“Being Polite” versus “Being Nice”; what is the difference for a debater?

“Being Polite” versus “Being Nice”; what is the difference for a debater?

I would like to add my two cents to the debate about “party unity”, “censorship”, “Facebook rude posts”, etc.

1. People keep confusing “being polite” with “being nice”.
“Being polite” means – no any physical encounter, no offensive words, no name calling, etc., and REQUIRED by the law.

“Being nice” means – “do not tell me what might upset me”. And there is NO law which requires people to be nice.

An imaginary conversation.

"You should not tell me this".

"Why?"

"Because it makes me feel sad".

"And?"

"You should not tell me this"!

"Why?!"

"Because it makes me feel sad"!!

"Do I call you names?"
"No but ..."
"Do I say something degrading?"
"No but I don't feel uplifting"
"We need to be polite and discuss matter which may affect our life. Why should I care all the time about how you feel? Why should You care all the time about how I feel? 
"Because ...  ... you need to be nice!"
"Why?"
"Because! ... I'm leaving! You are impossible!"

If someone gets so easily upset, that one just should not go even close to politics (or management, or any professional field, really: for more follow to http://www.gomars.xyz/op.html#stag).

2. The more debates take place the better. Censoring posts on the ground “I disagree with it”, or “this makes me feel bad” only leads to pushing people out of THIS place of the debate, but not out of the debate.  

People will not stop thinking what they are thinking, but will find other venues to express it (for example, by voting for Trump). 

In the long run, that is exactly what we need these days – we (democrats, progressives) need to get separated ("give each other a space"), give time to different groups to get a better, clearer understanding who wants what and who is who, and what they really want. Then those different factions, groups, "cliques", would be able to find a common ground.

To the advocates of censorship "because it cuts fake news" - (a) if you cannot see which news is fake, you should not go into politics; (b) if you are afraid people would be influenced by fake news you should offer your counter-opinion; (c) make sure that for you "fake news" is not just something "I don't like it".

3. At some point, everyone will need to make a decision: am I BY the movement, or IN the movement (does not depend on what movement)?

BY the movement means – providing types of support – verbal, monetary, etc.

IN the movement means – allocating a certain amount of time on various political actions. Among those actions, #1 is education themselves on the laws governing social changes.

For better or worse, Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” became the theoretical foundation of the following social revolutions (many!).

For a "progressivist", the theoretical foundation is “Saving Capitalism” by Robert B. Reich.

Read, think, discuss, plan, act.

Or, offer another book!

Your (and mine, many of us) tweets and Facebook posts do NOT represent a solid logical theoretical foundation for the actions needed to do "Our Revolution".

Let us be clear – without deep understanding of the true reasons for the country getting to the current social, political, economic state, the fate of any movement (all movements) will be the same as the fate of the “Occupy Wall-Street” - gradual decline and dissolving.

4. Bernie Sanders said “It wasn't that Donald Trump won the election, it was that the Democratic Party lost the election”

(http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-boston-rally/).

BTW: he said it five month after the election day; I said the same right after it (https://teachologyforall.blogspot.com/2017/04/clinton.html), but the difference is – no one cares what I say, Bernie’s every word gets scrutinized from right and left.

After Sanders said it, there is no turning back. Now everyone inside and outside of the Dem Party has to express his or her position toward the statement: agree, disagree, not sure, or ignore (acting like he has never said it).Arguing about the meaning of this statement is just useless. 

This type of a statement cannot be logically proved or disapproved; it is a belief-based statement - like "aliens, a.k.a. ETs exist". One can say that the universe is so vast, and there are signs of aliens visiting the Earth, so they exists. Or one can say there are no facts (bodies, machinery) proving the alien existence, hence they don't.

5. Politics needs knowledge and logic; political actions need time, effort, and SLOGANS!

6.  An ice cube in a freezer remains an ice cube as long as it remains in a working freezer. What will happen if one cuts the power cord, or just opens the door and keeps it opened for a long time? Ice turns into water (hopefully, no one has doubts about this). This is just an example of how external conditions, a.k.a. environment, affects properties of a system. It works for any system and any environment.

Four words:

globalization,

computerization,

robotization,

world-wide-web-ization

describe the drastic change in the social and economical environment of all countries in the world. 

That is why all countries now are "melting".

What will they turn into?

(a). no one really knows

(b). everyone has a chance to push it in a direction one likes - and eventually the melting social and political structures will take the new stable form. 

What form?

No one really knows.

Can be ANYTHING (democracy, fascism, you name it).

7. Confusion between "polite" and "nice" is not confined by politics, one can see it in science, in business, basically everywhere where people talk. In politics it is called "political correctness", in other spheres it may be called "rudeness", or "cynicism". Unfortunately, this confusion presents a huge obstacle to forging an effective collaboration.