The issue of “civility” at public meetings became an issue because the Tea Baggers deliberately sought to drown out debate and bloody the noses of the President and the U.S. Representatives supporting health care reform. Groups like CNYSpeaks missed the boat when they focused on issues of tone and civility, rather than on issues of intent and free speech. (and what shadowy corporate/political operatives funded this deliberate mission of the Tea Baggers.)

To Denise and all members of polite company: Tea bagging is a sexual act between two consenting homosexual males. The nascent group of Tea Party protestors used this term to describe themselves–because they were unaware of the double entendre. I choose to honor the originalists’ use of the term Tea Bagger.

Here’s my take:

I agree with you that the term “Tea Baggers,” which is clearly a derogatory reference for those who identify with the Tea Party movement, is not particularly civil.

However, I think the rest of Phil’s comments were insightful and contributed meaningfully to the conversation — especially since he left the first comment, thus sparking the dialog, which I appreciate.

We can’t promote civility to the extent that it suppresses discourse, which, in essence, is Phil’s point.

Likewise, we can’t promote a free-for-all that completely disregards civility, leading to conversations that have little value in the marketplace of ideas.

We need on-topic, relevant, open-minded, informed discussion that represent the plurality of perspectives that make up our society.

I think this is best done in a civil way, where commentators refrain from personal attacks and focus on the issues at hand; where a diversity of opinions and people can be heard and taken seriously.

But I can’t hope for genuine dialog AND impose my ideal of what the dialog should sound like.

Instead, I choose to tease out the “best” of what I hear and read — ie, comments that advance the discussion.

Dialog is a two-way street (at least) and I want to do my part to advance and promote it. It can be a bit of a balancing act, and I am certainly open to the idea that I sometimes get it wrong.

I’d love to hear more for Denise and others on this. What are your feelings on how to handle comments that have value but are not particularly civil in the context of a facilitated dialog?