About writing. And reading. And being published. Or not published. On working on being published. Tangents into the pop culture world to come. Especially about movies. And comic books. And movies from comic books.
It's very tall.
Checking back in. I like the pic. I read your Burr article below it, too. I think people confuse "civility" and "silence." You can civilly disagree with people; I do it all the time (and sometimes not as civilly, I am sure) in my practice. I have to debate other lawyers and try not to insult them personally or make it a tirade or yell, etc. We disagree, but are civil.Most people who ask for "civility" in public discourse don't mean "be polite about stating your views," they mean "don't disagree with me." There is nothing uncivil about stating your political views politely. I also think that you should be upfront about your politics, especially if you are a public or semipublic figure. Pretending you don't have a political alignment is disingenuous, if not dishonest. Both Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart have clear political alignments. It's not the fact that they are outspoken about their political beliefs that makes one (Limbaugh) a buffoon and one (Stewart) at least somewhat credible ("somewhat" re: his baffling stance re: Louis CK). It is helpful to know where people come from when you review their arguments.I also agree with you that these days people who believe something opposite to the powers-that-be have an absolute duty to make it known, however slight the notice might be, because to fail to speak up against what is going on is, as you've noted, to become complicit in it. Silence is taken as acquiescence (which it is) and sometimes agreement (which it de facto becomes, because if you do not protest, then you are allowing the actions to happen.)
Briane: I think my problem is that I have hit a wall wherein an objective truth is also an insult, i.e., a lot of these people are unthinking idiots, and I don't know how to get around that.