Maybe it's because adult conversation hasn't been around for about a year.

 How many times have we had the "lets be civil" post followed with "I know I'm part of the problem" only to go back to insults while blaming other people for what we choose to type.

 More than there should have been.
 

 If history was to be taken into account I would say right back to insulting each other as soon as there is a disagreement.

Eegore wrote on 01/24/19 at 05:30:00:



it's been way way way more than a year

oh, and it takes buy in from both sides to make the civility thing work, until then it's just a fight to win, and when one side feels justified and celebrates being anti "PC"

and yes, I have a lot of work to do, but at least I admit it. that's step one.

I left sick of the crap the so called conservatives were applying to non civil discourse.  Name calling, etc.  Said I'd be back when I did my income taxes to post what the new tax code has done for or to me.

I grew up a conservative and generally am still one - with health care the major leftish turn in my philosophy..and that is because I hate pain and hate to see people in pain.

The fact that the Trumpeteers refused to actually answer a question is consistent with their leader, so while not an excusable behavior is at least understandable.  Alas, what it really meant is that they would not listen to anything but the voice in their head, making discourse useless.

and least anyone think I would never say anything good about the Lying Sack of S**t that is Trump, at least there is movement in the Korean  Peninsula issue.(The only positive thing possibly I've seen so far).  The stock market growth is based on raping the nation's finances so while it is a temporary plus, in the end it will be another Love Canal.

"what problem?"

 The perception that in order to be civil on a forum one must be treated civil, to me that's a problem as it creates a stipulation that is completely beyond my control: that others act a specific way.

 As such if I maintain the idea that civility requires two people then I always have an excuse to stop acting civil myself.  I justify the inappropriate behavior through others.  Once I negate the need for others to act in a way I feel is correct, then any actions I take are 100% my own.

 I just don't agree that civility requires two people.

"how is treating others they way they are treating you inappropriate?"

 For me it is inappropriate to act in a way that is not conducive to my goals as a person interacting among others.

 If a woman punches me I do not punch her back, if a 5 year old hits me in the testicles I do not hit him back, if a man drunk and unable to defend himself punches me I do not punch him back, I just use superior methods to diffuse and disengage.

 Verbal interactions are less of an issue.  Beyond causing a safety issue among others I could care less what people say to or about me as it does nothing to me.  Someone calling me an idiot just doesn't do anything, I have no measurable way to justify it's impact upon my life.  

 Digital interactions are the furthest from my concern, as the typed interactions are literally 100% my choice to log in and read, so everything told to me on here is because I consent to it.  So to me digital insults are essentially meaningless.

 As such returning interactions enacted upon me in the same manner are inappropriate, for me, as I have no investment to my or others safety or well-being since the digital insults have zero actual effect upon the world around me.

T And T Garage wrote on 01/23/19 at 16:35:36:

I Think This Is Why They Left

Can’t speak for others,

For myself, I have just spent several weeks,
listening to the same, ‘sky is falling’, crap,
propagated by the broadcast Tucson AZ, ’’’’News’’’’, Stations.
(Which Ajo gets)
So I understand better where Bot’s POV comes from.

Always knew tt’s POV, comes from, what-ever, TyT, ’’’reports’’’’.