marshall has an interesting post today about fighting this/getting back from this. This should be a gift link:
But weirdly the bit that made me sit up related to some of the difficulties I have had here posting things by people who then get dissed by virtue of some of their past policies, jobs etc:
There’s a sort of dance I see among commentators reacting to Newsom’s various engagements with Donald Trump. Praise his fight but don’t praise it too much because then one gets looped into whatever list of things this or that group doesn’t like that Newsom has done in the past, gets branded as a Newsom advocate, gets involuntarily associated what what I guess is best labeled as Newsom’s politician’s “slickness.” I realized I was giving too much weight to these things, even as I told myself I wasn’t.
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc. Not that those things are irrelevant, and context is always valuable, but I do believe that an argument should mainly be evaluated on the strength of its actual argument, rather than the history, character or other attitudes of the person making it. I wonder if this was what Donald was getting at when he talked about (using Chomsky as an example) having to cast about and find alternative sources to quote for an argument, that would not generate distracting conversation about their other views.
2025-10-05 20:29:57
TonyP: I meant on the blog! But, FWIW, I am in general completely in sympathy with your approach.
2025-10-05 17:44:32
ps By the way, I completely agree with what Pro Bono says @11.44. And, about Ian Leslie, on reading more of his Wikipedia entry I see it says he is a "writer on human behaviour", and that "Leslie also writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, The Economist, The Guardian and the Financial Times." which to me at least gives slightly more context than the extract from his website “communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication”.
2025-10-05 17:32:04
Ah, I think I'm finally getting what you mean by "a stake" in this context, lj. If I understand correctly, you mean that people who have constructed (or subscribe to) an intellectual or ideological framework with many intersecting parts, can be so personally invested in it that they feel called to dispute any questioning of any element of it. In which kind of case, of course their arguments should be examined (like everybody's) for logic and evidence. But my view is that often people's views are complex, and that sometimes one can object to (and find logical or moral fault with) some of the elements, but not all, and that occasionally discussion along these lines can throw up interesting or productive ideas as well as being an example of treating other people with respect (i.e. civility).
It is much the same with the tendency to dismiss someone's opinions or arguments based on e.g. their profession or their past work, rather than engaging with their actual ideas or arguments. Very tempting, sometimes, but surely extremely reductive. I know almost nothing of Ian Leslie (have no idea why I get his newsletter - I think someone else subscribed me), but I think this quotation from his Wikipedia entry has a lot to recommend it:
"Open, passionate disagreement blows away the cobwebs that gather over even the most enduring relationships . . . It flushes out crucial information and insights that will otherwise lie inaccessible or dormant inside our brains. It fulfils the creative potential of diversity".
On the whole question of civility, I have been marvelling at the idea that it could mean a necessity to agree with one another. Is this a widespread idea, I wonder? If so, it could certainly explain why there is so much neglect of and resistance to it. But when Charles talks upthread about a site he used to frequent:
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 think the opposite of this is the real definition of civility (and I would have thought the normal one): treating other people (even those with whom one vehemently disagrees) with politeness and respect. After all, if you hate their views in their entirety, and find them completely morally repugnant in every respect, nobody forces you to interact with them. Choosing to insult them, attack them and ascribe views to them which they have not stated or have even denied surely says more about the person doing it than the person on the receiving end.
2025-10-05 01:13:04
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!
2025-10-05 01:09:22
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.
2025-10-04 22:34:39
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....
2025-10-04 22:25:30
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?
2025-10-04 21:59:05
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?
2025-10-04 15:55:56
Ah, I see from this Ian Leslie piece that Roxane Gay in the NYT(I hadn't read it) may have been making something like the argument that I was finding hard to get my head round from nous and russell. The piece by Leslie reflects at least some of what I think about it. (I have not ever tried to copy such a long piece on the new site before - let's see what happens).
Is Civility a Fantasy?
Maybe - But It's One That Democracy Depends On
Ian Leslie
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
This week: is there any point to civility? (Includes a brief jaunt through its history).
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, JD Vance hosted an edition of The Charlie Kirk Show. This is what America’s leading statesman do now, at moments of national crisis: rather than deliver a sober address from behind a lectern, they grab a mic and start frothing. In conversation with Stephen Miller, Vance said, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
It was the latest example of Vance’s frictionless hypocrisy. In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that a DOGE staff member had boasted, just last year, about being a racist. Vance defended the aide and attacked “journalists who try to destroy people”. He said, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.” 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.
