I know that I'm a new kid on this block, but I've been around a few others. The truth is, public proclamation coupled with anonymity has been with us since the first graffiti (likely the equivalent of "Ogg smells!") appeared on a cave wall, and set the standard form and content of this sort of discourse.
When I was about ten years old, I saw a bit of doggerel in an outhouse:
Those who write on shithouse walls, roll their shit in little balls. Those who read these words of wit, eat those little balls of shit.
I had no problem finding this again via Google, exactly as I remembered it. It must have been all the rage in the mid-60s. It does speak a truth, though, that still applies. And what is the internet, but the world's most visible outhouse wall? As the preacher said:
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has already been, in the ages before us.
Are we doomed? Must the rising tide of incivility drown us in moronic invective, bad speling, and ALL CAPS? Yeah, probably so. But there are things we can do to encourage civility, to reclaim our little corner of the world for passionate discourse with civility. It's not easy, but I do have a few concrete recommendations.
- You can't advance the cause of civility by incivility. It seems obvious enough, but how many times have you seen someone try to shut up an obnoxious antagonist by insulting them? Usually their antagonist reciprocates, sometimes they just go away. But either way, the venue is brutalized.
- The hair-trigger on Alexander Hamilton's dueling pistols didn't work out so well for him. Having a hair-trigger isn't going to work out any better for you. Be slow to take insult. If things are getting heated, slow down. Delay your next post, and let everyone cool down a bit. Be explicit in giving your opponent time to reconsider, and perhaps amend or withdraw his words.
- Admit it when you're wrong. It won't kill you, and it won't diminish your authority in debate. We all know folks who believe themselves to be always right on every question. Think about them for a bit. Yeah. Do you want to be that person?
- Be eager to support today's opponent. Treat him with consideration and respect. Surprise him with consideration and respect. You must might find that he's tomorrow's friend.
I'd be happy to consider any additional suggestions to this little list. I suspect that there will be occasion to return to this topic from time to time, even in a venue whose very name is “peace.”
Peace
3 comments:
One idea is to make people have a face in blogposts. There have been some studies that show that if you can give a shock to someone else anonymously, you are more likely to do it.
If you are responsible, that is, if someone can respond to you directly for what you have done, you are less likely to do this.
I think the Gates-Gate crisis is a wake-up call for Gates. I think he saw the police as one vast evil entity, but now he has to deal with a face. Crowley turns out to be a pretty nice guy. And Gates insulted Crowley's mother.
It's hard to remember but it is important to remember that each person we meet could be Jesus Himself.
The notion of giving each person "equal regard" is a fascinating one. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Eleanor Roosevelt helped to assemble.
I think you're right that enemies can easily become friends. It happens all the time to me.
But it can easily go the other way, too, especially if people decide that you are part of the legion of demons that must be exorcised.
Cutting remarks are very easy to make in cyberspace with cyberlalia being what it is. It's fun to make the quick turns, and to overheat, especially if you do it anonymously.
I think part of the thing is to remain responsible and not write under anonymous or nicknames or pseudonyms, but to have a known address and identity.
Otherwise you are likelier to shock and offend.
Some websites require that you register a real name and a real address and known identity. Many places are going in that direction.
I'm thinking about it, but the more scurrilous notions of individuals are then edited out, and the face behind the face can't be glimpsed. I like just as much to see the face behind the face, the dark face that is likelier to pull the trigger on someone, as the snipers on darkened highways do now from time to time in America.
I prefer responsibility, but I like everyone too to see this menace, and how often it comes from the extremes of right and left.
Kirby—
I very much like this comment. A few in return...
The tradeoffs between anonymity and social responsibility under current approaches greatly favor anonymity. I've decided to ban anonymous comments in this blog, although I'm perfectly aware of how easy it is go get an effectively anonymous "Google identity." My hope is just that this little barrier will avoid a certain amount of "drive-by inanity."
That said, I fully recognize that my emergence into the blogosphere was mediated through a period of anonymity, and that there is something hypocritical about "pulling up a ladder that others left there for me." But whenever I think of changing it, a few days over in the comments section of your blog convinces me that I'm better off leaving things as they are.
I very much like the idea of including photos. It really does help humanize the person you're talking too. Avatars should be an allowable alternative.
Some detailed responses...
I think the Gates-Gate crisis is a wake-up call for Gates. I think he saw the police as one vast evil entity, but now he has to deal with a face. Crowley turns out to be a pretty nice guy. And Gates insulted Crowley's mother.
Yes, but, the right to security in your own house is enshrined in the constitution, and there is no requirement that you be nice about it. That said, I consider Mr. Gates's decision to use escalatory rhetoric to have been unwise and unnecessary. But so too was Mr. Crowley's decision to arrest him in his own house. The funny thing is, I find the later to be more defensible than the former—certainly, if it was a robber in Mr. Gates's house, he'd have liked the officer to have arrested him! As for Mr. Obama, I can both understand why he said what he said, and think that he'd have been better served to wait a day or two to say anything. Unfortunately, the timing of the (previously scheduled) press conference on health care did not give him that luxury. I think that the decision to invite them both over for a beer, though, is characteristic of Mr. Obama, and will do a lot to calm down the rhetoric on both sides.
The notion of giving each person "equal regard" is a fascinating one. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Eleanor Roosevelt helped to assemble.
I have a lot of sympathy for this. And this is part of why I view the US misadventures in Iraq as criminal. At the end of the day, we killed hundreds of thousands of people, for no crime greater than being residents of Iraq. When I count the casualties of that war, US military casualties are a tiny part. Something was gained—I don't have any trouble admitting that. But the balance sheet does not work to our favor, whether the war was justified or not.
I think part of the thing is to remain responsible and not write under anonymous or nicknames or pseudonyms, but to have a known address and identity.
I think it is possible to be anonymous and responsible, but I'll grant it is not the common case.
I prefer responsibility, but I like everyone too to see this menace, and how often it comes from the extremes of right and left.
A very balanced statement. I'd suggest "margins of society," because much trouble comes from people who are economically or socially marginalized, and this includes a lot more than just the extremes of left and right. In all cases, these people reject the world as it is, but feel powerless to change it through lawful means.
I liked all of this. I can't comment now, but did decide to change my blog so that I can do a minimal amount of securing the thing against kooks. I didn't know anything about the Deborah Frisch case before this, or how the cybernet is no longer A Wild West where anything goes, but actually has laws against cyberstalking! And Frisch was perhaps the first to be prosecuted under those laws.
At any rate, I'm glad you got into the blog before I had to start ID'ing people, or else we might have never met.
I wonder how the beer-gate will go at the White House. Now yet another police officer has been invited (a woman, I think).
So it's been a fascinating issue. I think the one-sided nature of Obama's initial comment has made him reconsider, esp. in light of actually meeting Officer Crowley.
I kind of wish Crowley's mom would also get an invite, but maybe that WH picnic bench is now getting kind of crowded.
I'm just glad I don't have to go. I don't drink beer and it would be very awkward to drink an O'Doule's and have to talk with such high-level people with no doubt microphones and secret service hanging in the trees.
All three of these guys are fairly respectable people with good jobs and yet they blew up. The truly marginal, and truly desperate, given the cover of anonymity to say whatever they wish -- I guess it's not a workable facet of life today to deal with that much abuse.
Think about Christ in Jerusalem and how he got nailed. The only one who really had a presentiment of what was going down was Pilate's wife. She had a clue.
We never know when we are nailing someone whether or not they are Christ. I think that's part of what that whole scenario teaches us.
Peace, bro.
Kirby
Post a Comment