Decent discourse in a virtual society
Apr 19, 2007 Americana, Blogophilia, O Mores!
God forbid even a not-so-moderate political blogger suggests a limitation, a question, a
caveat to a valued principle of the ideological charter on the Internet. He’s not just wrong — he’s an idiot, a complete dummy, or worse, and of course in instant time. I wonder if we can do anything about this, besides choosing to maintain standards on our own blogs. Here I edit out vulgar language and try to steer discussion — when there is any; this is not a well-established blog, after all — to a focus on the issues, not the adjectives, if I can. That takes time, work and patience. And of course some people are going to hate you no matter what you do.
Now, I enjoyed, and was not surprised by, the “finding” several weeks ago suggesting that left-wing blogs are — not a little, but a lot — more vulgar than those on my side of the aisle. But as Jonah Goldberg points out, our house could, not surprisingly, be a lot cleaner:
Standing up to political correctness has become an unlimited warrant to be rude for its own sake. And if you catch flak for it, you can just say you were defending free thought. Ann Coulter, for example, justifies her cruder barbs and insults on the grounds that she’s pushing back against the liberal thought police. Sometimes she’s even right. . . . I’m all in favor of acid wit and barbed satire. But too many partisans on both sides sound like Beavis and Butt-Head, tittering over trivia. . . .
The reality is that much of political correctness — the successful part — is a necessary attempt to redefine good manners in a sexually and racially integrated society. Good manners are simply those things you do to demonstrate respect to others and contribute to social decorum. Aren’t conservatives the natural defenders of proper manners?
I’ll say, but perhaps both Goldberg and I are those offensive things, cultural conservatives, whereas the dominant right-wing non-liberal ethic in the Internet tends to be libertarian. I posit that as part of the problem, along with Internet anonymity.
That, and the fact that I am always right, and you other ninnies just can’t stand this.
UPDATE: Radioactive Liberty has this all figured out, thank God.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Blogging and commenting are also chances to show off, which can take strange turns.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Heh heh, Bob, you subtle devil you.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Well Said.
I am surely not the most politically correct person in the world. However I was raised to by polite and use my manners at all time.
I am off to take a nappy now, then I’ll be headed to the garden center to get some hoes because of all these weeds.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Fair enough, Ron. I respect and share your desire to see a more civil discourse, even less coarse language if you can believe it. I’m just afraid that that genie is out of the bottle now and, especially on the internets, you need to be a somewhat “in-your-face” to get your point across. And political blogging is really an adult medium with lots of choice.
I’m not sure your age but I was raised on contemporary irreverence to what you would certainly consider foul language (e.g., Pryor, Carlin, etc.). The important thing to me is whether we all treat each other with respect and, in that, I think we also agree.
That said, I am honestly and deeply outraged at the post Goldwater/Eisenhower Republican movement on every level – it’s goals, it’s methods and what it has done to the country. I don’t blame most rank-and-file Republicans (I think they were essential scammed – see “methods”) but I think everyone needs to be shaken out of complacency toward that, whatever it takes.
As you say, “different planets.” Here’s to cheap, fast interplanetary travel, eh?
April 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Yes, absolutely, Shep.
I am 44. I remember the 70’s well. And because of what I remember, I came to disdain everything those cultural icons stood for (ironically you are naming two tremendously talented men who lost battles, one ongoing in Carlin’s case, with substance abuse).
And by the way, you travel well!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I guess I’m ‘culturally conservative’ but ’socially liberal’, with a dose of hardcore libertarian ’small-government’-ness and a mess of ‘fiscal conservative’. But I try to be polite anyway.
I don’t think this ‘battle’ is unwinnable. I think it’s treated in exactly the same manner a crumb-chasing tantrum thrower is treated: Ignore it.
Don’t rise to the bait. Avoid blogs that you know will irritate the hell out of you. Don’t pick scabs. I’ve winnowed out, and will continue to winnow out, blogs that I used to read but which have now devolved into intolerant ranting, on both sides of the political aisle. Am I less informed? Perhaps. I can deal with that minor loss, however, because of the other benefits I enjoy of not having to deal with oceans of bile, seas of contempt.
Will this be the proverbial 2X4 to the head of the unpleasant blogger? Maybe not. But if more people stay away and the hits stop coming, the blogger may just stop to wonder why. And again, in the meantime, I’m not discommoded in the least!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The quickest way for someone to get me to agree with them is for them to call me an as!#&le– I hang on their every word after that. Starting off a response to a post or comment with “Sigh.” works really well, too. Since you’ve never done either of those things, I find you less than completely persuasive, Ron.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
LOL — I haven’t gotten the “sigh” treatment. But right to the bad words, yes (as in the link in my post to a discussion at IMAO). And man, I have this problem. There’s a lot I will put up with but once you call me an idiot, a dummy, I can’t stop myself. I should, I should, but it’s irresistable, because there’s one thing I know for sure: No one who is actually as smart as I am or smarter will call me stupid. They’ll call me a fascist, a wingnut, whatever; fine, those are badges of honor. But when I hear the insults to my intelligence, Craig and John, it’s just — just like the smell of fresh game!
April 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Yeah, being called stupid is a time tested winner. Another old favorite is having your reading comprehension questioned. Usually by someone that doesn’t seem to understand, for instance, that punctuation can change meaning. We all skim things, miss things, write hastily, but I know that a person that scores in the 95th percentile on the LSAT does not, whatever else the test may or may not prove, have a reading comprehension problem.