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”. Often, people criticise a double standard without saying which of the two standards they prefer, which always strikes me as evasive, so I commend her boldness. But I think Gay comes down on the wrong side here.
Gay declares her argument in this paragraph:
Civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy. The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds, and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake.
She goes on to argue that demands for civility assume everyone operates from equal footing, ignoring actual inequalities. She says that civility is used to silence dissent and exercise social control. It requires marginalized people to be polite, even as their rights are stripped away.
Let’s start with what I agree with.
I agree with Gay that in what she calls the “beautiful mess” of a modern democracy, political protest can’t be cautious or demure. Even if I think there’s too much anger in politics at the moment, I don’t yearn for a world in which politics is a super-rational Oxford seminar. Politics entails disagreement over things we care about; it’s inevitably emotional and personal. It shouldn’t be a blood sport but it shouldn’t be bloodless. An emotional outburst can sometimes tell us more than a carefully constructed argument. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “Sometimes, a scream is better than a thesis.”
I also agree that the “fantasy” of a perfectly polite political conversation can be used to exclude whole groups of people from the realm of legitimate discourse. In fact, that was one of the original functions of civility. In England, the distinction between civilised and barbarous behaviour emerged around the same time - the early modern period - as Englishmen were asserting the right to invade, dominate and exploit other countries.
Society was also becoming less stratified, which led the upper classes to develop an elaborate and strictly enforced system of social etiquette, partly to keep vulgar tradesmen in their place. They then bequeathed these fine manners to genteel American Southerners, who used them to justify the exclusion of black Americans from the democratic commonweal.
To rebel against an established order has often meant rebelling against its version of civility. When Martin Luther took on the Catholic Church, he adopted the Trump-like tactic of using deliberately rude and offensive language, in order to signal that this wasn’t going to be business, or theology, as usual. He described his opponents as “the scum of all the most evil people on earth” and called Pope Paul III “dearest little ass-pope” and “pope fart-ass”.
But the post-Reformation era also shows us why Gay might be wrong to conclude that civility is unnecessary. Modern ideas of “diversity” and inclusion”, which I’d guess she supports, are rooted in habits of social behaviour which emerged during that time. As the Church splintered, people in Europe and the New World struggled to work out how to live alongside those they regarded as fundamentally alien, and wrong about everything. The rise of commercial society in the eighteenth century made this question more pressing, as did an unwillingness to return to the religious wars of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The profit motive bred respectful interactions across barriers of race and religion. Voltaire said of the London Stock Exchange: “Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith.” Civility ceased to mean just decorum, which was about maintaining distinctions of rank, and started to mean politeness, which was more democratic. The French novelist Mademoiselle de Scudry described it as “not wanting to be the tyrant of conversation.” As a woman in male society she would have appreciated norms which allowed quieter voices to be heard over louder ones.
Gay argues that civility is inauthentic, a mere “performance”. In almost Lutheran terms, she writes, “Civility obsessives love a silver-tongued devil, wearing a nice suit, sporting a tidy haircut, while whispering sweet bigotries.” It’s a perennial objection. Civility, in its various forms, has always been criticised as dishonest and hypocritical. Why can’t be just be true to who we are, and speak as we feel?
The problem is that if we always do that, we won’t be able to live with each other. Thomas Hobbes lived through England’s civil war, which he viewed as a religious war. and came to believe that a measure of pretence is vital to peaceful society. He found virtue in hypocrisy. Within the skull of each individual may be thoughts filthy, profane or sublime. We can’t necessarily control those, but we can control which thoughts we display to others. Civility helps us to govern this performance in accordance with the public good.
We ought to have learnt by now that too much ‘authenticity’ is harmful. Today’s hottest differences of opinion may not be religious in the traditional sense but they are hardly less fervent. One of the dangers of social media is that it allows us to see other people’s unvarnished inner monologues, which spreads conspiracy, hostility and distrust. (As John Podhoretz asks, how would American society have behaved if social media had existed on September 11, 2001?). Civility might be a fantasy, or at least a social fiction, but it’s one that democracy depends on. That’s why enemies of democracy disdain it.
