Uncivil Discourse

For those of you who follow my blog, you know that I have recently written a Series of Articles about reforming Steemit (there's another two coming). One of my central assertions is that Steemit's problems are primarily ideological. That is, that there is an ideological worldview, anarchism, that is paralyzing the blockchain from implementing some very simple, and pretty obvious, solutions to rectify the blockchain's most vexing issues.

I was shocked by the reaction.

The fourth Article in the Series, "Central Premise & Proposals" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 4, not only generated "controversy," it triggered a "swarm" of the post by a Witness Group. Swearing and cursing, insulting and belittling at every turn. It became so ridiculous that I was forced to create a Follow Up post, FOLLOW UP: "Central Premise & Proposals" - A Series About Fixing Steemit - Part 4 to summarize, and provide answers to, the cogent conversations that did occur, but which were now lost in a vast ocean of insults and ad hominem attacks.

More concerning, though, was what occurred in my Discord DM. Numerous people supportive of my ideas contacted me in private ... because they were afraid to express support in public for fear of retaliation. Indeed, some were too intimidated to even upvote the post. If this is what Steemit has become, it is not worth preserving.

Poets Opine

This morning, I came across a post by another poet, and good friend, @d-pend. It was an essay entitled, "What is the best way to move forward when faced with dissension within a community?" Talk about topically relevant. Here was the comment I made:

@d-pend, 

As per usual, a very well written and thoughtful treatise. 

I would, however, add an insight. Dissension is a critical part of the "creative destruction" process. Every scientific breakthrough or revolutionary invention required dissension against the status quo. The status quo, embraced, or at least tolerated by the community ... is often wrong. Sometimes, dramatically so. 

I recently had a first-hand experience with such phenomenon. I published a Series of Articles about some of the systemic problems effecting Steemit and proffered a number of solutions. Given that I was  proposing reforms to an existing system, that would make me the "dissenter." 

The first couple articles passed with only minor discord but the fourth detonated a bomb. It was immediately swarmed by a Witness Group. By Day 2, the post ranked as the 7th "Most Commented On" post on the blockchain. This Witness Group left 100+ comments, insulting and belittling anyone who dared to disagree with them. On Day 3, I edited the Article, saying I would no longer respond to said Witness Group and asking other commenters to likewise refrain. 

Given that the comments section had become a morass of ad hominem attacks, which now requires hours to wade through, I was forced to create a new post just to summarize, and provide answers to, the cogent  interactions that had occurred. 

During this time, my DM exploded, filled with numerous supportive commenters ... who were afraid to comment, or even upvote, for fear of retaliation. "Blacklisted" became the word of the day. That experience, plus this article, has inspired me to create a new post. 

About a month ago, I published a poem/article entitled, "As He Demurs" (poem/article) >>> Toxic Masculinity ... or Ideological Hyperbole?" 

As you can imagine, it contained argument that many would consider controversial. The poem and article were well written and meant to stimulate the self-examination of belief systems, specifically, some of the more recent assertions of radical feminism. Inarguably, this has been the social function of poets since time immemorial. 

One of the commenters on the post disagreed with some of the arguments I'd made. His disagreements, however, were so astonishingly well articulated, and his manner of comportment, despite his  disagreement, so salutatory, that I asked his permission to copy-paste our comment/reply thread into a post ... as an exemplar of what "civil and intelligent discourse" looks like. 

He agreed. I got a bit distracted with the Steemit Reform Articles but here's that post, if a bit delayed. 

Quill 

How It's Done ... with Civility & Intelligence

And so, the remainder of this article features the aforementioned comment/reply thread (lightly edited) from "As He Demurs" (poem/article) >>> Toxic Masculinity ... or Ideological Hyperbole?". Self-evidently, this article will make a great deal more sense if you first read that one.

dollarsandsense

This was a very fascinating read. I’ve done a fair amount of reading on this topic and the most interesting thing I have read is the double standard that society applies to girls and boys while claiming that gender roles are equal and one is not “better” than the other. The example used was the young girl who has boyish tendencies: she is encouraged for her strength, praised for her leadership, and pushed to pursue this identity. On the other hand, the young boy who has more feminine tendencies (soft-spoken, kind, gentle) is generally shamed if not outright mocked, while being actively encouraged to be more assertive and less timid. 

