Nice.
Civility –> Complacency –> Complicity –> Corruption
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 29, 2019
This does not imply that being pointlessly rude is productive. But the Democrats do have to stand up for specific goals and and be unafraid to express them clearly.
What’s wrong with being pointlessly rude?! Asking for a friend…
Seriously though, the reason so many Dems do not stand for specific goals and express them clearly is that far too many of them know that their policy goals are profoundly illiberal, unpopular, corrupt and/or self-serving – and they know it. I wish they would stand up and speak out: it would make it easier to win primary challenges against them.
This comes months and months too late. The whole point of Biden’s candidacy was to validate the whole chain.
Yes, Vicar, we know you wanted Trump to win. You don’t need to keep reminding us.
Hm. One can be totally civil, and yet utterly confrontational.
(I myself have some small skill at it)
Dunno about “productive”, but if i’m using “denying the consequent” correctly, it does imply “non-civility is the only way to avoid complicity and corruption”.
Skepticism is my default position when it comes to inference chains that also happen to be alliterative.
I think civility is useful in normal times, by putting a distance between policy disputes and personal or tribe animosity. However, times are anything but normal now. In US politics, the civility trap is mostly about liberals wanting to get favorable press in the NYT and similar outlets. If you look at the incentives involved, this could be worth much more to an aspiring career politician than doing anything for their constituents.
There is no cause for civility unless you expect it in return, and we’re way past that. Is anyone seriously even interested in civility at this point?
ah, actually, seems you are referring to denying the antecedent. So, it’s like saying “not all non-civility will avoid corruption etc., but the correct non-civility is the only way to avoid corruption etc.” I think.