It’s true that basic courtesies can ramify into a complex code that, like any code, hands an advantage to those who know it. But eighteenth-century English aristocrats are hardly the only culprits here. Modern codes of political correctness, ambiguous and ever-shifting, are used by the educated middle classes to hoard authority. If I can successfully label the words you use as “offensive” then I can stop people listening to you. Of course, some words and some views really are offensive and should be disqualifying. But narrowing the boundaries of civil discourse has long been a means by which the powerful silence undesirables, ever so politely.
The minimal sufficient response to anyone who argues against civility is, “Fuck you”. That would, of course, mean the end of the argument, but that’s the point. You cannot have any argument, you cannot have any politics, without some measure of civility. Nobody truly believes it to be unnecessary, otherwise they wouldn’t bother making an argument against it and certainly not in the august pages of the New York Times.
What we’re really debating is the form it should take. Yes, some forms stifle dissent and punish the weak; that doesn’t make civility itself any less essential. The problem with Vance and Trump is obviously not that they uphold civility too stringently; it’s the opposite. They are making war on civility. It’s odd that one of their passionate opponents should want to join the same side.
2025-10-04 02:07:11
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
2025-10-04 02:02:23
There's something I'm missing here.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
2025-10-04 01:17:00
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
2025-10-03 23:07:38
Exactly what russell said.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
That is the point.
2025-10-03 20:44:50
Charles, did you actually read russell's link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
2025-10-03 16:37:15
I suppose then that cladding the facility with plywood is just a design preference.
Something that happens to any office or sales premises from time to time which has been burgled. Doesn't seem to call for federal troops.
When vehicles need to enter or exit the facility and there are protestors, ICE personnel have to suit up and physically push the protestors back to make a path.
Given what ICE personnel are perpetrating around the nation, including on US citizens, this seems to be the least they can expect and will, probably, get worse in various places. Time for the government to go to war with the people, is it?
Some journalists who have been beaten to the point of brain injury may wish to quibble.
I believe that injuries by ICE are not unknown either, as well as deaths in ICE custody.
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots. Not so different from previous administrations, just more in your face with it. Though I’d admit, Trump is proving to be uniquely bad.
If this is actually how you see the big picture, it's really hard to know what the point is in discussing this with you.
2025-10-02 23:26:15
The federal government has the right to protect the ICE facility.
Wow, the facility really needs it too - that broken door in June is crying out for federal protection. Or, what russell said. Honestly Charles, when you you look at the big picture and make these kinds of arguments, I seriously question what you actually believe and value, if anything.
2025-10-02 16:57:34
What a fascinating exercise this has been. Congrats to nous and lj in particular, although I had no idea who Ethan Nordean was, so thanks to russell for that. So, Charles, is it the Libertarian (or your) position that sending in federal troops, contrary to the wishes of the state authorities, to deal with what respectable news sources show to be an annoying, smallish protest, is the right (or even acceptable) thing to do?
2025-10-01 21:12:45
"War-ravaged"
LOL.
2025-10-01 01:10:15
Pro Bono: the war between Armenia and Cambodia was a particular worry. And that was before he told hundreds of generals today that their troops would soon be carrying out an "internal war" in Chicago, San Francisco, LA (and I think also NYC), using those cities as "training grounds". How can the Nobel Peace Prize be far off?
2025-09-27 21:10:51
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.
ps As my last comment probably makes clear, but just in case not: I mainly believe in civility <b>to</b> the person/people with whom you are actually arguing. Civility <b>about</b> people you have strong and justifiable opinions on is a different thing, at least in my opinion.
I cannot resist replying to you russell. I agree with every single word you say about Stephen Miller. I do not think it is demonisation to describe him as a bad person.
<i>A civility that just means “we don’t talk about that” is going to choke us.</i>
Agreed with every fibre of my being. I think my participation on ObWi shows very clearly that "not talking about that", and practising a civility that implies agreement, is not my way!
