I suppose it's inevitable that our online discussion of politics here at Ishbadiddle would eventually spill over into a flame war. Writing online means you can say things you'd never speak aloud to someone's face. And the immediacy of the medium doesn't always lend itself to careful editing, spelling or sometimes thinking. Hence the flame wars that, combined with spam, can cripple a newsgroup in a trice.
Thus our need to comport ourselves with civility.
When Ish was primarily a meme, movie, and music site, such things didn't matter so much. (Remember "Strangest Things You've Ever Bought On Ebay"?) There just wasn't that much to excite controversy, and besides there wasn't even a comment function. But in the past few months, we've been writing more and more on the Big Button Topics: Politics and Religion. (Heck, we've talked about Race and Ethnicity too; thank goodness we haven't started in on Macintosh vs. Windows or we'd be in real trouble). And here's where the need for civility comes in. Because obviously people feel passionate about politics and religion. (That's why we have had such lovely wars over the past few centuries or so.) And people want to argue passionately about their beliefs. But if our arguments and debate spill over into personal attacks, then nothing is gained. No one gains any understanding of why the other believes what he does. Instead we only hear the words and not the meaning behind them, and walk away more convinced than ever that the other guy is not only wrong, but stupid.
This is not why I started Ishbadiddle. I started it because I wanted a way for friends to share their opinions -- about books and movies and other ephemeral things, but also now about politics and terrorism and war. It's become a bit bigger, and now that it's sitting out here on the web other folks are stopping by. But my intent to have an interesting conversation among friends has not changed.
I think we're all grownups here. We can differ in our opinions and be civil. We can respect the opinions of the minority -- whether that's the minority of the country, or the minority of the folks here at Ishbadiddle. We can address the issues themselves, and not make gross overgeneralizations about the people who don't agree with us. Of course we can and will and should disagree with each other. There's little point in merely reading opinions that you agree with, or writing solely for an audience that agrees with you. The political debates here have been interesting and enjoyable, even if they sometimes generated more heat than light.
I think I've been fair about posting things up here that you all have sent me regardless of whether I agree with it (although sometimes I just lack the time to do it, which is one reason I've let other folks post here directly.) Sure, I'm a liberal (-2.38 on the left/right economic spectrum, -5.44 on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum, according to this site that Trip pointed me to) and so are many of my friends, so unsurprisingly this site tends to the left. But I have no interest in running an opinion journal where dissent isn't tolerated, nor a site where people who express their opinion are then attacked as being un-American or unintelligent. It's my sandbox, kids, so play nice.
When I was in high school, me and John Flynn started a political journal called The Rostrum. We produced it in my mom's basement office, editing, xeroxing, pasting. We actually tried pretty hard to be balanced politically (I was considering calling it Parallax -- you know, the real position of an object can be fixed with two viewpoints -- which we ended up using as the name of a pro/con column we ran every issue.) Somehow the editor of the local paper got wind of our little zine and attacked it in his editorial as the "jejune" result of "liberal teachers brainwashing their students" and compared us to the Berkeley Barb. I'm positive he never actually read a copy of the Rostrum. We wrote a spirited but polite defense, others wrote letters in our support, and of course it was the greatest piece of advertising we could have. I learned three things from that: there's nothing like controversy to create interest; that your attempts at fairness will always be misinterpreted by somebody; and that civility wins in the long run. (Well, actually, the Suburban and Wayne Times is still running, while the Rostrum sadly no longer graces the halls of Radnor High School -- but I think you get the point.)
I look forward to more posts, more debate, and more discussion. Just keep it civil, and we'll all be happier and wiser and peace will reign on earth. Or at least on this blog.
| Online Communities
|
Your comments on civility are peppered with wisdom.
I was impressed by your publishing efforts and enthusiasm.
World needs souls of your dedication and vision ...
Warmly
ji
Ironically, back in the (pre-blog) days when I was a conversation facilitator, these were the rules of the road that I wrote myself. Boy, I broke that first rule in a big hypocritical way here, I'm afraid.
As soon as I posted that childish response to M-----, a part of me wished I could take it back. (Another part of me, unfortunately, was curious to see the response it would get.) I hope I haven't been the root of M----- disengaging from the site--I do find it more interesting to hear from varied viewpoints, and I'm possibly the most conservative poster on the site apart from M-------1.25 Right, -5.03 Libertarian on that bi-directional political compass.
Anyway, my apologies again to M-----, as well as to the host. I promise to be better behaved in the future when I sit at the adult table.
Mike - you're a poopie head and your taste in music SUX !
Comment #3 :: link :: July 12, 2002 09:00 AMBTW - here's my rankings from the site. It puts me at:
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.59
but I think it is seriously flawed, and somewhat confused. It also mischaracterizes some of the famous political figures it discusses, most prominently MK Gandhi who was a traditional communitarian, who wanted the village level to be the primary level of social organization, defended the existence of the caste system (although he thought it should be accompanies by nobless oblige), and was strongly anti-technology.