This is not about Kanye, Serena, or Joe Wilson: An uncivilized post

[You probably should sit down for this one. Oh, you are already?  Good.]

On the cover of Tuesday's USA Today I noticed (as I passed the dispensary--yes, one of those antiquated devices on street corners where people can spend money to buy a paper version of the website; quaint, I know) a story with the title "What Happened to Civility?"  Accompanying it was a photo of Kanye West stealing the microphone away from Taylor Swift at the VMAs.  Below that were smaller shots of heckler Rep. Joe Wilson during the president's speech, and next to that a close-up of Serena Williams (presumably at the U.S. Open, in the midst of her tantrum).  From what I could see of the article through the glass, it was drawing some connection between these incidents of less-than-respectful behavior and a larger societal problem with a lack of civility.

And it occurred to me fairly straightaway:  People who act in civilized ways—who don't yell out during the president's speech, who let someone accept an award without jumping on stage to tell them they weren't deserving, who take what they believe to be a bad call without losing their temper—do not make the news.  This is not a clever or terribly insightful conclusion, I admit, but it struck me as a primary explanation.  The various parts of the media that report on such things do not put on their cover stories about people who acted in a civilized manner in whatever situation called for it; that was simply expected, and therefore unremarkable.  As Oscar Wilde noted, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about; today the desire for attention—whether it's positive or negative in nature—is almost certainly greater than back in Wilde's day, and it's infinitely easier to attain.  Thus, the ability to develop a taste for it (so to speak) is much easier as well.

I'm not B.F. Skinner, but it doesn't take a doctorate in behavioral psychology to see why what was perceived as civility would seem to have disappeared: it is not reinforced the way that incivility is.

Of course, the likelihood that people really ever were civil is questionable, but now we're veering off into the good-ol'-days conundrum.

But when USA Today has a headline reading "Good Guy Does Right Thing in Tricky Situation," we'll know we've turned a corner.  Or at least seemed to have.


Again, this is all what came to me without really knowing what the article was about.

(And this part probably would have been more clever or amusing if those sort of elements were better in regards to being reinforced in contemporary society.  Unlike in Wilde's day, today cleverness generally gets one misunderstood.)

~

When I got home Tuesday night I briefly looked up the civility article online.  And for our purposes here let's just note it was more or less what I'd surmised.  Thus, as I suspected while having those initial, inchoate thoughts, there was nothing particularly insightful to my reaction.  What level of inspiration I thought I may have had to do something with those thoughts dissipated; they didn't really offer anything that wasn't in what the writer had included.

That would have been the end. This post would not exist.

However, then I made the mistake of starting to peruse the comments that had been left after the article.  I dare not say "in response to" the article, as that would not (in my humble opinion) accurately reflect their overall nature.

The beauty of the internet is that it allows anyone to offer his/her thoughts.  The disquieting aspect of the internet is that it allows anyone to offer his/her thoughts.  (Case in point: what you're reading right now.)

The irony of how an article about a lack of civility spurred comments that were, I'd have to say, not terribly civil was only noted in one comment I saw., but that was a rare exception.  The majority fell more into the category of complaining about whatever issue was stuck in the commenter's (proverbial) craw. 

I couldn't make it though the hundreds (as of the time I post this days later it's in to the thousands) that were left; I can't imagine anyone could unless he/she has a masochistic streak and gets off on reading others bicker back and forth.

However, of the dozens I did make it through, those that struck me as thoughtful, without being merely rancorous (whether coming up with someone or something to blame for this lack of civility, or going off on a tangent and lamenting how another news story wasn't getting better coverage), were few.  There were some, but they seemed a distinct minority.  There were others that noted the newspaper itself was not entirely without culpability in promoting the very scenario in question.  But regardless of one's thoughts on the topic, the only definite conclusion I could draw was that there was no consensus about what could restore a aura of civility.  Nor, frankly, did I get the impression that most who was moved to leave a comment would have really desired that; they agreed with the premise that civility would be good (I presume), but by and large I doubted that a lot of what was posted would have made it through a filter of civility.

The civility in this context seemed to revolve around the way that most commenters appeared to have utterly ignored most of the other comments.  They made their sweeping generalization and got out.  It was not a discussion where others' points of view were considered; it was yelling "Here's who I blame!" and stopping the conversation at that point.

(The secret to reading the comments on a website may be in one's mind to preface all of them with the phrase "In this wing nut's whacked-out opinion…" and then be amused by the result, or delighted when it proves unnecessary.)


~

"This Golden Age of communication means everybody talks at the same time / And liberty just means the freedom to exploit any weakness that you can find."
- New Model Army, "225" (1989--yes, twenty years ago)

~

Obviously, the comments left after the article seemed to reveal more about the individual pet peeves of those commenting than capturing any sort of pulse of the American public in general.

Perhaps that's what is the problem—not merely with ostensible civility but with people in general:  Rather than accepting that people acting out inappropriately in a public forum (i.e., on TV or some other medium that can be captured, such as our beloved internet) should be seen as representative of those individuals, they draw larger conclusions about society at large from these incidents (even if that is specious at best).  It will be interpreted as accurate if the reader is so inclined, but that doesn't intrinsically make it empirically true.  People want there to be patterns, and thus patterns are perceived. 

(Yes, the irony of making a generalization about making generalizations is intentional. At least I delude myself with the notion that it is.)

~

At the end of the day, I'd argue that this reveals the true American pastime (heck, perhaps the human pastime): being pissed off about something.  That is how our country started, when you get down to it; a bunch of colonists got upset about their treatment.  Without that, the British flag might still be flying over our capital.

Sure, back two centuries ago they took up muskets rather than keyboards, but you get the idea.  The tactics have changed over time, but the ultimate mindset remains kind of the same.

Seen in this light, society isn't really going downhill; it's pretty much the same as it always has been.

Of course, that sort of perception may serve to make one less inclined to be pissed off about the ostensible downfall of civility, which would ruin the great American joy of being upset about what one has perceived as something to be upset about.  So this may not be for everyone.

~

And wrapping up...

Two weeks before the Joe Wilson/Serena/Kanye trifecta spurred this civility debate, there was an incident at one of the town hall meetings about (we'll call it) the health care issue that were prevalent in the news (whether they were really representative of a majority of the public or not), where a fist-fight occurred and a man had the tip of his finger bitten off.

Bitten off.

I'm not sure whether the reason that didn't spur a cover story on USA Today about a dearth of civility was because: a) a digit removed dentally is pretty darned newsworthy regardless of the context, or b) neither the perpetrator or the victim was in the public eye (at least not in the way a politician or athlete or music star would be), or c) it wasn't done in the same week as two other noteworthy instances.

Perhaps all of the above.

Maybe when it crosses over to the hideous and monstrous, calling it merely uncivil seems a bit inapplicable.  A breach of etiquette is one thing, but something that elicits a I-can't-f*cking-believe-it response is probably construed as quite another.

The only unarguable conclusion to the drawn from a cover story on civility:  A somewhat slow news day.

If a paper can spend front-page space on that, society has not become that uncivilized.

~

Thanks for pretending to pay attention. Especially this long. I'm going to presume you know the link to the comments section is below. Remember, without those comments, you wouldn't have had to sit through this.

~

P.S. Regarding the opposite of "civility" I'm not sure why the adjective is "uncivil" but the noun is "incivility." Gotta love English.

~

And in case you missed Lewis Black's brilliant "Back In Black" rant from Wednesday's The Daily Show which touches on this whole thing far better than I have above, go here and watch it.