I think the level of civility and politeness depends on the cause, really. I remember some pretty civil arguments back in my day too, but they tended to be on comparatively minor issues, not existential threats. You can agree to disagree on student fees, but it's very hard to be chill with someone who's trying to outlaw your existence. Things felt more remote and lower stakes when I was a student.
I've known a number of clinic defenders, and I've of course seen pro-plague people try to storm hospitals, and Nazis try to storm mosques, so it's not like I'm inherently against the idea of safe zones. It's more that I don't believe in the ability of the state to enforce them in any meaningful way. I think the cops will surround a Starbucks to save its windows from being broken, but reproductive health clinics are always defended by community volunteers, hospitals by their own staff, and mosques by antifa like me. It's just too likely that the cops sympathize with the ones causing the danger, not the vulnerable people inside.
Seems tome that peaceful protest, offering an opinion, and having a debate debate or discussion are all very different animals from mocking, bullying, harassment, death threats, even though they all involve speech of some sort. Though I will admit to feeling uneasy about how the concept of "hate speech" has been incorporated into the legal context.
But everyone is going to disagree on where that line is. Many Americans, for example, see bending a knee as violence, and many Canadians feel that blocking a highway is. To be clear, I think it's good that we all have lines; it's a starting point for a more mature discussion about these issues.
For me, the line is not civility or politeness; I would always rather someone be rude but honest. It's the level of existential threat. If someone is advocating genocide I'll debate them for a bit but if I realize it's hopeless, I'm going to start looking for ways to make them STFU.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2025-04-26 10:00 pm (UTC)I've known a number of clinic defenders, and I've of course seen pro-plague people try to storm hospitals, and Nazis try to storm mosques, so it's not like I'm inherently against the idea of safe zones. It's more that I don't believe in the ability of the state to enforce them in any meaningful way. I think the cops will surround a Starbucks to save its windows from being broken, but reproductive health clinics are always defended by community volunteers, hospitals by their own staff, and mosques by antifa like me. It's just too likely that the cops sympathize with the ones causing the danger, not the vulnerable people inside.
Seems tome that peaceful protest, offering an opinion, and having a debate debate or discussion are all very different animals from mocking, bullying, harassment, death threats, even though they all involve speech of some sort. Though I will admit to feeling uneasy about how the concept of "hate speech" has been incorporated into the legal context.
But everyone is going to disagree on where that line is. Many Americans, for example, see bending a knee as violence, and many Canadians feel that blocking a highway is. To be clear, I think it's good that we all have lines; it's a starting point for a more mature discussion about these issues.
For me, the line is not civility or politeness; I would always rather someone be rude but honest. It's the level of existential threat. If someone is advocating genocide I'll debate them for a bit but if I realize it's hopeless, I'm going to start looking for ways to make them STFU.