Yup, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In my case because it looks to me like at the moment it is the "right" (if these categories are even useful any more) that is clearly being far more uncivil than most of the "left" (again IMO the "left" seems to specialise more in implied guilt, or at least invalidation, by association or history). And one thing is for sure, I'm definitely not in favour of "performative civility" which can definitely be used for "bad aims". I don't think calling for civility (as I understand civility) is about exerting power. I think it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation, and the inevitable descent into intractable silos, from which (as far as I can see) no good (or repair, in Gay's word) ever comes. And it is an attempt to remember, in Pro Bono's formulation, that one's ideological opposites are human. So be it. In russell's inimitable words, peace out.
lj: I certainly don't think one should ignore someone's history if, like Kirk, they have a consistent record of saying the same kind of thing. But if they make good or interesting arguments, while being not particularly offensive, I consider it an irrelevant distraction to use their nationality, their previous professional experience or their ideological difference from oneself to discredit them or make their argument suspect, rather than something actually in the argument itself. It seems to me the very recipe for constructing a bubble around oneself.
On the other hand, I certainly consider it relevant in certain circumstances to consider someone's background to explain why they might make an argument with which one disagrees, because emotional past experiences certainly affect one's opinions, even if not in logically justifiable ways. So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans' dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn't make the argument right.
I often think this when bereaved relatives make understandably heart-rending arguments against their family member's murderer receiving parole, or life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Their suffering is real, and a life sentence. But, IMO, that does not and should not triumph over a rational attempt to do the right thing. And, again IMO, civility (respect and politeness not agreement or capitulation) is an essential ingredient for the possibility of continuing meaningful debate and even sometimes change.
Josh Marshall has an interesting post today about fighting this/getting back from this. This should be a gift link:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/power-is-the-order-of-the-day-and-other-beds-trump-has-made
But weirdly the bit that made me sit up related to some of the difficulties I have had here posting things by people who then get dissed by virtue of some of their past policies, jobs etc:
There’s a sort of dance I see among commentators reacting to Newsom’s various engagements with Donald Trump. Praise his fight but don’t praise it too much because then one gets looped into whatever list of things this or that group doesn’t like that Newsom has done in the past, gets branded as a Newsom advocate, gets involuntarily associated what what I guess is best labeled as Newsom’s politician’s “slickness.” I realized I was giving too much weight to these things, even as I told myself I wasn’t.
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc. Not that those things are irrelevant, and context is always valuable, but I do believe that an argument should mainly be evaluated on the strength of its actual argument, rather than the history, character or other attitudes of the person making it. I wonder if this was what Donald was getting at when he talked about (using Chomsky as an example) having to cast about and find alternative sources to quote for an argument, that would not generate distracting conversation about their other views.
TonyP: I meant on the blog! But, FWIW, I am in general completely in sympathy with your approach.
ps By the way, I completely agree with what Pro Bono says @11.44. And, about Ian Leslie, on reading more of his Wikipedia entry I see it says he is a "writer on human behaviour", and that "Leslie also writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, The Economist, The Guardian and the Financial Times." which to me at least gives slightly more context than the extract from his website “communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication”.
Ah, I think I'm finally getting what you mean by "a stake" in this context, lj. If I understand correctly, you mean that people who have constructed (or subscribe to) an intellectual or ideological framework with many intersecting parts, can be so personally invested in it that they feel called to dispute any questioning of any element of it. In which kind of case, of course their arguments should be examined (like everybody's) for logic and evidence. But my view is that often people's views are complex, and that sometimes one can object to (and find logical or moral fault with) some of the elements, but not all, and that occasionally discussion along these lines can throw up interesting or productive ideas as well as being an example of treating other people with respect (i.e. civility).
It is much the same with the tendency to dismiss someone's opinions or arguments based on e.g. their profession or their past work, rather than engaging with their actual ideas or arguments. Very tempting, sometimes, but surely extremely reductive. I know almost nothing of Ian Leslie (have no idea why I get his newsletter - I think someone else subscribed me), but I think this quotation from his Wikipedia entry has a lot to recommend it:
"Open, passionate disagreement blows away the cobwebs that gather over even the most enduring relationships . . . It flushes out crucial information and insights that will otherwise lie inaccessible or dormant inside our brains. It fulfils the creative potential of diversity".