I guess where I fall on the idea (today at least, my views on this are constantly shifting) is that there are undeniable differences between the genders and to deny they exist is folly. However, there are exceptions to the stereotypical male and female mold on both sides: gentle, emotional, caretaker men and bold, aggressive, leading women. I think people should be encouraged to be themselves, regardless of whether it aligns with traditional roles. But this concept can be taken way too far, and I agree there are baseline expectations of a man (physically defend his family and country, for example). I like your active rejection of ideology a lot - I will have to try and adopt that myself. 

quillfire

Good commentary. Thoughtful and well-articulated. 

The issue is not whether there's a spectrum of masculinity or femininity ... there clearly is. The Bell Curve of Distribution applies to everything. 

The issue is the outright denial of differences between genders ... to the point of asserting that the "concept of gender" isn't even real ... that it's a "socially constructed fabrication." 

The whole debate originates with a post-modern political/cultural theory (and I use the word "theory" loosely) called the "Blank Slate." That is, that people are born with a blank slate and that we have NO  MENTAL BIOLOGICAL inheritance. Everything we are, or aren't, is the result of "Social Construction." Said another way, it's the Nature vs. Nurture debate with the post-modernists arguing that it's 100% Nurture. 

The reason why this precept is so critical to post-modernists is that it allows them to argue that all social ills are purely the result of social influences. If a poor man is poor, it's because society screwed him over ... and therefore, it is up to society to rectify the wrong. Hence, massively increase taxes so as to pay for countless government-funded programs. Similarly, if there are more male software engineers, it's because girls have been socially conditioned to believe that software engineering is a male profession ... and so, a quota system gets implemented so as to force a balance. 

If people are not born with a Blank Slate, that is, that they are born with biological adaptations which color everything from their aptitudes to interests, the social engineers have an existential problem ... there are some discrepancies amongst humans that even an infinite amount of re-education and indoctrination won't resolve. Of course, this is precisely what ever faculty of every university on Earth has found: It's not Nature or Nurture, it's both. 

Although historians argue different timelines (don't they always), the whole debacle seems to emanate from the French Revolution when the Post-Structuralist movement was getting underway. Unlike the American Revolution, that's aim was purely political, the French Revolution was for more expansive. Not only did they overthrow the Monarchy (political), they eviscerated every social structure in sight: The Catholic Church (replacing it with a secular religion); weights and measurements (that's where we got the Metric System ... which, I would argue, was a good thing); a re-organized Calendar (chronology); the number of hours in a day (time); and, of course ... the nuclear family model. 

The revolutionaries murdered themselves into irrelevancy and Napoleon took over, quickly re-establishing many of the traditional structures of society, and thereby re-establishing order. 

Karl Marx spent a long time studying the French Revolution to determine what had gone wrong with the glorious Utopian dream. Some number of years later he put pen to paper and the result was Marxism (communism). In a nutshell, the world was divided into an Oppressor Class (the rich), and the Oppressed Class (the poor). The result was the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. and a body-count that would make the Nazis look like rank amateurs. 

Speaking of Nazis, they initiated a similar program except that the In-Group/Out-Group dichotomy was based upon race instead of wealth. Of note is that all Utopian social/political ideologies require an In-Group (Oppressed)/Out-Group (the Oppressors) conflict so as to justify all the bloodshed and torture. 

Someone ... has to be EVIL so that you can be GOOD. Without Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker is just a whiny little brat who needs an ass-kicking. 

For decades, western socialists (the supposed "intellectuals") were very enamored by Marxism and the "excesses" kept getting explained away as "aberrations." The publishing of the Gulag Archipelago, both inside the Soviet Union (covertly) and in the West (overtly) put lie to the delusion that Marxism was anything but murderous tyranny. 

Marxism ... became indefensible. 

Ah ... but the Utopian dream lived on. Humanity could be "perfected" and we'd all live together in harmony. John Lennon said so ... so it must be true. All we had to do was, "Imagine." (Hey, if you've got a catchy melody, what else do you need?) 

And so, we're now on Social Justice Experiment 4.0: Post-Modernism. And, as per usual ... we'll need an In-Group (the Oppressed) and an Out-Group (the Oppressors). As we've already tried Class (French Revolution), Wealth (Marxism) and Race (Nazism) ... we'll need something new. We'll need to re-brand. What's left? 

Power. 

