Is Civility a Fantasy?

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/24/25 at 7:07am

While I pose it as a question, Roxanne Gray confidently says it is indeed one in this provocative New York Times opinion column (gift link).

Sharing it here given some of what has surfaced in different threads discussing charged topics.

I find it particularly interesting to consider her thinking in the context of President Trump saying "I hate my opponent" at Charlie Kirk's recent memorial service.

Excerpt:

"Civility is the mode of engagement that is often demanded in political discourse; it is the price of admission to important political conversation, its adherents would have us believe; no civility, no service. But civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy.

"The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake."

And another:

"Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.

"Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between “us” and “them.” It is the demand of people with thin skin who don’t want their delicate egos and impoverished ideas challenged. And it is a tool of fearful leaders, clinging to power with desperate, sweaty hands, thrilled at the ways they are forcing people, corporations and even other nations to bend to their will but terrified at what will happen when it all slips away."

Updated On: 9/24/25 at 07:07 AM

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/24/25 at 8:36am

SteveSanders said: "While I pose it as a question, Roxanne Gray confidently says it is indeed one in this provocative New York Times opinion column (gift link)."

WOW... a lot to unpack but (for me), fantasies aren't real. They don't exist in the present tense. Because I believe that, I think the question is darkly pessimistic. Ms Gray is basically saying that "civility" doesn't exist.

Admittedly, I can't access the article, so I'm only reacting to your excerpts/synopses, but a factor that's missing in the discussion is the element of choice, or free will. 

If a person has a clear understanding of what civility is, and the expectations for how it should be exercised within their given community, the last element of the algorithm is to make the choice to enact it within the definition and boundaries first described.

Ms Gray presents her argument as if "civility" were an autonomous noun. Yes, the word itself is grammatically a "noun", but its presence in the world is as a verb; an action. It's an action that exists because we CHOOSE to exercise it. 

In a free society, Humans ALWAYS have a choice regarding their actions. In a free society, everything we do is done by our own CHOICE to do it (or not). In some situations, we excuse ourselves by saying, "I didn't have a choice", but that is never scientifically true. In reality, we use that phrase when the choice is incredibly difficult, and we want a release from guilt for having to make the choice.

Ms Gray wrote: "The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake."

No. I don't believe that at all. In fact I believe the opposite. I'd edit, "we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are"  to read, "we would have to accept an understanding that we are a humanity with naturally occurring flaws and faults, and that the choices we make shape how, as individuals, we are viewed within our society."

I'd also edit, "We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place." to "We would have to accept and understand that the world is not always a fair and just place, and that how we react to that fact is completely controlled by the choices we make about it."

Ms Gray wrote: "Calling for civility is about exerting power."

Nope. Calling for civility is about exercising "choice".

Ms Gray wrote: "Civility is wielded as a cudgel to further clarify the differences between 'us' and 'them'."

An unfortunate choice made by some.

Updated On: 9/24/25 at 08:36 AM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/24/25 at 9:55am

Hmm.  I just double-checked and my link is for an unlocked gift article, but this one should access the full article as well: https://archive.li/no9pw

[John Adams]

Posted: 9/24/25 at 11:35am

Okay, now that I've read it, my views are changed, but not by much. Her thesis statement seems to be: "But civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy." I still hold to my counterpoint that Ms Gay (just for clarity's sake, and as a sign of respect, I think the additional "r" was accidental) isn't factoring in the element of choice, or free will.

Also, when discussing civility from a sociopolitical pov, the word, "polite" doesn't need to be a considering factor. I say that based on the options for defining, "what is 'civility'?" in the context of Ms Gay's assay.  (Although IRL, outside of politics, I think "politeness" shouold come first.)

Here's what I found online to be the most relevant possibilities in this context:

    1    Courteous behavior; politeness.
    2    A courteous act or utterance.
    3    The state of society in which the relations and duties of a citizen are recognized and obeyed; a state of civilization.

I also found this @ The Institute For Civility (formerly known as, Institute for Civility in Government) website: "Civility is claiming and caring for one's identity, needs, and beliefs without degrading someone else's in the process."

That 4th definition is the one I favor most when discussing civility as applied to Ms Gay's essay.

RE: definition, agree? disagree?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/1/25 at 9:44pm

This board certainly suggests that civility IS a fantasy.

[John Adams]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 9:43am

Jay Lerner-Z said: "This board certainly suggests that civility IS a fantasy."

I disagree. "This board" is only one, singular sample. Your sample size is too small.

Fantasies are not reality. By definition, they are a product of the imagination. To state, "Civility is a Fantasy" is akin to saying, "Civility does not exist, except in the imagination".

All I would need do to disprove that theory is find ONE example that demonstrates the existence of Civility in the real world. I would offer Jon Stewart's Final Speech at Rally to Restore Sanity. (Begin at the 8:34 time stamp). 

