Here is a good quote from C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity that came up at a Washington Monthly blog in the context of a discussion of vicious ad hominem blog comments:
“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”
The blogger, Hilzoy at Political Animal, concludes with this: “No one — not liberals, not conservatives — should forget that their opponents are human beings. And no one can afford to start down the road Lewis describes, in which you allow yourself to be disappointed when your opponents aren’t as bad as you first thought, or want them to be as bad as possible. And no one should get so wrapped up in political fights that in focussing on the mote in someone else’s eye, they lose sight of the beam in their own.”
Commenters on this blog are far better than on most other blogs in regards to attacking the person holding the idea instead of attacking the idea. Still, things get personal here too. I confess that I have been guilty of this at one time or another. Question for you: Do you think I should I remove overly harsh comments, or allow freedom of speech?
HT: FW
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Of all the “Fighting Words,” The Washington Monthly Rag article by “Hilzoy” spends two whining paragraphs that start out:
I suspect that this is the state of mind in which people laughed along with Rush Limbaugh when he said that Chelsea Clinton was “the family dog.” No one who laughed at that could have been thinking of Chelsea Clinton as an actual adolescent girl whose looks were being ridiculed by the biggest talk radio host in the country…
But these are all lies perpetuated by media clymers and leftist internet blogs… as well as one pathetic excuse of a Senatorial-wannabe. The truth and the transcript from the Nov. 6, 1992 Limbaugh TV show is pointed out in Lying Liar’s article, “Franken Rush/Chelsea Lie”.
The WMR article can be flushed down the toilet.
A blog by nature is like a conversation. Sometimes things are said that shouldn’t be. When something cruel is said the commenter is revealing what he/she (or his motive) is made of…not love.
Why would you want to take out the black from the black and white (sin vs salvation)of a conversation? Why would you want to begin editing what gives us a picture of what Christ has done for us?
As believers, when we read harsh words our thoughts should immediately be turned to Christ and what he has accomplished for us. We find rest there and also the ability to love and encourage. We have the opportunity to point readers (participants in this “conversation” toward him over and over.
In my opinion it would be a kindness to delete comments when they are mean-spirited or go too far.
Comment moderation is time consuming and intrusively nannyish. Blog comment streams are the mosh pit of discourse. Let them stand as they are – the courageous and the cowardly, the profound and the stupid. It’s the nature of the medium.
I think I have probably been guilty of a harsh comment or two myself. And I have been at the other end of a couple. What I like though about this Blog is that even on the same day, depending on the post, two guys might be vehemently opposed to each other on the one post, and arguing along side each other on another post.
I don’t think you have to worry about moderating. I’ve only posted a few times, but did feel attacked one of those times. If I’m not mature enough to handle those attacks, I shouldn’t be posting controversial comments on blogs! (Although, I have to say, I was surprised my comment was controversial. It had something to do with the idea that we should look more like Christ each year. The sad thing is that I tried to respond to the attacks, but that was when the system wasn’t working and the site wouldn’t take my comments.)Anyway, if someone attacks us, that’s a good opportunity for us to practice not being easily offended.
I think moving straight to deletion would be an overreaction. However, I think giving a warning to people who step over the line and then deleting posts if they persist would be a good approach. I think it would help provide accountability to those of us who are inadvertantly (or occasionally intentionally) disrespectful.
I agree with wcwirla @4.
Blogs are the last of the Old West in terms of unregulated dialogue. It can be good, bad, or ugly as it all depends on the topic and the views of those interested in commenting.
This isn’t to say that if someone is routinely trolling. derailing. or randomly threatening people there shouldn’t be a firm talking to/warning and possible ban if it persists. I mean, even the Old West had its code.
I think a lot of the nastiness and viciousness I see with regards to demonizing our opponents, especially when it comes to politics and the public sphere, could be mitigated if we’d take Lewis’s words to heart.
Maybe we should all read Os Guinness’s book, “The
Case for Civility.”
Your blog–Your call.
If something is unbecoming, there is no reason you should have to endure it.
I trust your judgement.
Of course civility and respect should be the norm, along with decent spelling, grammar, and attention to syntax.
I think the original post and the link cited make a good point. The opponent is often demonized in cartoonish proportions and therefore dehumanized. This is true in war and in debate. The faceless anonymity of the internet accentuates the process and even catalyzes it.
However, like the mosh pit, if you can’t take a gratuitous groin shot once and a while, you probably shouldn’t jump in.
This blog is a dream in the world of blogs, especially if you have spent any time on blogs of the left, where there seems to be no restraint of thought or language.
I agree with Van @ 2. First, when has a commenter stepped over the line? I can understand deleting inappropriate language (and that is perfectly fine with me), but it’s a much tougher call as to when a comment is simply overly harsh, or too personal. Second, to see all of a poster’s comments, in their totality, assists in evaluating their credibility and temperament.