The Oppressors are the powerful and the Oppressed are the powerless. And "Intersectionality" tells us who the powerless are: Women; non-whites; LGBT; and any religion other than Judaism and Christianity. And so, who does that leave as the Oppressors: Straight White Males (with or without a Judaeo-Christian association). 

And hence: The reason math textbooks are dominated by the discoveries of straight white men is because the contributions of female, non-white and gay/lesbian mathematicians has been suppressed. (Nevermind that little thing called "Algebra" or the "Arabic Numeral System" we all use or the concept of "zero.") And so, we need to re-write the math textbooks. (I kid you not.) Dido for all textbooks. Shakespeare and Twain ... misogynists and racists... so give them the boot. Aristotle ... well, he wasn't a  feminist, was he? Indeed, "logic" itself is a tool of the Oppressor ...  you know, framing your arguments around observable and testable facts and interpretations ... well, that precludes "Truths" that can only be understood via "metaphysical insight." And this, of course ... privileges straight white males. 

No matter how silly the assertion, it's perfectly reasonable so long as it fits within the ideological narrative. 

Another pattern that echoes loud throughout history is the silence of the Silent Majority. Nobody wants to get involved in all the hullabaloo. The assumption is always that such extremism will burn itself out and sanity will re-assert itself. This is an astonishing refutation of historical precedent. Extremist minorities have an excellent track record of seizing the reigns of power, and subsequently, implementing reigns of terror. We have countless precedents from the last 100 years alone.

dollarsandsense

Awesome follow-up! Could be it’s own post! 

I definitely agree with you that humans are not blank slates, and that much of what we are is the result of genetics and not learned behavior. Though there is still room for “nurture,” it’s is at most only as powerful as “nature”. 

I love the parallels to the other revolutions! I never thought of the current “culture war” in those terms, but your conclusions make a lot of sense. I am far from the front lines in all this and so probably end up being another member of the Silent Majority, but I do try and keep my eyes open to ensure there is truth and justice for both sides... I have actually learned from some of the concepts on the far left. Most  recently, the idea of inherent bias and micro aggressions. I used to be one of those people who would roll their eyes and dismiss these concerns outright, but lately I see they have some merit. An anecdote to  illustrate my point: 

I was recently getting my hair cut in a black barbershop by a black barber (I am white). I was chatting with the barber and the topic of children came up. I asked if he had any kids and he said no. We are both  younger men, but I do have kids. But since he was not married and I am, my first instinct was to say “good for you!” like it was some sort of impressive feat that a young, single, (likely poor) black man hadn’t fathered a child. I caught myself before I said it and actually felt ashamed. Instead, I thought about what I would say if I were having the same conversation with an old friend from high school and so I said  “they’re not for everyone, that’s for sure, but I love being a dad” instead. If I had made a big deal about it and gone the congratulatory route, what am I saying to him between the lines? That the bar is lower for him? That I expect less from black people? I would never have had the wisdom to evaluate myself before speaking if I hadn’t listened to the far left. 

So I’m way off the path of gender and well into race, but I mention it because I do try to see what can be learned from extreme views. I haven’t quite figured out as much on the gender front (aside from what I mentioned earlier about encouraging emotion and gentleness in already kind and emotional boys). I am sure there are other lessons to be learned. 

But generally, yes, these views are pretty out there and something worth trying to keep in check (even as we search for truths or lessons in them). Just as the most radical social justice warrior would say I  should have never used the term “black” a few lines ago, and I just laugh and move on, I similarly dismiss as rubbish a lot of the stuff you already mentioned that comes from the “power” revolution.

quillfire 

Excellent comment. You're a good writer too. 

Quoting dollarsandsense:

But since he was not married and I am, my first instinct was to say “good for you!” like it was some sort of impressive feat that a young, single, (likely poor) black man hadn’t fathered a child. I caught myself before I said it and actually felt ashamed. Instead, I thought about what I would say if I were having the same conversation with an old friend from high school and so I said “they’re not for everyone, that’s for sure, but I love being a dad” instead. 

Quillfire continues:

This is not a criticism, rather food for thought. Fair? 

I, too, am white. Would you have given a second thought about making such a comment to me? No. It was the typical guy-baloney that we espouse in order to bond ... complaining about women (even though we're obsessed with them), in one form or another. And, they do the inverse, always complaining about men. 

But here's the thing: You self-censored - and that is telling. Your intentions, of course, were noble ... but how can "skin color be irrelevant" if we keep making it "relevant?" 

