What is civil? For example attacking Brian Mulroney on his record, which in truth has a lot to be critical about is not in my view being uncivil. The accolades that are coming his way at this time of his death are way over board and in many respects are undeserved. After all he destroyed the Canadian manufacturing sector through his free trade agreement that did not have the protections of the Auto Pact which preceded it. He is also the man who accepted $250,000 or $300,000 in cash,, depending on who you believe the giver of the money or the receiver of it, neither of whom possessed much by way of integrity. This was done in three different hotel rooms in two different countries and to make matters worse he neglected to pay tax on it. Regarding communication over the internet., it is my view that it should be treated as any other form of communication. Libel someone in the general press there can be consequences, the same should be true for the internet. Back to Mulroney, many of the accolades are really an example of revisionist history. He may have been charming but he was also a rogue, and it is largely because of him, that we have the likes of Doug Ford, Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre in politics. By any definition that is not good for democracy.
The notion that we should fawn over people who made decisions in life that had serious adverse consequences on large groups of others (especially when it was for their own gain) is so very Canadian. This is a well done piece, thank you.
Wonder how important it may be to distinguish between civility in discussion and debate on social media compared to how we engage in real life. Suspect that if we took the top 100 people shouting at each other on an issue on Twitter and put them in a room, the discussion would likely revert to a much higher degree of civility. Moreover, civility as not being mean or using profanity is likely less important than civility as allowing for a respectful discussion where people don’t simply stand on their favourite soapbox but instead seek to listen to others and understand.
Very few of those objecting to "politicization of tragedy" return the favour when a Muslim or immigrant commits an infamous crime; and all of them need to be asked for the specific date when the politics will be allowed.
It's kindergarten stuff that you attack ideas, not people, that you avoid loaded words just to shake up your audience and get clicks, when a softer word states the same fact.
The tough calls seem to be whether the use of simple, factual, clear words to describe bad things is "uncivil". It's often called "uncivil" to call racism "racism". Dan Froomkin points out that the NYT simply can't say "racism" if it can possibly say "polarizing" or "provocative".
Absolutely we should be civil. But i want to be able to say I hate the things I hate. And I hate second guessing myself. The Liberals are treading very dangerous ground verging on censorship. People make choices. They are discriminating. That's their right and an essential part of social discourse. The attempt to shame Saskatchewan over its position on the carbon tax is reprehensible. Shameful in fact.
What is civil? For example attacking Brian Mulroney on his record, which in truth has a lot to be critical about is not in my view being uncivil. The accolades that are coming his way at this time of his death are way over board and in many respects are undeserved. After all he destroyed the Canadian manufacturing sector through his free trade agreement that did not have the protections of the Auto Pact which preceded it. He is also the man who accepted $250,000 or $300,000 in cash,, depending on who you believe the giver of the money or the receiver of it, neither of whom possessed much by way of integrity. This was done in three different hotel rooms in two different countries and to make matters worse he neglected to pay tax on it. Regarding communication over the internet., it is my view that it should be treated as any other form of communication. Libel someone in the general press there can be consequences, the same should be true for the internet. Back to Mulroney, many of the accolades are really an example of revisionist history. He may have been charming but he was also a rogue, and it is largely because of him, that we have the likes of Doug Ford, Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre in politics. By any definition that is not good for democracy.
The notion that we should fawn over people who made decisions in life that had serious adverse consequences on large groups of others (especially when it was for their own gain) is so very Canadian. This is a well done piece, thank you.
Wonder how important it may be to distinguish between civility in discussion and debate on social media compared to how we engage in real life. Suspect that if we took the top 100 people shouting at each other on an issue on Twitter and put them in a room, the discussion would likely revert to a much higher degree of civility. Moreover, civility as not being mean or using profanity is likely less important than civility as allowing for a respectful discussion where people don’t simply stand on their favourite soapbox but instead seek to listen to others and understand.
Who here never heard their mother say “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all”?
Note also that anonymity is not a basic human right. There are no rights without responsibilities. Actions have consequences. Speech is an action.
Very few of those objecting to "politicization of tragedy" return the favour when a Muslim or immigrant commits an infamous crime; and all of them need to be asked for the specific date when the politics will be allowed.
It's kindergarten stuff that you attack ideas, not people, that you avoid loaded words just to shake up your audience and get clicks, when a softer word states the same fact.
The tough calls seem to be whether the use of simple, factual, clear words to describe bad things is "uncivil". It's often called "uncivil" to call racism "racism". Dan Froomkin points out that the NYT simply can't say "racism" if it can possibly say "polarizing" or "provocative".
https://presswatchers.org/2024/01/how-much-of-trumps-support-is-due-to-racism/
Basically, this allows the worst people to define the term "civility" as "not calling them out".
Absolutely we should be civil. But i want to be able to say I hate the things I hate. And I hate second guessing myself. The Liberals are treading very dangerous ground verging on censorship. People make choices. They are discriminating. That's their right and an essential part of social discourse. The attempt to shame Saskatchewan over its position on the carbon tax is reprehensible. Shameful in fact.