On the whole question of civility, I have been marvelling at the idea that it could mean a necessity to agree with one another. Is this a widespread idea, I wonder? If so, it could certainly explain why there is so much neglect of and resistance to it. But when Charles talks upthread about a site he used to frequent:
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 think the opposite of this is the real definition of civility (and I would have thought the normal one): treating other people (even those with whom one vehemently disagrees) with politeness and respect. After all, if you hate their views in their entirety, and find them completely morally repugnant in every respect, nobody forces you to interact with them. Choosing to insult them, attack them and ascribe views to them which they have not stated or have even denied surely says more about the person doing it than the person on the receiving end.
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.
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?
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?
Ah, I see from this Ian Leslie piece that Roxane Gay in the NYT(I hadn't read it) may have been making something like the argument that I was finding hard to get my head round from nous and russell. The piece by Leslie reflects at least some of what I think about it. (I have not ever tried to copy such a long piece on the new site before - let's see what happens).
Is Civility a Fantasy?
Maybe - But It's One That Democracy Depends On
Ian Leslie
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
This week: is there any point to civility? (Includes a brief jaunt through its history).
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, JD Vance hosted an edition of The Charlie Kirk Show. This is what America’s leading statesman do now, at moments of national crisis: rather than deliver a sober address from behind a lectern, they grab a mic and start frothing. In conversation with Stephen Miller, Vance said, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
It was the latest example of Vance’s frictionless hypocrisy. In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that a DOGE staff member had boasted, just last year, about being a racist. Vance defended the aide and attacked “journalists who try to destroy people”. He said, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.” 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.
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”. Often, people criticise a double standard without saying which of the two standards they prefer, which always strikes me as evasive, so I commend her boldness. But I think Gay comes down on the wrong side here.
Gay declares her argument in this paragraph:
Civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy. The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds, and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake.
She goes on to argue that demands for civility assume everyone operates from equal footing, ignoring actual inequalities. She says that civility is used to silence dissent and exercise social control. It requires marginalized people to be polite, even as their rights are stripped away.
Let’s start with what I agree with.
I agree with Gay that in what she calls the “beautiful mess” of a modern democracy, political protest can’t be cautious or demure. Even if I think there’s too much anger in politics at the moment, I don’t yearn for a world in which politics is a super-rational Oxford seminar. Politics entails disagreement over things we care about; it’s inevitably emotional and personal. It shouldn’t be a blood sport but it shouldn’t be bloodless. An emotional outburst can sometimes tell us more than a carefully constructed argument. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “Sometimes, a scream is better than a thesis.”
I also agree that the “fantasy” of a perfectly polite political conversation can be used to exclude whole groups of people from the realm of legitimate discourse. In fact, that was one of the original functions of civility. In England, the distinction between civilised and barbarous behaviour emerged around the same time - the early modern period - as Englishmen were asserting the right to invade, dominate and exploit other countries.
Society was also becoming less stratified, which led the upper classes to develop an elaborate and strictly enforced system of social etiquette, partly to keep vulgar tradesmen in their place. They then bequeathed these fine manners to genteel American Southerners, who used them to justify the exclusion of black Americans from the democratic commonweal.
To rebel against an established order has often meant rebelling against its version of civility. When Martin Luther took on the Catholic Church, he adopted the Trump-like tactic of using deliberately rude and offensive language, in order to signal that this wasn’t going to be business, or theology, as usual. He described his opponents as “the scum of all the most evil people on earth” and called Pope Paul III “dearest little ass-pope” and “pope fart-ass”.
But the post-Reformation era also shows us why Gay might be wrong to conclude that civility is unnecessary. Modern ideas of “diversity” and inclusion”, which I’d guess she supports, are rooted in habits of social behaviour which emerged during that time. As the Church splintered, people in Europe and the New World struggled to work out how to live alongside those they regarded as fundamentally alien, and wrong about everything. The rise of commercial society in the eighteenth century made this question more pressing, as did an unwillingness to return to the religious wars of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The profit motive bred respectful interactions across barriers of race and religion. Voltaire said of the London Stock Exchange: “Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith.” Civility ceased to mean just decorum, which was about maintaining distinctions of rank, and started to mean politeness, which was more democratic. The French novelist Mademoiselle de Scudry described it as “not wanting to be the tyrant of conversation.” As a woman in male society she would have appreciated norms which allowed quieter voices to be heard over louder ones.
