It's interesting how the people who object to the shaming/confronting strategy are being framed as deluded and cowardly, rather than some who feel it isn't the best strategic idea (as the conversation has now shifted to things like women claiming they were spit on, claiming their mothers were harassed, etc. instead of trade deals or corruption or immigration) or people who genuinely are worried what will happen if everyone on the left is encouraged to get into aggressive, physical confrontations (especially with the increasing prevalence of guns out there). It tells me again a lot of people have decided there is no faith in government or voting and the only solution is revolution (complete with certain fantasies that go along with that - I saw on that left wing site Splinter an article with a big photo of a limo on fire, which kind of says it all). If they feel that way, then they certainly have the power to make that happen. I just hope they are telling people of the dangers they might face if they decide to get violent (because that's where this is going to go, very quickly), as I think some may still see it as just some kind of fun "truth to power" moment to go viral or make themselves feel good for a day.

For me it's not about a fantasy of speaking truth to power, it's about being lectured to by mainly white men about how to fight oppression. These people are afraid of violence so much as they are afraid they will get their own ass tossed from restaurants. I think it's also about elected representatives who no longer feel like they serve their constituents being afraid of what they will face when they return to their districs

 

I'm not looking to start [!@#$%^&*] but God help Rob Portman if I see him out in public because whenever I call or write his office I get nothing but dismissiveness.

25 minutes ago, marceline said:

For me it's not about a fantasy of speaking truth to power, it's about being lectured to by mainly white men about how to fight oppression.

 

I suppose what worries me is that isn't what this is about for a lot of people, and it's more about wanting to get into fights to put on social media. I feel like there are so many people who just use these causes for their own gains. 

 

I also worry about others who do mean well but are going to be baited and attacked by those on the right who are looking for a chance to make a viral moment.

 

I just feel like this has so many ways to go wrong.

Edited June 26, 20187 yr by DRW50

What's interesting is that the fact that the U.S. has experienced church bombings, abortion doctor's murders and intimidation, not to mention the woman who was backed over in Charlottesville and I don't remember this much hand-wringing over civility.

It seems that these lectures are reserved for kneeling, public shaming and acts that are deemed 'bad optics'.

At this point, it's beyond whether it achieves anything or not (which is debatable) but whether some types of protest/expression draw more censure and public outcry than others.

It inspires a lot of eye-rolling from me.

 

Meanwhile,

 

The U.S. is now ranked among the 10 nations considered to be the most dangerous for women, experts say: https://t.co/IpDEtPHFjo pic.twitter.com/bUNUiEiY9L

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 26, 2018

1 minute ago, DramatistDreamer said:

What's interesting is that the fact that the U.S. has experienced church bombings, abortion doctor's murders and intimidation, not to mention the woman who was backed over in Charlottesville and I don't remember this much hand-wringing over civility.

It seems that these lectures are reserved for kneeling, public shaming and acts that are deemed 'bad optics'.

At this point, it's beyond whether it achieves anything or not (which is debatable) but whether some types of protest/expression draw more censure and public outcry than others.

It inspires a lot of eye-rolling from me.

 

I think one of the problems is that many of the defenses I see (not on here, generally) of being uncivil is "Republicans do it too," and then pointing out times that Republicans behaved like lunatics in 2010. That was an ugly moment, a series of moments (and I agree that they weren't called out on it - if anything they were praised as some kind of spirit of America), which in my opinion helped lead to the shootings of Gabby Giffords and some of her staff. I don't want people on the left to duplicate that type of mentality. I don't think that's what Maxine Waters wants either, and I don't think most of the people who will want to confront public officials will act that way, but right now the framing often seems to be, "When Republicans did this, it was terrible...but there's nothing wrong with me doing what I want because Republicans did bad things." 

 

Over and over I feel like framing is what many on the left just get wrong, not just for the media, but for activists and causes in many areas. In one sense framing is meaningless, especially when it feels like the country is speeding through various levels of hell, but I think it's something that if considered properly would help harness a lot of people and a lot of power in ways that would help long-term.

1 hour ago, marceline said:

I'm not looking to start [!@#$%^&*] but God help Rob Portman if I see him out in public because whenever I call or write his office I get nothing but dismissiveness.

 

Great, now I'm picturing Portman, squirreled away in some underground bunker, frightened of every noise and even of his own shadow.

 

When he dies, too, it'll be like "Citizen Kane," with everyone trying to unravel the mystery of his last word -- "marceline!" -- and getting nowhere.

Edited June 26, 20187 yr by Khan

People decrying the lack of civility while conveniently forgetting America's history is rich.  Til this day we all have to hear about the god*damned Tea Party, which was, in truth, a riot.

  

Maybe the reason why people are citing that Republicans are practicing rudeness and lack of decorum is because it has clearly worked for them.  Perhaps many Democrats have realized that civility got Neil Gorsuch who is helping to strike down laws that protect civil rights for certain groups as we speak.

 

When I look at U.S. history, honestly, I don't see a whole lot of civility, except when you look at the groups that have been hosed, bitten by dogs, bombed out, pistol-whipped by authority.  I also see a lot of gains made by groups that have kidnapped, enslaved, beaten, tortured, raided entire villages and lynched people.

No wonder people think being aggressive has worked in America.

Civility works in America?  History says otherwise.

 

20 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

People decrying the lack of civility while conveniently forgetting America's history is rich.  Til this day we all have to hear about the god*damned Tea Party, which was, in truth, a riot.

