A Case for Civility
I spend some time discussing a lot of different issues with people. I like to think of myself as reasonably open minded and tolerant, perhaps erroneously. I actually posted a question on LinkedIn a few months about anger and got some interesting reactions.
This last week has provided several interesting illustrations for me about the anger and energy that is out there.
The first are the comments and vehemence of reactions to President Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize. Although a lot of the reaction has been that it represents a non event or that it has been awarded prematurely if not inappropriately other reactions have been angry and frankly nasty.
I responded to a poll on LinkedIn indicating my thoughts, the award was premature, but that being an optimist I was hoping perhaps it was awarded proactively as a catalyst and got back a response telling me how wrong I was. When I responded that I hadn't actually endorsed it the person wrote me back again telling me I was wrong for not being more strident in my denunciation of all things Obama.
If you really want to see an exercise in venom , my second example involves the blogs/comment streams regarding various sportscasters predictions and comments about everything ranging from college football to professional golf. It is some nasty stuff.
I read earlier this week about a Delaware school districts decision to transfer a six year old to reform school for six months because he brought an eating utensil to school. The utensil includes a blade which makes it a weapon under the school's zero tolerance policy. In the interests of "consistency" and the concern about perceived potential racial bias the policy does not take into consideration the circumstances, academic record of the student, etc. As you might suspect I think this policy is not well conceived or administered. I wonder if the folks who crafted it are available for further consultation on the Le Garrett Blount incident (sarcasm intended).
What was really striking was the comment stream initially directed at the school district, but then involving the parents, racial profiling, and even managed to blame President Obama for this one.
Several felt that the mother is criminally negligent and should be incarcerated for as a substitute for her child's suspension, others accused people of protesting the punishment of being racially biased, comparing the issue to a child who brought a handgun to school and killed a classmate. Quickly the discourse devolved into name calling aimed at each other and incorporating the right to bear arms, etc. Pretty nasty.
Perhaps I am overly tolerant of others viewpoints. Has "social media" eliminated all the rules? Have we lost our ability to "agree to disagree". Do we need laws and "policies" to "explain" to us what appropriate dialogue is with each other.
The school's defense of their policy was "consistency". Those of you who know me recognize this is one of my least favorite words because in our new vernacular it means I don't have to use judgement as long as I follow "policy".
I will freely admit to being opinionated, intense, and maybe even at times overbearing and appearing arrogant. I strive for and will continue to be civil.
Is it just me or have we become desensitized to civility kind of like sex and violence? Your thoughts appreciated.
This last week has provided several interesting illustrations for me about the anger and energy that is out there.
The first are the comments and vehemence of reactions to President Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize. Although a lot of the reaction has been that it represents a non event or that it has been awarded prematurely if not inappropriately other reactions have been angry and frankly nasty.
I responded to a poll on LinkedIn indicating my thoughts, the award was premature, but that being an optimist I was hoping perhaps it was awarded proactively as a catalyst and got back a response telling me how wrong I was. When I responded that I hadn't actually endorsed it the person wrote me back again telling me I was wrong for not being more strident in my denunciation of all things Obama.
If you really want to see an exercise in venom , my second example involves the blogs/comment streams regarding various sportscasters predictions and comments about everything ranging from college football to professional golf. It is some nasty stuff.
I read earlier this week about a Delaware school districts decision to transfer a six year old to reform school for six months because he brought an eating utensil to school. The utensil includes a blade which makes it a weapon under the school's zero tolerance policy. In the interests of "consistency" and the concern about perceived potential racial bias the policy does not take into consideration the circumstances, academic record of the student, etc. As you might suspect I think this policy is not well conceived or administered. I wonder if the folks who crafted it are available for further consultation on the Le Garrett Blount incident (sarcasm intended).
What was really striking was the comment stream initially directed at the school district, but then involving the parents, racial profiling, and even managed to blame President Obama for this one.
Several felt that the mother is criminally negligent and should be incarcerated for as a substitute for her child's suspension, others accused people of protesting the punishment of being racially biased, comparing the issue to a child who brought a handgun to school and killed a classmate. Quickly the discourse devolved into name calling aimed at each other and incorporating the right to bear arms, etc. Pretty nasty.
Perhaps I am overly tolerant of others viewpoints. Has "social media" eliminated all the rules? Have we lost our ability to "agree to disagree". Do we need laws and "policies" to "explain" to us what appropriate dialogue is with each other.
The school's defense of their policy was "consistency". Those of you who know me recognize this is one of my least favorite words because in our new vernacular it means I don't have to use judgement as long as I follow "policy".
I will freely admit to being opinionated, intense, and maybe even at times overbearing and appearing arrogant. I strive for and will continue to be civil.
Is it just me or have we become desensitized to civility kind of like sex and violence? Your thoughts appreciated.
Labels: Cub scout, LinkedIn, media, Nobel, Obama, policy, zero tolerance
posted by Mark at New Paradigms LLC at
2:58 PM
3 Comments:
Holy Cow! Well, Mark, if you are getting old and tolerant then I am right there with you!
For one: I fully support Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize. He is heart centered, intelligent and folks are not giving him a chance to make a difference without them jumping all over him.
I, for one, would like to think that I could be in a new job and actually get ENCOURAGEMENT, rather than vilification and condemnation. Oh my gosh.....what a concept. How would anyone feel with so much venom and hate coming at them. I hope he does not feel it and ignores all that crap.
And I find it totally crazy that a 6 year old is being sent to reform school. How nuts is that? The world is a fear based world right now and all I can say is that we Lightworkers-Lighthouses better keep on shining our lights out and not let up.
Blessings to you,
Elizabeth
The saddest thing with anger is it's addictive nature.
Angry people are people with a big void, they lack purpose and generally find very little self directed meaning (they may spend all their lives doing for others but it is not unconditional giving, it's really their way of filling the void). Anger is addictive because it's an energy source, a way to feel something in the absence of feeling something about a thing of value and we get trapped in that emotion.
I have issues with the Nobel Prize (see Yasar Arrafat's nomination for example)but it's more the tension between my definition of what it should mean and what it means to the people who award it.
For me the real question is how do we minimize the power of anger?
Thank you for an amazing post, as usual.
Reut
It's annoying how many bad losers still resent and attack Obama. He won by 7 million popular votes. Rather than seeing a new opportunity with someone with a slight bit more intellect, vision, and integrity than the historical parade of politicians, the losers invest anger to attack Obama.
Even worse, the losers are painting Obama as un-American and socialist with strident venoom. People are willing to torpedo overdue healthcare reform because they hate Obama. The GI Bill and Medicare and previous bailouts are all precedents for appropriate social initiatives, yes socialist, not capitalist. Socialist initiatives for common good can and have easily existed in a capitalist system. Even Greenspan admitted to Congress that a totally "free" market (which is now more expesnive than any socialist system on Earth for taxpayers) and total lack of regulation do not work. Human nature demands regulation until we evolve into purely ethical beings. Healthcare as a high profit concept is counterintuitive to a strong democracy, but Obama haters (2008 election losers and equivocators) vent their anger to attack reform. Anger is again proven to be self-destructive. Maybe our society deserves it, we'll see.
KG
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home