His description regarding the "You go, then I'll go" model is not only a real world example that Civility does exist, it also illustrates my theory that Civility's existence relies on whether/not people make the choice to exercise it.

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 12:33pm

I do think it is useful to distinguish between everyday civility or what some may call politeness, and political civility as Roxanne Gay is focused on more.

The latter starts to bring in the related issues of political protests, advocacy, persuasion, and many more.

I can't remember if she talks about it on one of her books or columns or if I heard Gay mention this when I went to one of her pubic appearances, but she raised a question I've heard others pose:

• Just how civil do people think I should be when I talk with those who wish to deny my existence or some of the rights they fully enjoy?

 

Updated On: 10/2/25 at 12:33 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 1:12pm

Does this extend to tolerance of religion?

Forgive me if I'm giving off Seb vibes... but how much "respect" do we owe even the most mild-mannered of the devout?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 1:16pm

Who was right... Malcolm X... or MLK? 

Is that what it comes down to?

[John Adams]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 2:06pm

SteveSanders said: "[...]I can't remember is she talks about it on one of her books or columns or if I heard Gay mention this when I went to one of her pubic appearances, but she raised a question I've heard others pose:

• Just how civil do people think I should be when I talk with those who wish to deny my existence or some of the rights they fully enjoy?"

I would LOVE to ask her what she believes is the definition of "civility". Currently, it seems like she may be leaning toward definition 1, above (due to her inclusion of the phrase, "a perfect, polite way to communicate").

If she does believes it's definition 1, (courteous behavior; politeness), then IMO, on a scale of 0-10, "0". If it's someone's intention to deny your existence or your rights, (IMO) no courteous behavior or politeness need be required.

If she believes it's definition 4, (claiming and caring for one's identity, needs, and beliefs without degrading someone else's in the process), then on the same scale of 0-10, "11".

...and I go off-the-chart because I feel like it might require an above-and-beyond, Herculean effort to enact the "without degrading someone else's in the process" aspect.

[John Adams]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 2:11pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Who was right... Malcolm X... or MLK?

Is that what it comes down to?"

IMO, no.

Civility is not about being "right" or "wrong". Civility is about how one engages in response to a circumstance/situation.

In other words, if someone climed to be "right", but you disagreed, civility would be demonstrated in HOW you respond - not WHAT your response is.

Updated On: 10/2/25 at 02:11 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 3:47pm

John Adams said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Who was right... Malcolm X... or MLK?

Is that what it comes down to?"

IMO, no.

Civility is not about being "right" or "wrong". Civility is about how one engages in response to a circumstance/situation.

In other words, if someone climed to be "right", but you disagreed, civility would be demonstrated in HOW you respond - not WHAT your response is."

 

That's what I mean. They both had the same aim,but disagreed on which was the best method to achieve it. One opted for "civil", the other chose other means.

[John Adams]

Posted: 10/2/25 at 5:34pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "That's what I mean. They both had the same aim,but disagreed on which was the best method to achieve it. One opted for "civil", the other chose other means."

I'm more familiar with MLK's works and speeches than I am with Malcomn X's, but to be clear, I am NOT an expert on either. Because that's true, I can't accurately respond regarding whether/not either spoke, or acted "without degrading someone else". 

If either spoke negatively about any race, that does not necessarily mean they spoke in an un-civil manner. Offensiveness is not necessarily a synonym for incivility.

 

 

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 11/15/25 at 8:38am

Sadly, in today's world the answer is probably yes. I will say in my defense that on most subjects on BWW I disagree with the majority of the posters. I can honestly say I have been civil to everyone when it comes to discussing these disagreements. Civility should not be a hard thing to do; more people should actually try it.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/15/25 at 11:48pm

"Civility is the mode of engagement that is often demanded in political discourse; it is the price of admission to important political conversation, its adherents would have us believe; no civility, no service. But civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy"

There used to be. When I was growing up in the 90s, I had Democrat and Republican friends and family. It was just not discussed and we all respected one another. When John McCain and Mittens Romney were running, I respected them but obviously disagreed with their views. Obviously, as a WASP who is not part of the Rainbow Community, I can understand how many people had an issue with both men and their belief system. They even defended President Obama when the toothless losers in some square state called him "A Muslim Kenyan terrorist". Even in their debates, they were aggressive but respectful. But, neither one had a shot against this brilliant, young star of the Democratic Party. He was violently disrespected by the other side because they couldn't wrap their head around this incredible, bright, Black man being the leader of the Country. The secret service later said he had a lot more protection due to the racism and death threats he constantly received. Those people were all Republicans, of course. That is when the civility ended. Change is super hard for White straight men, apparently.

