T Nation

Does Civility Equal Weakness ?




No, but it's boring as hell.


No, but it doesn't necessarily equal strength or lend power to a position either.

People can be very civilly wrong.


No, I don't think it does. But not showing enforcement when enforcement is required to me does show weakness.


In the realm of politics, yes.


No. I think it actually demonstrates strength: If you're sure of your convictions, and understand the facts supporting your viewpoint, there is no need for boisterous behaviour.



We live in the age of democracy.

Reason and intellect count for nothing, television and appeal to emotions is all there is.

Civility given these surroundings, is weakness.


Civility could be strength sometimes; it could be weakness sometimes (maybe it could be neither sometimes).

Cement mixers could be strength. If you want or need cement mixers, and you triumph over adversity and/or obstacles and/or a visceral dislike of manufacturing cement mixers to make those cement mixers: then cement mixers are strength.

Cement mixers could be weakness. If there are more than enough cement mixers, and you divert time and resources away from items that are in short supply to make cement mixers because you can't stand the disapproving frowns of people who think you should be making more cement mixers: then cement mixers are weakness.


Civility means one does what is necessary to promote social cooperation with regard interpersonal behavior.

Any other definition of this word is meaningless as civilization can only arise through cooperation and what is civility if not interpersonal behavior that recognizes the importance of civilization?

In this regard it might take loads of "strength" to discipline oneself to behave in such a manner...or not.

Depending on how one defines the word strength it can be said that strength is a requirement to bring about civilization. Not necessarily physical strength but rather strength of character.


I would argue in most circumstance, including the one that probably provoked this question yes, and here is my argument;

By most definitions of being civil, you are required to be submissive, in order to be submissive you must under something, whether it be a person or some kind of governing body(not necessarily government. You are weak at that point in time. You are not the dominant entity or being. So yes you are showing weakness.

I will use training a working dog as an example. If you show weakness, do not prtray yourself as the confident dominant leader at all times, your dog will lose respect in you ability to lead it and will eventually challenge that respect and authority. You must never allow you dog to dominate you everything must be done under your rules and there is no requesting it is commanding.

The difference here is it seems that some of the people in the administration don't realize that we are not trained dogs, we don't take commands and don't them as a higher more supreme being. At least I don't. I will not follow unquestioningly.

I think given the social contructs of today's multicultural environments, civility is circumstantial. It depends on the context on whether rules of polite politics shold be followed. When it is obvious that the other party views you as an inferior then tables need to be turned to reestablish the relationship or you will constantly be the weaker player.


Is it easier to be civil or to be rude?

There's your answer.


You can accomplish more with civility, but rudeness is funner....


Well I find that these days it is easier for most people to be civil, even when they ought not to be.

They rationalize that they just "remained civil" though the blood pumped through their veins and visions of their Viking ancestors called them to arms but an extraordinary feat of willpower helped them not to create a blood bath but the sad reality is that they are emasculated pushovers.

Plus, I think that the gay community has established during a raid on some establishments in Christopher Street that a little bit of ass kicking can go a very long way.


Ok this is a weightlifting site, which takes more strength to control 500lbs from prallel to the top of a squat no bounce, or to move your ass from the floor propelling your self to the ceiling with 225lbs on your back.

it's all in the perspective. I will insert lyrics to a song I like take it or leave, (no offense forlife, it isn't intended as a gay reference)

"It's hard not to be a menace to society
When half the population is happy on their knees"

When you are civil in a situation where you instinctively feel you should not be, you are ultimately allowing someone else to control you or dictate your actions, be it morally better or of better principle you are still the weaker player in that situation.

There is a difference between strength and principle or ediquitte of polite society and people are satiated by the crumbs they are fed they don't even realize the truth in front of them.


It's easy to open your mouth and crow about how superior you are. We see that kind of juvenile behavior all the time on these boards. It takes no intelligence, no self-control, and usually no courage to do so. It's far harder to develop the maturity to genuinely see things from other perspectives, while staying true to your own principles.

Don't confuse civility with soppiness; they're not the same thing.


Well I agree that they are not, but too often one disguises itself as the other.

I think it is great if you can be civil, but quite sad when you must be.


don't confuse maturity and principle with strength,


How does maturity and aligning your life with core principles not demonstrate strength?


Don't get me wrong, I agree that sometimes revolutions are necessary. I just think that most of the time, civility will earn more progress in the long run.


Right! Especially When the opposition in power is just looking to make a fool out of you the moment you act up.