Don't forget - it's a difference between night and day. The sky is only blue because of the light, and some chooses only to see the dark...

Seriously thought, I think (I don't believe, we maybe should stop believing and start thinking for ourselves?) it really boils down to education and controlled media.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I might be biased, however, I tend to see certain red strings on how well people behave, write and appear to be closed vs open minded, and often compare it to history (subjectively, of course):

1. How their language are, both rudeness and grammatically. Personally I tend to get "triggered" on both accounts but I really try be understanding. For all I know that person have had a shitty day, but that doesn't give that person the right to swear every 3 words and call names (I.e ad hominem). Some expresses like they're still in 3. class.

2. Their degree of scepticism / and willingness to acknowledge their own short sightedness.

3. Seriously flawed logic. Just because one reads or see something in the news it's automatically the truth, or trying to convince others just because they believe they're right, or the group knows best.

Some might be offended right now (and I really don't care, honestly, because it's my birthright to say what I mean): Even though the EU parliament is trying really hard right now to "dumb" down and demolish democracy in EU and Europe might see the same degradation, I still think the America and the middle-east have been plundered and raped to the extent that people lack the necessary tools to be free and non-biased. I don't mean everyone, but the minority tends to be easily offended and tries really hard to stop others to what they want to do or say. It IS a disease. It's like a kinder-garten mentality to let a few dictate how others should behave or be, based on their own insecurity, selfish and naive world-view.

No, this is NOT Star Trek ;D

Today, common stagnant themes like "left vs right", "black vs yellow vs pale vs brown", and "god-believing vs atheist vs something else" and unintelligent no gender bs is really getting tiresome and has nothing to be in a civilized discussion (usually at night...); they're all simply socially constructions which usually have one purpose, like the movement the church had in the dark ages, to hinder progress. Today's so-called "feministic movement" is just egotistical gender-terrorism. If people really cared about woman's right they'd move the movement to middle-east and asia, and included free speech and education for ALL. No matter class or gender. (I purposely left out "race" because "humans" haven't had "races" for millions of years and they had sex with neanderthals, Well, unless you subscribe to the "hypothesis" that humans have been genetically modified or had been created in just 6 days.)

I've said it before; those who are the loudest needs less support than those who goes silent. Everybody should be able to speak freely, or we might have a new bloody revolution on our hands. Actually, statistically, there are way more men who commit suicide and who gets bullied on schools around.

So yeah, some people should never have left kinder-garten unless they had at least learned those two rules when communicating with others.

That's society evolving. The more open, rights and information a society gets for its citizens the more "soft" subjects gets discussed. You could even say the more civilized a society gets the more things taken for granted as truths or not even thought about gets on the agenda.
Good examples are women rights and the right to vote for everyone. It was not until societies got civilized enough that those was even thought of much. Well in the case of women rights world war 2 and its shortage of men in the labour force was a major contribution.

Discussions in media about such topics is a healthy sign of civilization progressing. How it will end with the various topics might not always be positive but the discussions in themselves are positive. These discussions aren't always technicaly civilized but the discussions themselves cannot be separated from civilization.

On the other side; I don't know if anyone of you follows ENB ("also known as EpicNameBro"), but in one of his streams he talked about how bad things still were in the south states, specifically in the state he was from. Many don't even had running water in or had indoor toilet. No jobs because the stockholders bleed companies dry and moved to, say south america, where the rules aren't that strict. Drugs and criminal behaviour follows shortly, statistically speaking. It really saddens me to think that the a government could do so much better than letting billions slip by unnoticed or to unsupportive "consulting".

I tend to think that that would be a catastrophe in Europe, but no country is perfect. Norway has one the worlds largest taxes, net sum percent based on income (tax on sugar and vegetables alone have gone up about 40% the last 5-10 years), and people are getting "poorer", but so far, everyone has the right to get access to clean water and clean toilets.

I mean, how can we expect a civilised and informed discussion in an open fora for everyone if people still lives in such poor condition, without a minimum of education and in certain comforts? Wouldn't the gap be a problem?

It is a problem, maybe even the biggest problem and it's also a self-perpetuating one.

There are a lot of reasons why. Distant owners of businesses that don't have to care about their employees, unions powers greatly diminished, the fifth industrial revolution, labor market slack, globalization, politicians breaking the social contract and on and on.

This is related to the ops topic by the people left behind having great difficulties getting their voices heard. They often lack both the means and the knowledge to effectively make a civilized discussion that have a impact on their lives.
This is made worse by politicians not caring much because those people do not vote to the same extent as the better offs.
There are positive signs though. International organizations are starting to speak for them and they certainly do know how to have a civilized discussion. Those organizations include IMF, OECD, OXFAM, The EU (This amazes me very much and I'm very sceptical if they really will do something.) and others. The hurdle here is that national politicians doesn't listen much. Yet. I think they soon will have to.
It's a pitty most of the ones that those organizations speak for aren't following the discussions because of lack of internet, doesn't know where to look or something else.