Then came the worst thing to happen to America, ever. As my beautiful President Joey Robinette said "You are the worst President in the history of this Country", and of course won in a fair and free election. Sadly, the Dogfaced Pedophile convinced half of America that it was "rigged" and "fixed" despite every single court throwing his lawsuits out. Everyone in America with common sense and critical thinking skills knew the election was not rigged, in any capacity. We knew he wanted the Democrats kidnapped, hurt, and murdered on January 6th. "Trump sent us!". Yes, he did. He wanted to inflict harm and/or death on every single one of his co-workers, including his Vice President who has since spoken out on how abhorrent and disgusting his former boss truly was. I am proud of him for doing that. America has become divided, angry, more violent and frankly, dumber, with him in charge. My sweet Joey wanted unity, the Rapist wanted division and cruelty, that was his entire campaign. The decline of America has been hard for those of us who love and live in this great Nation. When I told people in 2015 that he was a sociopath who would ruin America, no one believed me. Now, more and more people are catching on. Sometimes it takes people a minute, but I’m surprised at how long it took for people to say “I was wrong, he is terrible for America”.

I give no grace, sympathy, or forgiveness for anyone who voted for him. Not even the people who are losing half their families to ICE. You made your f*cking bed, lie in it. President Obama and President Biden’s accomplishments are incredible and speak for themselves. They were true leaders and everyone I know misses the true leadership and actual adults in Washington. This is temporary and will end, of course, but getting there is torturous for the intelligent, good people in America and for the majority of us here. 

There is no civility because a cult leader decided he was still mad at the meanies and decided to take it out on the American people. He has ruined this Country, and I hope he leaves this Earth soon, in a violent way or natural. It truly doesn’t matter to me, but due to him taking food out of people’s mouths, there are more and more people daily who want to hurt him. I hope they succeed. When my 90 year old Grandmother (the sweetest woman at church) says "Honey, he's about as sharp as a marble and as handsome as an elephant seal.", you know he's the living worst.

 So yeah……you can clearly see by my ridiculous rambling statement….there is zero civility left in America today

Updated On: 11/16/25 at 11:48 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/15/25 at 11:57pm

Your sweet Joey was complicit in the massacre of innocent Palestinian children.

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 11/16/25 at 9:47am

"Your sweet Joey was complicit in the massacre of innocent Palestinian children."

She stated she already blocked you in previous post where her true mean self-came out in a post.

Updated On: 11/16/25 at 09:47 AM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 11/16/25 at 11:12am

Yeah, I just saw that. That was posted after I made this comment, which is probably what sent her over the edge. I think she's obsessed with me. Sad. I almost feel sorry for her.

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 11/16/25 at 12:54pm

Civility?  Hmm.  

As I go about my real life as a "Super Citizen" age 78, I am met with civility, and kindness and courtesy. From the very young to those who are in their "golden years".  I cannot think of any instances (at least recently) when that has not been true.

But here on BWW?  Civility exists sometimes, and always with certain posters.  Often, however, I am attacked for no other reason than being "old".  It's in those moments that I question why I continue to contribute here.  Oh well. It's my real life and personal life that matter to me, not a website that unfortunately seems to permit trolling..

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 11/16/25 at 2:34pm

"But here on BWW?  Civility exists sometimes, and always with certain posters.  Often, however, I am attacked for no other reason than being "old"

Actually, you are attacked because you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you politically and call them names (MAGAT etc.). You use your age as a "crutch" and call people "ageist" when they did not like politicians like Biden. You also go out of your way to "troll" Jay Lerner-Z. Trust me, if you were decent to people who disagree with you maybe they would be more civil to you. Last thing I will mention is that you "trashed" poster SR making it seem like she was "nuts" and then only a week or two later, you act like she is your BFF. In other words, sir, you are a hypocrite.

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 11/16/25 at 3:12pm

Sutton Ross said: ""Civility is the mode of engagement that is often demanded in political discourse; it is the price of admission to important political conversation, its adherents would have us believe; no civility, no service. But civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy"

There used to be. When I was growing up in the 90s, I had Democrat and Republican friends and family. It was just not discussed and we all respected one another. "

The same was true for me (but some decades earlier).  

And during my many years in the military, if I knew the political leanings of any of my shipmates, it just didn't really matter.  

But life is different now with the MAGAts running wild.   They feel empowered with a Dictator Wannabe residing in what remains of our beautiul People's House.  Our very lives are being threatened.  Civility is pushed out the door and trolls assault us on the internet.  Including BWW.

I'm rambling.  Time to pet the cat.

I am determined to continue FIGHTING  THE  GOOD  FIGHT .  

Updated On: 11/16/25 at 03:12 PM

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 11/21/25 at 9:11am

"Our very lives are being threatened.  Civility is pushed out the door and trolls assault us on the internet.  Including BWW."

This is comical, too bad he has blocked me. Liberals like HG are the "trolls" on this board who constantly assault anybody who is not 100% liberal. Look at all the abuse HG and SR have given Jay Lerner-Z. Only posters like HG call people who don't agree with him stupid names instead of acting like a grown up.