January 19th, 2009
Whew. Okay. I want to say a couple things in relation to the recent debacle over the religion post.
1. I have no plans to change what I post, ie, no plans to avoid controversial topics. You’ve probably noticed I just blurt out whatever comes to mind here. That should continue.
2. I am really, really serious about keeping discussion civil. This is hard to convey and enforce because there aren’t hard and fast rules about what makes a comment uncivil. I have been trying to think up some heuristics to make it clearer what I am shooting for… instead of getting all legalistic on your asses, I thought it might be useful to explain why this matter so much to me and what the purpose is.
Freedom of speech and open exchange: I’m interested in open, intellectually rigorous debate. This can only occur in an environment of tolerance and acceptance. If people feel afraid they will be attacked or made fun of, or ignored, or dismissed out of hand, they won’t bother speaking up (also they may stop listening entirely). This stifles exchange of ideas for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the merit of the ideas themselves, but for interpersonal reasons.
Note this doesn’t mean we accept everyone’s ideas, but rather that we accept everyone’s right to voice their idea, even if it is the worst idea ever thought up by a living creature ever in the history of everything. In this latter case, other commenters can respond to the ideas, asking clarifying questions, or making challenges, or providing disconfirming evidence, or even just giving a dissenting opinion, but always the target should be the idea and not the person.
Tone counts. I am not interested in getting into hairsplitting arguments about what specific words are or are not allowed – we are all grown ups and we all know when we’re being wieners. (For anyone wishing to play dumb I will happily function as your external superego and edit or delete you.) This leads to a tenet I hold very dear: it is not worth winning at any cost. In this venue of pure discussion, where nothing really is at stake (I’m not in charge of any countries or banks or the food supply), there is NO REASON AT ALL for us to treat each other poorly in order to score a point or win a debate. Let our ideas stand or fall based on their merit and not based on sneaky tactics; let us retain our dignity and integrity in how we present them.
In furtherance of these ideas, it becomes very important to maintain accuracy in conversation. If we’re spending all our time haggling over what the heck we’re talking about, we’re not actually discussing the ideas themselves. So it is crucial that we take the time to read each other’s comments with care and attention, the way we would want our own writing to be read. I like to use quotations because then I let each person own their own words.
Personal responsibility is crucial too. The emotional side of commenting is enormous. It is easy to become provoked and to want satisfaction. People can be rude and insensitive – but of course they don’t make us feel anything. We do that on our own. I’m not saying feelings can’t be part of our discussion – but we need to catch ourselves before fighting breaks out. Impassioned debate is awesome – mud slinging sucks. Sometimes this will mean one or another of us has to be the bigger person, let an insult slide, refuse to take the bait, swallow the urge for revenge – it’s hard but welcome to adulthood. Welcome also to posts with open comments.
As I’ve said before, the internet has no shortage of places where ranting and bitching and mistreating other people is the norm, and even encouraged. In this little corner of the internet, I truly hope I can promote different standards. My audience is small and my commenting body is even smaller, which in theory makes it easy to set a new standard. If one day this blog becomes popular and loads of people want to weigh in and comment, I would love it if there was a culture of fairness and respect here that meant I will never have to become a policeman – the style of existing commenters will set the tone. Idealistic? Probably. But so what? It’s good to have an ideal and work for it. Mine is very humble but I believe in it strongly and will work to promote it.
Join me, won’t you?
Honestly, and I mean this with no malice, I think you’re over-reacting to the ‘argument.’ There was no cursing, no name-calling. I really think that tip-toeing around with overpoliteness can kill open discourse before it happens. Just some food for thought.
There was name calling but I deleted it. That was the final straw for me.
But I hear what you are saying – becoming too restrictive is its own kind of problem. I need to think on that. Good point.
Oh, no I wasn’t aware of the name-calling. That is just rude.