Civilization II, eh? a bit crap, but at least we got Alpha Centuari out of it.

Same as in 2016. Same as always. Why should it look different from before?

You're right, I should have phrased it differently. They're all part of civilisation "growing up" if I should be so bold to say so. What is unhealthy is the behaviour some people tend to behave in these discussions., like either suppressing or behave like a child on steroids.

// One could also argue that we SHOULD'T give women to much rights as they have no concept to what is private and what is public, and they spread like fire on the internet to get likes because they don't know where to stop. Not to mention that while our society tries really hard to evilize sex, "every" women are doing exactly the opposite, and it's going to gets worse as we suppress our natural instincts for evolution and our need to being near someone. //
The devil is in the details :P

Thing is, even today we don't have fully free speech and the freedom to discuss every topic. We can't fully have a open and civilised discussion when someone gets to say what's ok and what's not. Like the EU parliament decided to push out millions of euros to an "independent" research into how piracy affected the industry. As to no ones surprise; the paper had in sum concluded that it even was beneficial to the industry, as the younger generation finds new sites to hang out on and find information. Well, the whole paper where put deep into EU's archive. Not until a pirate-party representative from Germany had sniffed it out, people started notice that the date "official" and the one she got were not the same. Someone obviously didn't want a public discussion about it. Even Norway's ministers are abusing their right to non-disclosure and not to inform the public about certain topics and discussions with influential people. There was one article about it getting worse since around 2001 and then it was silent.

Also, EU wants to force every single site in EU to have a content ID on every user generated stuff, which subsequently would suppress any creativity and open discussion. Some people are too old and too stagnant to see that our society are moving forward. A modern civilization should not be about suppressing creativity and information, unless we're talking about info that can hurt an individual, which these retention rules will be used to abuse individual, again!.

Even in the media very few actually dears to push the boundaries. We're getting a bit backwards now thanks to the entertainment mafia and the "so-called" fight against terror. But yeah, we might have gotten too lazy and takes things for granted.

The millennials are surely NOT going to do anything about it as long as they don't have to think or do much :-D

Some might call that "progress" even though the view is different :-D

No m8, I say it because you constantly hammer the importance of using "proper" sources, and then whip out a tool for rating sources that neglects to factor in establishment and institutional bias -- but I can appreciate why you choose to intentionally misconstrue and become indignant, and I forgive you.

Because the definition of "civilized" seems to have changed.

I don't think so. The number of uncivilized persons has drastically increased. But I think the rules of basic decency are still the same and, if you break them down to the one most basic rule, they always have been the same: treat others like you want to be treated.
Everything else follows from that. If you want to be allowed to finish your sentences, give others the same right and don't scream them down if you don't like what they say. If you want your opinion respected, show respect yourself. If you want to be taken serious, take other opinions and concerns serious too. You don't want to be attacked personally for your opinion, so don't attack others yourself.

I think that unfortunately the categorical imperative is rarely applied by humans.
It's all rights and no obligations with many people.

It could be argued it's actually a healthy sign and that they are acting as normal as the calmer individuals.
Societies are changing faster than they can adapt. That makes them feel like they don't belong and they do not understand all the new rules in society. So uncertainty, insecurity and confusion turns to fear which trigger aggression. It's basic survival instincts that have served us well during our evolution. Fear what you don't understand so be ready to defend yourself because it might hurt you and if your group is shrinking that makes you vulnerable to other groups.

This is one reason why we have a current conservative right wing political wave sweeping over Europe. People want to go back to something they know and understand. If that's not possible they want to slow all the changes.

That's true and always has been. People are selfish. We're born that way. And many people are assholes and many, especially the ones that feel powerless or unjustly treated by life, enjoy the illusion of power that they get from screaming someone down or beating someone up. The only difference is, that modern technology gives the assholes an easy, anonymous platform where they can be assholes with even less fear of repercussions. Yes, the world is constantly changing. But that doesn't mean that the rules how to act civilized change. It just means that less people follow those rules.

This rule, unfortunately, is flawed; not everyone wants to be treated the same way. For example, it is probably safe to assume there is a certain name (or small set of names) that you go by, and that being called that name is how you want to be treated. However, most people do not share your name, and calling them by your name would be inappropriate; if addressing someone else, you use *their* name, not your own. This is one case where treating others like you want to be treated doesn't work.

A better role would be something like "treat others like they want to be treated".

I'm not surprised by your answer, and "treat others like they want to be treated" just opens up to a demanding, egotistical, selfish view. No one should be forced to sugarcoat others.

"Certain names"? We humans only have one unique name, not abusing names like "slave", "fatty" or "smellycat". Let's say my name is Teller and yours is Hilda, so of course it would be wrong for me to call you milkchocolate or Teller. That's it. Finito!

Unless we are talking about roleplaying or sexual preferences... if that was what you meant then that's something those involved have agreed upon (usually...).

In essence; give respect if you want others to respect you, or be kind to others if you want others to be kind back.

Apropos; "no rules are without exceptions". :-D