John’s advice to avoid sites that you know for a metaphysical certainty will annoy you without contributing much in the way of knowledge is extremely sound. If only I could follow it consistently. When I don’t, I always regret it. The trick is to do that without getting trapped in an echo chamber.
For my part, I don’t comment anonymously. Not because I want people to know my name–I don’t, particularly– but in the hope that it will encourage a moment’s thought and reflection before hitting publish. It doesn’t always; I’ve written plenty of stuff that I wish I hadn’t. Also, I’ve found that not commenting while drunk really helps. Of course, that does remove a convenient excuse for incoherence.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I wonder if we can do anything about this, besides choosing to maintain standards on our own blogs.
NO!
And I for one don’t want you or anyone else to try.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Not even prayer? Or a walkathon, Fitch?
April 19th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Sure, do a walkathon if it makes you feel better.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Heh. I think it’s funny that people want sites that don’t belong to them to abide by their standards, instead of the site owner’s standards, but then again, my favorite blog, and absolute must read first thing every day is the voracious invective at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. As an added side note, I work hard to attract other “Loyal Citizens of the Empire” to become my readers as well. I don’t put a single ounce of effort into attracting readers from anywhere else.
In summary, you’re preaching to the wrong choir, with me anyway.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
You’re certainly free to disagree with me on this point, Fitch. Especially now that you green-lighted the Walkathon for Internet Niceness. I’ll send you the icon for your nav bar!
April 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hey, you could use one of those “Free Speech Optimized” logos.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Ron: You’re halfway there. You just have to a little mental tweak and realize that the game you’re smelling isn’t kashrut!
I go to a couple of off-the-wall crazy sites even though they have tons of stuff I don’t particularly like (starting with the politics). But they can be very funny nonetheless.
I guess that puts me in a similar category to an Imus listener, come to think of it!
But some sites, I just know I’m going to pump my blood pressure up a good 30 points just by reading any post at random. Sometimes I have to do that to see just what the morons are saying, but I do that early in the day. I don’t like having to process a lot of adrenaline late at night.
But I’m pretty immune to insults. A physical slap in the face, OTOH… well, that’ll do it in a flash.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I tend to be politie in my comments especially if someone is being rude about me. There are some people who think the anonymity of internet means they can be complete [idiots] without remit. I have little respect for people who hide behind anonymity merely so they can misbehave. Edited by RDC for language
April 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“We’ve had our scraps here on Dean’s World, and I think Dean tolerates quite a bit, notwithstanding the abuse he took during the recent Troubles.”
LOL, saint Dean, he’s so tolerant. A lesson for us all. Really, Ron, how can you live with yourself.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Hi, Brian. It’s easy.
Dean and I disagree on some fundamental issues and yet I have full privileges on his blog. As far as I am concerned he watered down his editorial guidelines, had his cow and has moved on. The masthead is full of people who disagree with Dean. Why shouldn’t I live with myself? What is he, a war criminal, a Nazi? He’s a very smart, thoughtful, opinionated guy and I would say he’s more tolerant of dissent in general than almost anyone I can imagine in the same position.
You seem to disagree, though you do not say why. Now, it is true, I have heard of events from other periods that were supposedly not so pretty. I wasn’t there.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Ron,
Way to make my comment about something that it wasn’t about. My sentences directly relate to the comment I quoted, not some issue about me thinking Dean is a nazi, or questioning your decision to blog there. I was asking how you could live with yourself making a statement that was obviously false. Dean is not tolerant of viewpoints he doesn’t agree with. He ended up banning me secretly and that is why I had to respond here. He didn’t do so because I was swearing, lying about others, or making false statements, or abusing other commenters, or writing off topic.
No he banned me for speaking out against beliefs that I found abhorant for reasons that any rational person can understand. Specifically he banned me for being a traitor because of this.
Now what I was objecting to was Islams denigration of Jews, Chrisitians and atheists. Specifically the Koran’s advocation of the murder of atheists, polytheists, etc. and it’s intolerant views on Christians and Jews. Dean sees such questioning as a form of traitorism. I don’t recall giving any oaths to Islam.
You will notice that I am objecting a religion that states Allah has commanded to discriminate against me and in fact villifies me in the most outrageous ways. It doesn’t even dawn on Dean that perhaps this is much worse.
It’s as if Dean has sided with confederate slaveholders and racists when an uppity slave has had the gall to question the racist system that the slaveholders advocate. In the process he infers stupid positions on the opponents of racism and slavery like, “Stop claiming that every single white person in the south is evil, that’s southernophobia.”
Dean’s the kind of guy who thinks a Rhino is a reptile, and that Thomas Jefferson was less of a religious radical than Tom Paine. Hell Jefferson rewrote the bible leaving out the nasty bits. Something that when I suggested the Muslims do it for the Qur’an Dean went ballistic. I replied by bringing up Tom Paine, but he retorted back using Thomas Jefferson. However, Dean, not being to informed (until he looks things up later) wasn’t aware that Jefferson was precisely the wrong guy to use as a counterexample over the issue of rewriting religious texts.
Of course, I was making Dean look like an idiot and that’s the main reason he banned me. My position on Islam is unassailable and his is indefensible so instead of addressing it he bans me. You see, I’m not a Christian so when he trots out “the Christians are just as bad” it doesn’t work. Furthermore it’s false, the christians are not just as bad.
You see I can criticize Jesus all day long here in the Christian world and I won’t get my head cut off. Same doesn’t go for the Muslim world.
Because of this Dean’s world is an echo chamber and not the place to go if you want to learn anything about Islam. Going to Dean’s world to learn about Islam is like going to a KKK meeting to learn about racism. You’ll hear all the good things about racism, and not the bad.