|
September 08, 2004
It's raining cats and dogs!
(Well it is, and I don't mean just outside.) Civility is not definitely not I have to agree with this commenter (Russell Wardlow) that Glenn Reynolds "barely reaches the level of mildly peeved," and I wish more people (myself included) could be like that. Glenn Reynolds is someone I consider a true gentleman, the last person who deserves to be subjected to these kinds of attacks. I'm trying to remain at the mildly peeved level, but I want to stress something I saw in many of the comments. Glenn Reynolds went out of his way to help many of the people who are dumping on him now, and there are others I'm not mentioning. I think their behavior is not only rude, but the height of ingratitude. I don't care whether you agree or disagree with someone; if he has been kind enough to help your blog, the least you can do is not attack him with personal invective. This election is bringing out the worst in people, and I'm worried that a national pathology -- one grounded in vicious personal attacks -- has been festering for so long that it may become permanent. I like to think that the blogosphere is different -- and based on dialogue and reason. Disagreement is a natural part of dialogue, but to my mind, once intimidation starts, dialogue is taken outside the bounds of civilized society. I believe the line which we call "civility" is crossed once vicious personal attacks begin. I am shocked to see this happening between people who once were friends, and I want to know, exactly where does it stop? Seriously, what's next? There has even been a serious attempt to get Glenn Reynolds fired from his job. I think that is so despicable that it should have been unthinkable in the blogosphere. Is the next step home invasion? Physical violence? I can't believe I need to ask the next question, but I do. Is this the United States of America anymore? Or are we becoming like the Mideast? posted by Eric on 09.08.04 at 06:46 PM
Comments
Of course it will never happen! I too am guilty of what I condemn, and I have resorted to personal attacks. What I'd like to see is a consensus emerge that such attacks be acknowledged to be a sign of failure rather than of victory as they so often are. I'd like to see them be the exception rather than the rule. Because, once we allow vicious personal attacks become the standard rather than the exception, human nature being what it is, dialogue will inexorably degenerate into thuggery – and I mean real brownshirt stuff. Surely we can all agree we don't want that. I think it can be stopped earlier if there is at least recognition that personal attacks are beneath a basic standard of civility – rude, "over the top," whatever you want to call it. Recognizing something is wrong is not the same thing as stopping it, and I am the last person to be so naïve as to imagine stopping it is possible. (We'll never stop lying either, but surely that doesn't make lying right.) You make a good point that "most face-to-face political arguments are relatively free of reasoned dialogue" and that is a major reason why I blog, because people can't interrupt my stream of thought. But there isn't anything I say here that I wouldn't say in person if people would be crazy enough to give me the time to say it. As to the Internet being a buffer allowing people to be "nastier than they'd ever dare to be in person," I think that's more a characteristic of anonymity. I have long noticed, for example, that the nastiest commenters (and most annoying trolls) are anonymous people without real names and without identified blogs. Bloggers and blogging are for the most part very different from the chat room and its denizens. In my view this use of the Internet is different, and better. I truly believe there's a higher purpose involved in blogging, and it is ill served when chat room invective becomes the standard. Eric Scheie · September 9, 2004 07:26 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"I like to think that the blogosphere is different -- and based on dialogue and reason."
Why? Most face-to-face political arguments are relatively free of reasoned dialogue, and the internet provides a buffer that allows people to be far nastier than they'd ever dare to be in person.
It would be great if every blogger tried to be as civil as Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus (scroll down to "Trustworthy Blogging Initiative II"), but it'll never happen.