Gay argues that civility is inauthentic, a mere “performance”. In almost Lutheran terms, she writes, “Civility obsessives love a silver-tongued devil, wearing a nice suit, sporting a tidy haircut, while whispering sweet bigotries.” It’s a perennial objection. Civility, in its various forms, has always been criticised as dishonest and hypocritical. Why can’t be just be true to who we are, and speak as we feel?
The problem is that if we always do that, we won’t be able to live with each other. Thomas Hobbes lived through England’s civil war, which he viewed as a religious war. and came to believe that a measure of pretence is vital to peaceful society. He found virtue in hypocrisy. Within the skull of each individual may be thoughts filthy, profane or sublime. We can’t necessarily control those, but we can control which thoughts we display to others. Civility helps us to govern this performance in accordance with the public good.
We ought to have learnt by now that too much ‘authenticity’ is harmful. Today’s hottest differences of opinion may not be religious in the traditional sense but they are hardly less fervent. One of the dangers of social media is that it allows us to see other people’s unvarnished inner monologues, which spreads conspiracy, hostility and distrust. (As John Podhoretz asks, how would American society have behaved if social media had existed on September 11, 2001?). Civility might be a fantasy, or at least a social fiction, but it’s one that democracy depends on. That’s why enemies of democracy disdain it.
It’s true that basic courtesies can ramify into a complex code that, like any code, hands an advantage to those who know it. But eighteenth-century English aristocrats are hardly the only culprits here. Modern codes of political correctness, ambiguous and ever-shifting, are used by the educated middle classes to hoard authority. If I can successfully label the words you use as “offensive” then I can stop people listening to you. Of course, some words and some views really are offensive and should be disqualifying. But narrowing the boundaries of civil discourse has long been a means by which the powerful silence undesirables, ever so politely.
The minimal sufficient response to anyone who argues against civility is, “Fuck you”. That would, of course, mean the end of the argument, but that’s the point. You cannot have any argument, you cannot have any politics, without some measure of civility. Nobody truly believes it to be unnecessary, otherwise they wouldn’t bother making an argument against it and certainly not in the august pages of the New York Times.
What we’re really debating is the form it should take. Yes, some forms stifle dissent and punish the weak; that doesn’t make civility itself any less essential. The problem with Vance and Trump is obviously not that they uphold civility too stringently; it’s the opposite. They are making war on civility. It’s odd that one of their passionate opponents should want to join the same side.
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
There's something I'm missing here.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
Exactly what russell said.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
That is the point.
Charles, did you actually read russell's link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
I suppose then that cladding the facility with plywood is just a design preference.
Something that happens to any office or sales premises from time to time which has been burgled. Doesn't seem to call for federal troops.
When vehicles need to enter or exit the facility and there are protestors, ICE personnel have to suit up and physically push the protestors back to make a path.
Given what ICE personnel are perpetrating around the nation, including on US citizens, this seems to be the least they can expect and will, probably, get worse in various places. Time for the government to go to war with the people, is it?
Some journalists who have been beaten to the point of brain injury may wish to quibble.
I believe that injuries by ICE are not unknown either, as well as deaths in ICE custody.
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots. Not so different from previous administrations, just more in your face with it. Though I’d admit, Trump is proving to be uniquely bad.
If this is actually how you see the big picture, it's really hard to know what the point is in discussing this with you.
The federal government has the right to protect the ICE facility.
Wow, the facility really needs it too - that broken door in June is crying out for federal protection. Or, what russell said. Honestly Charles, when you you look at the big picture and make these kinds of arguments, I seriously question what you actually believe and value, if anything.
What a fascinating exercise this has been. Congrats to nous and lj in particular, although I had no idea who Ethan Nordean was, so thanks to russell for that. So, Charles, is it the Libertarian (or your) position that sending in federal troops, contrary to the wishes of the state authorities, to deal with what respectable news sources show to be an annoying, smallish protest, is the right (or even acceptable) thing to do?
"War-ravaged"
LOL.
Pro Bono: the war between Armenia and Cambodia was a particular worry. And that was before he told hundreds of generals today that their troops would soon be carrying out an "internal war" in Chicago, San Francisco, LA (and I think also NYC), using those cities as "training grounds". How can the Nobel Peace Prize be far off?
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.