Originally Posted by Bobby G
I do think this is our own little civility experiment. Obviously, we've had backs-and-forth (back-and-forths? BJ, help a brother out here) before, but it's kind of neat that it's happening in the comments section to this diavlog.
So, I'm still working out in my head whether these recent exchanges between BJ and look count as uncivil. After all, these are par for the course on BH.tv, and relatively soft, given what other kinds of tirades we've had. That said, I'm inclined to think that these two exchanges are uncivil, and that even though we've had lots of worse exchanges in the part. All that means is that incivility is a relatively common phenomenon here.
Why describe this most recent BJ/look exchange as uncivil? I take it it's because look is pointing out what he takes to be a personal failing in BJ, and he's pointing it out to him not in a pastoral spirit, but rather because this failing irritates him, and he wants BJ to become annoyed or agitated, or, he doesn't care how it will make BJ feel.
Now, I'd be interested in knowing whether anyone thinks look wasn't behaving uncivilly or whether they think he is, but that he should behave uncivilly in this situation? That is, did look violate some norm of civility or not? And assuming he did, should he have? I also want to know whether people think BJ violated a civility norm. It seems to me that he may have, but I'm inclined to think he didn't. Even if he is bigoted against southerns, that in itself doesn't strike me as intrinsically uncivil; as I've said before, whether it's uncivil depends on the manner he expresses his bigotry (assuming he is bigoted).
Apologies to look and BJ, by the way, for taking such the mortician's tone with them. But I do think this instance of possible incivility in question provides an object lesson in people's takes on the subject.