Your recent editorial, "The struggle against incivility," (In Our Opinion, May 30) sends a good message in an age when derision is mistaken for conviction.
However, it also expresses a dangerous contradiction that "civility does not require people to abandon passionate beliefs" while at the same time marking the word "socialist" an incivil label. Are even ideas involving socialism as a comparison incivil too? Perhaps not, but your editorial suggests such ideas may not be put to words without automatically breaching civility, unless such thoughts are edited for civility by some arbitrary standard.
Ultimately, this isn't about a single word or thought: The nature of modern civility has turned on itself to become its own parody. The whole purpose of civility, eloquence and tact is to enable controversial, difficult discussions so that real issues can be solved. The whole purpose is not permission for anyone who finds an idea mistaken or offensive to attack a manner of speech instead of challenging an idea.
Any notion of civility that does not embrace a measured but vigorous discussion of controversy is only a polite way to dodge the real issues of our world.
Rex Butler
West Haven