I recently read an article about how the graduating class at Harvard now has a "Regular convocation ceremony" and a "Black-Only convocation  ceremony." Moreover, in universities all over the US, black activist students are demanding, and receiving, Black-Only dorm buildings. 

What the Klu-Klux-Klan couldn't accomplish, black activists have ... re-segregation. Forgive me, but this strikes me as being a step in the wrong direction. 

As a young man, I spent 5 years in the military, a great portion of which was spent in Africa. Black, brown, white ... nobody cared a wit.  As they said in Vietnam, "Same mud, same blood." In the communal showers, the black guys used to laugh their asses off at our "white soldier tan-lines" (we really did look stupid). The white guys would point out that the reputation of black guys being more "well-endowed" was, self-evidently, a myth. (Humor is one of the most potent ways in which human beings bond.) 

Guys trash-talking. Most often, color never came into it. Indeed, it never occurred to anyone that it ought to. We made fun of each other based upon our individual idiosyncrasies. My surname is "Savage." Marry  that up with a few Rum and Coke's ... well, you can imagine the plummeting of IQ scores. 

Communication requires two people: A communicator and a recipient. Both have a responsibility. The communicator transmits a message and the recipient interprets its meaning. Both can be "on-frequency" ... or "off." 

Had you made the comment you initially intended, and had the barber been offended, would the communication error have been your fault (communicator) or his (recipient)? 

Recipients are responsible not just for processing the literal meaning of speech, but also the figurative value of what is being said. (How else would you understand my poems, filled as they are with symbolism and syntactical errors.) Recipients are responsible for using context to determine intent. 

The social justice language police tell us that intent doesn't matter. "You said X and I'm offended whether you meant to be offensive or not." Just as occurred with the poem I discussed in my article. 

Is it possible that you are not, in fact, a social boor ... but rather, that some people have developed an itchy trigger-finger with respect to finding offense? There are, of course, real occurrences of boorishness in the world. About such occurrences, though, there is rarely any argument from reasonable people. Why? Because reasonable people know intent when they see it, and use its presence, or absence, as a filter. 

As Aristotle reminded us so many centuries ago, a virtue taken too far becomes a vice. And there's a clue in the word "micro-aggression" ... it's the prefix "micro." It means "one millionth." Sane people do not have their insult-o-meters calibrated to detect one millionth of an aggression as, at this level of sensitivity, all social interaction becomes impossible. 

At some point, one has to conclude that all this grand-standing is just politics. That the theatrics are part of an ideological agenda that requires an Oppressor Class and an Oppressed Class. And, if the  Oppressors are not providing evidence of their oppression, then you need to fabricate it. 

Take a look around. We are arguing about things that, 20 years ago, would have seemed utterly insane. The fabric of society is being torn asunder. People are being routinely assigned semantic meaning based upon immutable characteristics ... not individuals with individual personalities, interests and aptitudes - but merely nameless members of a group. 

Not good. 

Quill BTW, good username. :-) 

dollarsandsense

Yes I take pride in being very clever and witty when it came to choosing my screen name :P 

Food for thought is great, always welcome! As is criticism - my skin is thick. And you and I share a common bond of service (4 years Army right here) so there's that, too. 

Reading your last response, I can't argue with any of the broad societal commentary you make. The monolithic judgement of everyone and the expectation that we all cater to the lowest common denominator is indeed destructive and disturbing. However, to use your favorite word, I want to focus on the micro level - in this instance that level meaning me and only me. 

I do not doubt that there are many white people that do not treat people differently based on their race. I am confident that many of these white people pass zero judgement on people of color. You yourself may very well be one of them (especially based on your stories of your time abroad), and for that, I applaud you and agree that you are "free to move about the cabin" and continue on with your life while ignoring  the blather from the far left. 

I, on the other hand, am not in that same group of white people. 

After being challenged for years to examine myself, I took a deep, long, hard look inside. I was not happy with what I saw. When I am brutally honest with myself, I recognize that I do pre-judge people based on the color of their skin, without ever making an active choice to do so. Just like a toddler has an instant aversion to any food that is green, I have a deep-seated emotional response when confronted with a  human whose skin is a different color than mine. 

