Collin Hayes
Soc 3, Timothy Kubal
Uncivil Discourse
Almost all good things in life have their downsides. Food can lead you to be obese, partying can lead you to getting a DUI, School can lead to a loss of sleep, and the freedom of speech can lead to some words others may not wish to hear. Uncivil discourse is a topic that is very controversial because it is seen as a problem which can lead to violence. However solutions for stopping uncivil discourse may involve altering or limiting our freedom of speech which is granted in the first amendment of the United States constitution. Freedom of speech, just like everything and anything will have it's downsides, in this case uncivil discourse. Uncivil discourse is not harmful, however it is the interpretations of it that can make it harmful, not the uncivil discourse itself. Uncivil discourse is everywhere however, in TV shows, movies, school, and our government.
One article called "Can Post-2016 Politics Become More Respectful?" by Alison St John and Michael lipkin touches on the issue of uncivil discourse. The article argues that the previous presidential election in 2016 displayed the "nastiest" communication among politics due to rude tweets and name-calling becoming a norm without debate. The article concludes that one reason we are seeing this happen is because attention is going to those who are uncivil. The proposed solution by the article is to inform upcoming state legislatures on how act respectfully and civil. John and Lipkin support this by informing about workshops held at UC San Diego which are intended to create a more positive and respectful political environment.
It is true that people tend to pay attention to people who are involved with something which is uncivil. Think about the news stories which are usually most popular, is it the ones that involved someone who gave a beautiful speech about something they love that you think of, or is it about someone who disrespected or said something which targeted something or someone negatively. If you're like most people it would have been the disrespectful and negative speech which would be heard more frequently. John and Lipkin support this idea in their writing by saying that people pay attention to the things which are uncivil. Similarly, we often pay attention to the negative things in the news, rather than the positive things. Most likely, people would be more interested and create a bigger conversation about a bombing in Syria, rather than a cure for some deadly disease. If this doesn't make it clear that we think of negatives more than positives, think of as many negative events as you can that have happened in the world this year, then think of all of the positive events.
Uncivil discourse isn't necessarily harmful. The old phrase, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me is relative in this case. First we have to define what uncivil discourse is, uncivil meaning discourteous or impolite and discourse meaning written of spoken communication. Now obviously, there is going to be some communication that we find impolite or not courteous. However the extent of this rests upon the individual, because we all have different beliefs on what is polite and impolite. Which makes the idea of keeping our freedom of speech untampered with critical. We all have different ideas and eventually someone will disagree with them no matter what, because we all have different views. We should not judge someone else's view because it is different than ours.
Someone might say that Trump is a person who has displayed uncivil discourse by saying that he has tweeted things such as fake media this and that, or that Obama has spied on him. This matter may be different, since Trump is not an ordinary citizen, so maybe matters should differentiate upon our leaders in government and society. Another example would be the teacher at Fresno State who made death threats and created a conspiracy where people believe that he inspired the murder of four white men. He is also a leader in society, he is a teacher at a university who many people look up to. The point being made here, is that the uncivil discourse made by these people are not causing any violence, it is the people who are committing the violence who are causing the violence. For instance, we see horror movies all the time, but most likely we don't leave the movie theater ready to kill people and exercise what the movie has shown. If we did, that would be our own choice and probably due to a mental disability.
If we are careful who we elect as our leaders in our local community, our society and our government, we won't have to worry about uncivil discourse in the first place. Free speech should never be limited because we all have our own views on what is right and wrong, what's important what's not, and what our purpose is. Uncivil discourse is just a fancy word for a listener who is not pleased with what they have heard. Some of the best things in life have their downsides, just like our beloved freedom of speech. Uncivil discourse, or impolite communication is something we deal with everyday, and it is just a part of life.
References:
Article:
Can Post-2016 Politics Become More Respectful? by Alison St John and Michael lipkin
Can Post-2016 Politics Become More Respectful? | KPBS
No comments:
Post a Comment