MyFoxPhilly

When did civil discourse become so uncivil? Why has it become necessary to attack the people when we disagree with their ideas? In the political arena campaigns "go negative" all the time--and it does not in any way guarantee victory. Remember Bob Dole's assault on Bill Clinton's character? Clinton went on to a successful 2-term presidency--maybe with an indiscretion or 2, but still. How about Hillary's attacks on Barack: plagiarism, insufficient racial pride, even "Shame on you, Barack"--check the polls, Graces; she ain't winning.

And this ugliness is not limited to the national front. I recently witnessed some equally uncivil displays right here in my little urban village....

It all started with a hole in the ground. An eyesore, to be sure, that sat ugly and gaping for 10 years. Then some clever guys came in with a plan to build a luxury hotel and condo, along with spa, retail boutiques, and a 5 star restaurant. Yay, I say. I love luxury hotels, 5 star restaurants, spas and retail boutiques!

But the Hysterical Preservation Committee got their knickers in a knot over the height of the building and sharpened their knitting needles. They waged email campaigns. They packed meetings with rabble rousers who shouted and booed and hissed, made personal attacks on neighbors, cast aspersions at the architects, they shook their fists and foamed at the mouth.

You get the picture, Graces--I need not belabor the point or continue with a seemingly endless list of conduct unbecoming even the Salem Witch Hunters or Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now, I grant that people are absolutely within their right to oppose whatever they wish--I merely object to their methods. Can't they just be polite and respectful in their discourse? Must they descend to levels of behavior generally reserved for the so-called hooligans at rural English soccer matches? And I know this phenomenon is not unique to my little corner of the world--it is widespread and rampant. We are in the midst of yet another rudeness epidemic.

Differences of opinion are a fact of life; they don't necessitate open warfare and can generally be smoothed over with a bit of, well, grace. Graces don't agree just for the sake of social ease, but neither do we shred a person in an effort to counter his statement. We're all for the respectful interchange of diverse ideas.

I favor the First Amendment. I am fond of Voltaire--remember him? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Ok, I wouldn't defend to death, that is a bit extreme and Graces abhor extremism, but, remember Monsieur Voltaire lived in the days of honor duels--different times, different customs. I like the basic sentiment.

So, give it a shot. Share your opinion, listen to others'. But for the occasions when the discourse heats up to a temperature that threatens civility, I pose some suggestions on how to graciously disagree:

--"Well, [Insert name of pontificating blowhard], you have obviously given this a lot of thought and study. I don't think we will see eye to eye on it, but I am impressed by the extent of your knowledge." Then change the subject or excuse yourself.

--"I've certainly heard and read similar opinions, but I view it differently." Then change the subject or excuse yourself.

--"Trite but true: let's agree to disagree." Then change the subject or excuse yourself.

I offer lots of other ideas on subject changes, conversational parries and escape routes.

In the meantime, lead by example, Graces. There's plenty of material out there on which to opine-- you know I have a few of opinions of my own and I share them often--but let's keep it civil. And when you can't, exit stage right.

twosocialgraces's Blog

Un-Civil Discourse

twosocialgraces

Inside Fox:
Hot List About Us Good Day TV Listings Politics

Write your comment below: Email me when a new comment is added to this entry