This in and of itself is not evil. It is not wrong. It is not a character flaw or a shortcoming in any way. On the contrary, I believe it is a vestige of evolutionary programming: to seek out your own kind and avoid other kinds, in the name of safety. Birds of a feather and all that. So I am not a flawed person for the thoughts I think. But having recognized this thought process, I now have a responsibility. 

If I allow this subconscious judgement to alter my interactions with a person, then I have a problem that needs to be addressed. And when I started to filter my actions and words through this lens, I realized that my responses were indeed being influenced in subtle ways (my barbershop example being one of them). I now live with the responsibility to police and, as you say, "self-censor" myself when I recognize that I am  treating someone differently based on the color of their skin - whether in a good way or a bad way. 

Zooming back out to a macro level, we can see the critical problem with the arguments on the far left.  They claim that everyone has this inherent bias, and everyone needs to watch what they say because intent is irrelevant and all that. I agree with you - this is lunacy and a step backwards. But the kernel of truth in all this is at my micro level. I do have this inherent bias, and as result, I have a responsibility to check myself. 

You lament the fact that skin color will never be irrelevant because people like me keep making it relevant. Well, when it comes to me personally, the moment I see someone, race is already relevant whether I want it to be or not. The moment I recognize the physical difference, something subtle shifts in my head and my behavior gets altered in subtle ways. The cat's already out of the bag at that point. Say I'm walking down the street at night and a person approaches from the opposite direction - whether or not I cross to the other side is subconsciously influenced in large part by the color of their skin. I can't put that genie back in the bottle. I just have to deal with it as best I can at that point, because like it or not, my lizard brain made race relevant in the interaction. 

The funny thing is, my inherent bias will often lead to outwardly positive behavior. Leaving a bigger tip for a minority. Being particularly gracious about holding a door. Over-complimenting expected behavior. So what's the problem? Why should I care? Well, let's go back to micro aggressions. 

I love your dismissal of micro as one millionth because it will help me argue why we should care. I'll start by saying that first off, I agree with you: most people are not calibrated to recognize or take offense to these "microaggressions". You are absolutely right about that. Now let me shift gears. 

The FDA allows a tiny amount of lead in a bottle of water. Anything less than 0.005 mg/L is acceptable.  You could drink it and never know the difference. But the funny thing about lead is that the body is very  bad at getting rid of it. It sticks around. And it's lethal at doses around 450 mg/kg. Assuming you weigh around 80 kilos (~170 lbs), that would mean that drinking 7,200,000 bottles of tainted water would kill  you. 

If someone goes through life constantly bombarded with these tiny, imperceptible differences in treatment, it can accumulate into something real, tangible, and harmful one day. Discontentment, division, distrust, anger, hate...  I could see how that would happen. If you spend your whole life around people who set the bar lower for you than everyone else around you, what does that do to your brain? To your soul? I don't know, but I don't want to gamble with the possibilities if I can be part of what gets rid of that. 

So bottom line, this is just my own personal and inward reflection. I make no prescriptions for other people and what they should or should not do, beyond simply looking inside to give yourself a good hard and honest look. I've done that, and now I'm quite confident that I am doing the right thing when I ensure that I am treating everyone equally, regardless of the color of their skin. 

Because when I'm honest with myself, I see that I wasn't doing that before. 

quillfire  

First of all ... you are one damned fine writer. I'm am seriously contemplating, with your permission, copy-pasting this entire thread and making it a post. This ... is how intellectual discourse is supposed to work. 

The whole purpose of peer review is to subject one's ideas, ideals and insights to the scrutiny of other  inquiring minds. Steel sharpens steel. And, in doing so, a wise man acknowledges the holes that such minds might identify. 

Quoting dollarsandsense:

The FDA allows a tiny amount of lead in a bottle of water. Anything less than 0.005 mg/L is acceptable. You could drink it and never know the difference. But the funny thing about lead is that the body is very  bad at getting rid of it. 

Quillfire continues:

And THAT ... is the power of metaphor. 

I cannot, of course, disagree with anything you so masterfully articulated. I suppose it all comes down to, as it usually does, where one draws the line. At some point, though, we start crossing lines of incredulity ... unfortunately, such lines are not marked out in red. 

If I have an intellectual objective in life, it is to inspire people to consciously reflect upon what they believe ... and, more importantly, why they believe it. 

There is a famous social psychologist and professor, named Jonathon Haidt, who has written a couple of best-sellers. He has also posted a number of videos on YouTube. I think you would find his work  fascinating. 

