Frank Turner Talks Beer as Well

So, Frank has clarified this in his shows as well as some previous interviews. He specifically isn't talking about the people doing those things. He has called out fascists and racists as not worth the kindness he is talking about. Instead he is making a rally cry to be civil to each other so, despite our differences, we can unite AGAINST those people.

 

He makes the opposite argument in the piece I linked, and quoted from, continuing on from the quoted part you get ...

To be specific: I have friends who are on the whole “punch a Nazi” train. And every one of my friends who’s in favor of that looks to me like the kind of person who would lose a fight. And it’s just like, if you normalize physical violence, you are in trouble. And if our politics simply becomes a contest of physical strength, then that’s a disaster.

So, I can't draw the same conclusion you do based on what he said here, or how I think the message that a good portion of the album comes across.

 

it depresses me that I can't even imagine what a solution to this ideological war looks like. What the fuck is even gonna happen?

 

VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTEVOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE

 

I guess it also depends on the "we". It would be a great change if we could return to politicians themselves being civil, respectful and diplomatic, showing some empathy to their constituents. Although I recognize that requires all political parties to act professional, and once one side instead acts like uninformed teenagers ranting on twitter, it's hard to keep things on the rails.

As to the posts and quotes in the thread, I may not completely agree with him dismissing ways in which people want to fight back against people trampling the rights of others, he's isn't wrong in arguing that those actions aren't enough to accomplish political action and change. Protest needs to be complemented with more structured, formal action too.

 

I think you can "not be kind" without getting physically violent with someone.

 

I think that's a privilege many do not get to have because violence is being perpetrated against them.

 

I think people who highlight civility or the lack of as the problem can only understand tone but not context or substance.

The promotion civility does more harm in deflecting from the issues.

 

Were differing political ideas ever discussed civily in America? I've been here for a little less than a decade but when I was taking courses for my citizenship, during the social etiquette parts, they taught me to not discuss opposing political ideas with others because it usually wouldn't end good.

 

I have no problem with what he’s saying here. Civility is not a sign of weakness. As much as fighting back feels good emotionally, it only provides fleeting moments of euphoria. I believe that what is happening in this country will be temporary, if we strive for the long term goal of civility as opposed to focusing on short term “wins” against Trump style politics.

 

The answer is no.

But stressing the importance of civility is relatively new.

 

It’s only new because it wasn’t needed widely in society. The old rule of etiquette that almost everyone followed was to not discuss sex, politics or religion with others. Now everyone uses social media to discuss these topics and we’re seeing a reduction in civility.

 

He's done it online as well, awhile ago he was being attacked for his not being American apparently "disqualifying" him from having an opinion on politics here.

 

I’m gonna have to look over the course of history and the trajectory that brought us here and disagree.

 

Since you didn’t provide any examples, I’ll just say that I don’t think protests or sit ins or other things that disrupt life are lacking in civility

 

Do we not teach history in school anymore?

 

we do.

we just suck at it.

 

I’ve been visiting your sites for years and it’s always amazed me how condescending and smug you are. You don’t know a thing about my educational background, but keep that air of superiority. I guess it’s served you well, but it’s a shame.

 

Truly amazing that you've taken a despairing, rhetorical question as a personal attack.

As for Frank, I think he's slowly been losing some of his fight since Love, Ire and Song. That album truly resonated with me and everything since although enjoyable, has stirred up less emotion.

 

It didn’t take that huge of a leap to see it as an “attack.” Not many people are active in this thread, so I’m not sure how else someone would interpret it.

 

Calling out protests and sit in's for 'disrupting life' is an interesting take...

 

Disruption means an event or action that interrupts the normal course. Sit ins were used to disrupt the normal course of things as they existed at that time. Woolworths didn’t serve people of color so a sit in was conducted. This disrupted the normal daily routine of life in the South - and it was a positive disruption. No negative connotation to the word in its use in this instance.

Protests are routinely used to disrupt life. That is why you see people in big cities on crowded streets and not in the woods or in the mountains. It’s about gaining attention for the cause. That only happens when people see it. Again, no negative connotation to the word disrupt in this context

 

Making the assumption that protests and sit-ins have always been met with civility is an interesting take..

 

I don't need to know anything about your educational background, what I know is that you have a mistaken view of world and US history, from the past 40 years, to the past 200.

Your first assertion that we only see calls for "civility now" because it wasn't needed due to some puritanical "etiquette" is ahistorical. I'll quote from MLK Jr:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.