RoR: Forum

Robert, political correctness actually opposes civility. The very term civility has the same root word, civil, as does civilization. Ayn Rand noted that recognizing privacy marks the beginning of a civilization. As such a society progresses toward the Objectivist ideal, its government increasingly recognizes individual liberty as a natural right. Its government decreases its role in the private lives of its citizens and leaves them free to pursue productive relationship-building. It recognizes the right of the individual to engage in self-government and lets the free market, i.e., the total sum of all interactions of free citizens, regulate the politeness of those people.

By contrast, political correctness seeks to make every interaction a struggle in class power to be "equalized" by the government. Far from manifesting civility, PC manifests tyranny in every nook and cranny of the private life of the citizen. In the end, it destroys civility and replaces it with tyranny.

Post 21

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:43am

Sarah,

Where's the line between hurt feelings and actual mental abuse (which, given a crowd, can easily turn into physical abuse)?
If you're saying that the line is blurry (at best), I agree. But I also think that reasonable people generally know when they're inflicting mental abuse, as opposed to hurting someone's feelings (although knowing when you're hurting someone's feelings is a bit more difficult, thanks to the PC weenies -- the PC rubbish only serves to dictate to each of us that which SHOULD hurt our feelings).

The idea of throwing out all harassment and discrimination laws and let people fight it out for themselves gives me pause.
I'n not really in favor of letting people "fight it out". What I am in favor of is personal responsibility with respect to one's own behavior. Harassment and discrimination laws tend to shift that burden of responsibility from the individual to the government. The idea that I need a gov't to tell me how to behave in my interpersonal relationships is abhorrent to me.

Summer

Post 22

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:32am

The idea that I need a gov't to tell me how to behave in my interpersonal relationships is abhorrent to me.

When it is government you find it abhorrent, but if you Summer judge someone uncivil it is valid and infallibly objective. What I am trying to say to you is one man's civility is another's PC. If you choose to take offense, the offender is uncivil, if you choose not to be offended, he is not uncivil. It is totally subjective.

And so the fact that the PC crowd has coopted civility for their own idiotic purposes (and stretched it to the point of absurdity) means that I should cast aside civility as one of the principles by which I govern my own behavior?

Civility is not a principle.

Post 23

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:41am

Sorry Luke - I don't see the flowchart on titties... you sure you're the Luke?

Post 24

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:45am

Robert Davison, let's cut to the chase already.

What limits to free speech, outside direct threats of physical force or fraud, do you see as the proper realm of law?

For instance, let's say I tell a female co-worker she has "nice tits" knowing she does not welcome it. She complains to my boss and he refuses to penalize me.

Should I be fined by the police?

Should she sue me and win?

Should she sue my employer and win?

The current lawsuits over "sexual harassment" only have legal merit because of the myriad laws on the books regarding discrimination, etc. Of course, anyone can sue anyone over anything, but laws give these suits teeth they otherwise would not have.

What is your vision for limits to total freedom of speech?

If you say this is not a role for government, but only for good manners, then we would likely agree.

If you say government does have a role here, then spell it for us clearly and succinctly.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/03, 9:46am)

Post 25

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:48am

I said nothing about government except to refer to Summer's use of the word government.

Define good manners.

Post 26

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:55am

Robert Davison, as long as you leave government out of this, the rest bothers me not at all. The free market will leave people freely to cluster into their own assemblies with internal codes of conduct regarding acceptable manners. You can run in your own circles of influence and I can run in mine.

Post 27

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:58am

Civility is not a principle.

As part of a standard of behavior to which I (generally) adhere, sure it is.

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 11/03, 9:59am)

Post 28

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:04am

Luke we absolutely agree.

Post 29

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:07am

As part of a standard of behavior to which I (generally) adhere, sure it is.

Then let me try again. What is the standard? All I am getting is a warm and fuzzy 'civility'. I ask again what is civility?

Post 30

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:18am

If you choose to take offense, the offender is uncivil, if you choose not to be offended, he is not uncivil. It is totally subjective.
Absolutely. But if given the choice between relying upon my own subjective judgment -- with the benefit of context -- and relying upon the judgement of people who don't know me, have never met me and have no context within which to judge my behavior, then I'd choose the former every time.

Post 31

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:21am

But if given the choice between relying upon my own subjective judgment

We agree that when judgment is subjective, it is better to be bound by our own subjectivity than the subjectivity of others. ;-)

Post 32

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:22am

Then let me try again. What is the standard?
My standard, Robert. The one I've developed over 43 years of interpersonal relationships. If that standard is somehow faulty, then the blame rests squarely upon my shoulders, as does the responsibility for 'fixing' it.

Post 33

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:23am

If he wants to defend free speech rights he is going about the wrong way. Totally the wrong way. To tell you the truth this is hardly surprising.

Isnt anyone going to recognize what little this man has acomplished? The emptiness of his arguments? Its SOPHISTRY plain and simple. I mean even if this is meant tongue in cheek, it falls flat. Thump.

Calling women whores and nymphomaniacs because they want to speak freely about sexuality is not funny. Its not cute. Its not intelligent and its boring & superficial. From what I can tell it was sexist... and nasty! Since when is this good? Its not even good form. And no I will not define that.

There is no "good fight" that I can see from this article. Its just comes off as a cat fight between this guy and some crazed feminists. Wow. I mean Im usually on the side of the non-PC crowd but this so-called Dr.'s antics nearly put me on the side if the Feminaziz, and I despise them.

{Summer is right!}

Post 34

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:35am

We agree that when judgment is subjective, it is better to be bound by our own subjectivity than the subjectivity of others. ;-)

Eureka!!! We finally agree on something!! LOL!!

...But with one caveat: I still think that there is some objective line between what reasonable people would call civil and uncivil. I think part of our problem here is that the PC weenies have corrupted the word, and I refuse to acknowledge their new meaning.

And by the way, I'm not sure why you view civility as "warm and fuzzy". Are you not generally civil with people you deal with on a daily basis? You've been civil here during this marginally contentious discussion.

Edit: corrected a misquote.

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 11/03, 11:03am)

Post 35

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:07am

And by the way, I'm not sure why you view civility as "warm and fuzzy". Are you not generally civil with people you deal with on a daily basis? You've been civil here during this marginally contentious discussion.

I think I am, but there are many who find me crotchity. It is subjective.

Post 36

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:23am

Robert,
If you choose to take offense, the offender is uncivil, if you choose not to be offended, he is not uncivil. It is totally subjective.
Not necessarily. There have been times when I've taken offense, but also realized that the "offender" had no intention of hurting my feelings, and therefore, was not uncivil. The difference lies on one's ability to rationally and objectively (as much as is possible) analyze their own emotional responses, and react not to the initial emotion -- which is often reflexive --, but to the result of that analysis.

Summer

Post 37

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:30am

Marnee, just out of curiosity, what would you have done in his place? You would have to start with his Town Hall article about the "Orgasm Awareness Festival" since that is what started this furor in the first place.

I agree with you that he could have handled this in a more productive manner -- less caustic and mocking and more analytical and values-oriented. An airtight case for romantic love as the ideal could have aimed to deflate what showed all signs of a hedonist convention.

Post 38

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:05pm

Summer,

We're in agreement for the most part, but what are your thoughts on how punishment should be handled in the case of someone purposely causing damage? What laws to mental trauma fall under? Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions, but how and when? Do you only punish someone after he drives another person to suicide? Do you criticize the suicidal person because he was a pansy who didn't fight fire with fire?

Luke,

If talking about sex is a sign of hedonism... well, you can guess where I'm going with this.

Sarah

Post 39

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:13pm