He and his colleagues came up with the "Moral Foundations Theory," (very well researched), a theoretical model of ethics that posits that human's possess six "moral foundations" upon which we construct humanity's multitude of moral doctrines and cultural mores. 

Some people, Liberals, tend to privilege two of the pillars while others, Conservatives, tend to weight all six more equally. We all see the same picture ... but it doesn't mean the same thing. 

None of this can be changed. Biology's in the blueprints and it colors all that we perceive and believe. At best, we can self-reflect and re-weight the inputs. 

In any event, living together means learning to live with each other's differing interpretations. Inevitably, this means compromise. My fear of Utopian ideologies (all of them) is that they, to paraphrase Haidt, "bind us and blind us." We develop In-Group preference and Out-Group prejudice. 

Ideology, of whatever stripe, requires absolutism in thought. Nuance is it's Achilles Heel. As everything takes on a moral dimension, dissenters aren't just wrong, they're evil ... and you don't dine with a demon lest you become one yourself. 

As I've recounted elsewhere on Steemit, I recently re-read George Orwell's, "1984" at my daughter's insistence. As a high-schooler, I dismissed the work as so hyperbolic in assertion that it defied credulity. As a 50-yer-old ... I was astonished. Orwell may have been off by a couple of decades, but his predictions have become prophetic. 

I can do no better than Wikipedia's summation: 

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. 

George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949); doublethink is part of newspeak. ... The novel explicitly shows people learning doublethink and newspeak due to peer pressure and a desire to "fit in," or gain status within the Party—to be seen as a loyal Party Member. In the novel, for someone to even recognize—let alone mention—any contradiction within the context of the Party line was akin to blasphemy, and could subject that person to disciplinary action and to the instant social disapproval of fellow Party Members. 

Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a fictional totalitarian state and the setting of George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, the ruling Party of Oceania created the language to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc). 

Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thoughtcrime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy. 

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever." 

Consider what we see and hear emanating from the Far Left (Post-Modern Socialism): De-Platforming (protests, campus riots and pulling fire alarms to prevent speakers from speaking); Trigger-Warnings; Safe Spaces; Politically-Correct Speech Codes; Euphimization (changing the meaning of long-established words and phrases such as "illegal alien," "gender" and "Truth)" and micro-aggressions. 

Each of these actions are designed to limit speech and the expression of alternative opinions. They are designed to establish Right-Think and Wrong-Think ... the codification, both legally and culturally, of  Thought-Crimes. 

Political, social and cultural conversations, let alone debates, are no longer possible without risk of accusations of moral turpitude and social ostracization. My writing this article, and follow-up commentary, is flirting with disaster ... and we all know it. There are readers of this post who, undoubtedly, would like to leave a comment but are afraid of the potential consequences. Self-censorship. 

Is this progress? 

Although you and I are recently acquainted, we self-evidently share a few attributes in common: We are thinkers; we have the ability to articulate our thoughts; and, we possess a desire to do so. 

You and I ... are troublemakers. 

If they bring back the guillotines, I may be the first to lose my head ... but you will be second. 

dollarsandsense

Thank you for the kind words and for another very interesting reply. I agree - this is what we need more of. Not shouting matches or name calling or whattaboutism or the other stuff that is destroying Facebook in the rare instances that people who disagree on a topic engage with each other. It does help to start with some common ground though. I’m not sure if it’s even possible to do this if you can’t find a starting point you agree on. 

I am happy to provide any and all of my comments on this thread to you for reuse in a future post! I appreciate the dialogue immensely. It’s been quite some time since I’ve been able to do a deep dive like  this. 

quillfire 

Ditto. :-)  

Steel Sharpens Steel

This is what "civil and intelligent discourse" looks like. Feminism, racial issues ... these are as hot as hot buttons can get. And yet ... no ranting or raving, no swearing or cursing. As you may have noticed, throughout the discourse, there is a mutual respect developing. We're expressing our commonality of beliefs, and our differences of opinion, but, in either case ... we are listening to each other.  

Since that exchange, @dollarsandsense and I have become good friends. We follow each other's blogs and chat by DM. And, the arguments that he made have influenced my own. Smart people make other smart people, smarter. Steel sharpens steel.

Quill 

 You guys know the drill. Be verbose ... but articulate. 

And remember ...    

Go Love A Starving Poet 

For God's sake ... they're starving!