“The fact that words assume different meanings over time further complicates efforts at strategic incivility, as we will not always know when an effort at civility or incivility will be perceived as such.”
Perhaps calling someone “a Hitler” in 2023 is accepted as strategically uncivil.
If a neighbor calls me a Hitler, I might shrug it off. If B’nai B’rith calls me Hitler, I take notice. I consider Louise Barron was doing little more than satisfying Godwin’s Law, but for someone my age, a son of the World War II generation, the label is still inflammatory and may tempt descending into a deeper level of incivility.
Revolutionary incivil speech instigated the trashing of Lt. Governor Hutchinson’s house in 1765, even while he was not himself a big supporter of The Stamp Act. Yes, there is a precedent for incivil soeech, and it must be protected, lest we silence all dissent and dictate only those words that comply with goodthink. But there are risks.
“The fact that words assume different meanings over time further complicates efforts at strategic incivility, as we will not always know when an effort at civility or incivility will be perceived as such.”
Perhaps calling someone “a Hitler” in 2023 is accepted as strategically uncivil.
If a neighbor calls me a Hitler, I might shrug it off. If B’nai B’rith calls me Hitler, I take notice. I consider Louise Barron was doing little more than satisfying Godwin’s Law, but for someone my age, a son of the World War II generation, the label is still inflammatory and may tempt descending into a deeper level of incivility.
Revolutionary incivil speech instigated the trashing of Lt. Governor Hutchinson’s house in 1765, even while he was not himself a big supporter of The Stamp Act. Yes, there is a precedent for incivil soeech, and it must be protected, lest we silence all dissent and dictate only those words that comply with goodthink. But there are risks.