Perhaps the calvinists’ comments ought to be reigned in a bit – those monsters!
Please don’t moderate the comments. If anyone “crosses the line” and becomes too personal or rude in their comments, well, it only exposes their character to the rest of us.
you mean you don’t already edit tODD’s comments? Oh, no!
I’ve said this before, but I think that if comments start disappearing, and there isn’t even the benefit of an explanation as to why, then no one will learn, and the problem — that of undesired comments — will continue.
Assuming that the comment in question is from someone who will stick around enough to become part of the conversation, the only way to educate that person about what type of discussion is welcome is to engage them in said discussion. I think most of us would much rather dread being chastised in public, at least by someone with authority, than having our comments simply disappear.
(Besides, our comments already disappear, randomly — though I realize this is a technical issue, not an editorial one. And no, I have no idea what’s going on with that. Depending on your WordPress version, you might want to check to see if there are any Akismet settings you can monkey with, but I’m guessing.)
The problem with the approach I favor is that it works best when there is a moderator with the time to edify and reprove. Much like educating a child, this is difficult, time-consuming work. Of course, the community itself can act in a similar fashion, though it won’t necessarily do so with the same guidelines you might wish, Dr. Veith.
So there you have it. The Knee-Jerk Liberal/Statist/[whatever left-wing bete noire I'm supposed to be] favors the marketplace of ideas over heavy-handed intrusion from the authorities. Will wonders never cease?
Also, I truly enjoy the irony in the replies here of Carl Vehse, DonS, and Richard.
Carl takes this opportunity to once again rail against “media clymers” (Carl’s particular word game for “a******”). DonS takes his usual pot-shots at “the left”, whose blogs have “no restraint of thought or language” — but this is only a problem of left-wing blogs, of course! And Richard, dear Richard, goes for the ad hominem against me, which is all he ever talks about.
Why would you want to delete comedy gold like that?
Hey tODD, if you’re ever in Southern Arizona, come on over to my place. The first Corona is on me.
In Gene Veith’s linked article Hilzoy, or in more humanizing terms, Johns Hopkins University’s Henry R. Luce Professor in Bioethics and Moral and Political Theory, Hilary Bok, provides a good example of “de-humanizing your opponent” while hypocritically proclaiming:
If you give in to “the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible”, it’s easy to see how you could end up thinking things about them that it is implausible to think about any group of human beings
Following which, the Johns Hopkins prof and mindreading-savant declares, “I suspect that this is the state of mind in which people laughed along with Rush Limbaugh when he said that Chelsea Clinton was ‘the family dog.’” [Note Bok didn't write "some people." She wrote "people". All of us.]
Thus, with evident sheer pleasure and no apparent concern about their validity, Bok repeats these leftist lies about Rush’s state of mind and alleged statements, in the very manner to which she just previously accused another blog writer – “Maybe, for him, writing blog posts has become a game: you score points when you can, and whether or not the things you write are actually true has ceased to be a concern.“ [Emphasis added]
Bioethics, Moral, and Political Theory? Yeah, that’s the ticket, Hilzoy!
Perhaps we should all re-read “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
” the greatest of these is love…”
Just today I wrote out a general sketch of what sort of fruit I look for when it comes to heated internet discussion. In short, given the nature of the medium, the best I dare hope for in any particular thread is to discover where the true disagreements really lie, not necessarily to change anyone’s mind. http://bit.ly/4F7YcF
I agree with #10–your blog your call. You are wise enough, old enough, intelligent enough, Christian enough, etc. to do whatever you flipping want with your own blog.
I have appreciated this blog and its responses for its thoughtfulness and for not being one-sided. I will have to say I also appreciate its true look at the world and not having a “holier-than-thou” attitude if that makes any sense.
I don’t ever remember reading anything on this blog that I felt should be removed. We are all big enough to take it like a man. Or a woman, or whatever.
&*%#@*(*@@##$!!!!
Such a wonderful blog post, I’m going to link it on ours, http://www.tothevillagesquare.org
The Village Square is an organization in Tallahassee that is about this very thing, remembering the humanity in people who disagree with us. We try to become neighbors again despite our disagreements (something this great country was built on)… We’ve got a democratic city commissioner and a republican county commissioner on our board. I’m a democrat and my dear republican friend emailed me the link to this article. We eat dinners together, talk about issues and have fun. It’s so much harder to hate people you break bread with.
Thanks, everyone. Freedom will continue.
WCwirla #11,
” . . . but ‘Football in the Groin’ had a football in the groin!”
-Homer Simpson
Dr. Veith,
I would like to offer you a link to an article from the First Things’ blog On the Square. It is titled Defining the Discourse Down. I think you will thoroughly enjoy how it ties into this conversation and it might even make a great post for further conversation on this topic: http://tinyurl.com/lcaetk