  

Maybe the reason why people are citing that Republicans are practicing rudeness and lack of decorum is because it has clearly worked for them.  Perhaps many Democrats have realized that civility got Neil Gorsuch who is helping to strike down laws that protect civil rights for certain groups as we speak.

 

When I look at U.S. history, honestly, I don't see a whole lot of civility, except when you look at the groups that have been hosed, bitten by dogs, bombed out, pistol-whipped by authority.  I also see a lot of gains made by groups that have kidnapped, enslaved, beaten, tortured, raided entire villages and lynched people.

No wonder people think being aggressive has worked in America.

Civility works in America?  History says otherwise.

 

Do you mean because Obama didn't push harder to appoint Garland? I thought there was nothing they could do because Republicans controlled the Senate. Do you mean because Republicans won the Senate in 2014? I do agree about weakness there - that woman who ran for Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky and was terrified to admit she voted for Obama was embarrassing.

 

If you mean because people weren't aggressive enough about Trump during the campaign, I thought many were outspoken about him - I think the media bias and Hillary's flaws as a candidate were the biggest culprits.

 

I agree with many of your points, but if we basically say that civility of no kind ever wins and you just have to get ugly all the time, then the Republicans are always going to have the upper hand on that front. That's another reason I'm wary about making this the centerpiece of the midterms, as seems to be happening - Democrats will never be as good at it as Republicans, and even if they were, Republicans will always have more support from the media and the public on these types of tactics.

Edited June 26, 20187 yr by DRW50

I love when people drag the orange cheeto for filth

 

 

35 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

 

Do you mean because Obama didn't push harder to appoint Garland? I thought there was nothing they could do because Republicans controlled the Senate. Do you mean because Republicans won the Senate in 2014? I do agree about weakness there - that woman who ran for Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky and was terrified to admit she voted for Obama was embarrassing.

 

If you mean because people weren't aggressive enough about Trump during the campaign, I thought many were outspoken about him - I think the media bias and Hillary's flaws as a candidate were the biggest culprits.

 

I agree with many of your points, but if we basically say that civility of no kind ever wins and you just have to get ugly all the time, then the Republicans are always going to have the upper hand on that front. That's another reason I'm wary about making this the centerpiece of the midterms, as seems to be happening - Democrats will never be as good at it as Republicans, and even if they were, Republicans will always have more support from the media and the public on these types of tactics.

 

Even MLK got tired. 

 

I meant the U.S. has a history of aggression that has worked for the people in charge.

People who act out in this manner are usually feeling powerless and may not have the tools to react otherwise.  People spent more than a year saying as much to explain Trump voters but this explanation is now no longer valid. 

 

At least acknowledge the frustration and helplessness, perhaps this would do better than endless lecturing.

 

Obama was POTUS and was always being behaviorally monitored. If he so much as swatted a fly, people gasped. Are we really going to try to claim that Black men (even one in high office) are given the same leeway as White men in this country?  Anyone who believes this has never been Black in America. The same people who are urging people to remain civil are urging Obama to go down to one of the detention centers and throw himself in acts of civil disobedience and get arrested.  Honestly, if I were Obama, I'd tell people to go f*ck themselves right now.  And yeah, Obama tried his damnest to be civil, even in the face of people who called him derogatory names and yeah, yes, it did get Gorsuch, because only he was complying with the terms of engagement.  Where he would've been had he acted like Trump?  Probably not alive has a history, especially with powerful Black men.  Just as MLK.  Oh wait...!

 

The midterms are in November and with a whack job in the WH, I seriously doubt lack of civility will be the sole focus, especially since there is a proven lack of an attention span among American.  People will move on to the next crisis (and there will be a next crisis).

 

But my point is, all the hand-wringing about civility has got my eyes rolling back because either way this changes little.  I thought it was a faux outrage issue with Wolffe's WHCD monologue and my opinion hasn't changed. 

I can have all the best manners in a store but guess what?  If a person wants to have a security guard follow and harass me in the store because I'm a Black woman, all the manners in the world won't prevent it.  People get fed up, especially if people feel hopeless.  

I just get tired of the people who want to play respectability politics and dictate rules of engagement to one side.  It's more likely that that the more people are lectured, the more likely they are to dig in even deeper.

But yeah, lecturing people in the most condescending way will really help quell the situation.

Edited June 26, 20187 yr by DramatistDreamer

 True. I probably come across as lecturing as well so I will just move on from the topic.

46 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 True. I probably come across as lecturing as well so I will just move on from the topic.

I enjoy your posts.  

 

This is such an unstable and dangerous point in our history.   I think you are right that some people feel voting isn't going to change anything. We'll find out pretty soon, but I fear more Russian interference and possibly even a crackdown. If we have relatively free and fair elections maybe we will start to see a light at the end of the tunnel. 

 

 

Conservatives keep floating the idea of a Kennedy retirement as a way of trying to turn out their voters. They wanted to run on the tax cuts but - surprise - the only people who care about that are the donors.

23 minutes ago, marceline said:

Conservatives keep floating the idea of a Kennedy retirement as a way of trying to turn out their voters. They wanted to run on the tax cuts but - surprise - the only people who care about that are the donors.

Do you think it's a false rumor?

5 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

Do you think it's a false rumor?

 

I've seen nothing that can be traced back to statements he's made. It's all third parties reading tea leaves. I'm sure it's on his mind, why wouldn't it be? But until we hear from him or one of his clerks, I'm not going to take the word of naked GOP partisans.