"Why can’t we have civil discourse!?” Discourse consists of talking and listening. Key elements: 1) Format allows each person the same amount of time to speak; 2) No one interrupts the speaker w/o the speaker’s consent; & 3) A person to moderate. Over the past few days discussion 1/5

of a live broadcast shifted to the social platform formerly known as Twitter. The lively discussion concerned the Hamilton East Library Board, censorship & what many see as efforts by the far right to impose their religious views on others while spending community money. 2/5

Things got spirited when John Schmitz, host/producer of the weekly podcast “Mouthwash” (Tues, 9 pm, FB) replied to posts. John started “Mouthwash” to let people of all views discuss important issues. [Disclosure: I’ve been a guest & have a weekly spot, smalltalk, on 3/5

“Mouthwash.” I consider John to be a friend. John has judgment bad enough to consider me a friend, too. We disagree on most issues.] A question arose (re-phrased): does giving a platform for ‘both sides’ include a “dangerous extremist”? Especially when no counter-point 4/5

is provided? These times are perilous. I do not recall reading that debates or town hall meetings occurred in the last months of the Weimar Republic. We need civil discourse. The talk even can be loud & have cussing. Just don’t interrupt or the other side will do the same. 5/5