and then sat down to write and saw that Lyana had beat me to my point. But I'll say it anyway. I appreciate Sanders' point, but I think it's sad:
If the attacks are not meant to be personal, then what are they? They're not constructive. They're not educational. They're just insults, and insults are personal. Yes, I do take these things personally because I believe in decency and manners. I'm absolutely appalled that those 90 people don't.
I have never called anyone a name in a comments section. Only very rarely have I argued back with someone, and it's only ever been with another commenter and never with the blog host. I have never linked to what someone else has written and made fun of them or pointed out how wrong I think they are, even though the blogger who started this atrios-lanche has done this to me repeatedly. Once I wrote about some silly posts I read elsewhere, but I didn't provide a link to the site because I didn't want to send hateful comments his way. I don't think that's right. I can discuss the other person's ideas without linking because it's the ideas that need discussing, not whether the person is dumb as a hammer.
Yes, the internet allows us to be more open. I talk about things here on my blog that I can't talk about with many of my peers because they either vehemently disagree with me or they don't read the news very often. I'm very grateful that the internet has given me that opportunity, but it's come at a price. If we're losing all sense of courtesy and respect for other people's views and "space" (as in it's my blog and you've come to my space to call me names), then I think that's sad.
Many of those commenters from the weekend probably have kids. What if I printed out their comments and showed them to their kids. Look, Timmy, your daddy called me clueless fucktard dumb. And then I explained to little Timmy that his daddy called me that simply because he disagreed with what I had to say. That's a bad lesson to teach your kids.
My mother reads my blog. So does my first grade teacher. I try to conduct myself in a way that would make both of them proud because they taught me that showing others respect is important. It's a shame others weren't taught the same.
1
Absolutely correct.
I don't agree that it is okay to insult people just because of the anonymity. I write for the same reason you do--to say what I believe, make my opinion known, and offer readers the opportunity to convince me I'm wrong. Nobody has, because the comments section fills with insults or other opinion passed off as fact. If you have a different opinion, feel free to share it. But at least explain why you hold that view. I try to do that, please try in return.
You do the same, and probably better.
Posted by: Mike at June 15, 2004 11:57 AM (cFRpq)
Posted by: Madfish Willie at June 15, 2004 01:18 PM (Ri5Z0)
3
Did you see Drudge's post about an LA Times poll?
Posted by: Beth at June 15, 2004 01:20 PM (Y/dYM)
4
Sarah,
I expressed my critical opinion in a polite way and you responded "Please, Paul, you're talking out of your ass here." (See "Flag Day" post.) Do you think that reflected good manners on your part?
Posted by: Paul Stone at June 15, 2004 03:58 PM (pvoJ9)
5
You said: "I talk about things here on my blog that I can't talk about with many of my peers because they either vehemently disagree with me or they don't read the news very often."
Does it worry you that, by your own admission, the people you know that keep themselves informed all completely disagree with you? Might that make you reconsider your opinions?
Just a thought,
=tkk
Posted by: Hiredman at June 15, 2004 04:30 PM (1kQor)
6
Paul -- You were extremely condescending and jumped to a very wrong conclusion. It had been a very long weekend, and my patience was thin. I realized after I wrote it that it sounded rude, and I apologize.
Hiredman -- You're right; I didn't phrase that well. No one I know reads the news as much as I do (except for my good friend Oda Mae). I can talk to those who have the same set of values without talking about current events in detail, or I can talk to the ones who don't have the same set of values and are "too busy in academia" to learn about current events. I don't have any friends that I haven't made via blogging who read blogs.
Posted by: Sarah at June 15, 2004 04:40 PM (Jejou)
7
How hypocritical of you then to link to Little Green Footballs. I guess their behavior doesn't count, because it's not directed against you.
Posted by: Marei at June 15, 2004 06:11 PM (woLiy)
8
I agree with Marei.
LGF has some of the vilest discourse in the blogosphere, for instance expressing glee with the death of Rachel Corrie, every single Palestinian and also the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. Charles Johnson himself included. What's more, he does not moderate those vile comments (he does sometiems ban opposing views).
It's not something you would want to show your kids. On that point, most blogs aren't meant to be for kids, LGF isn't and Atrios isn't.
That said, I do believe that your blog is your blog and banning rude people is your prerogative, as well as demanding a civil discourse in your comments section.
I personally like manners in discussion (and have found that courteousness is often reciprocated) and don't often engage in a shoutfest, but as I tried to make clear earlier, it's a matter of perception. When people get to know you (virtually or otherwise) their manner changes (unless they really hate what you stand for or who they associate you with, see for instance LGF), because the anonymity diminishes. If they don't: it's your blog.
Posted by: Sander at June 15, 2004 07:46 PM (9v8mw)
9
And here I am thinking I was "nice" wishing you a happy anniversary. I did not get all that insulting in the comments of the "poll" thread, while I did suggest that you might be up for termination hearings if you worked for my friend, here in NJ, I refrained from using the cheap ad-hominem attacks. Sarah, I don't know whether or not I should be insulted by your including me in the general populace of those 90 comments. As you might note I still am using a fake e-mail, but my comments are nothing to be ashamed of. I learned a loooooooong time ago that name calling is the first sign you are losing the argument. Sarah fyi I was 18 the year you were born (that is if you are 28 as I have read) so I am prolly around your fathers age give or take a few years, most likely I'd say your dad might be 10-12 years older than me. Unless of course you were his first born and he began having children early. Any way, while I might disagree with many of your positions, I am respectful enough to give you a listen, which it appears you aren't willing to reciprocate.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 16, 2004 12:09 AM (4pVZJ)
10
First off, Sarah, I wanted to let you know that I reponded via comments to your update in which you quoted me. (I don't know if you're one of those way cool bloggers who gets automatic updates when a new comment is posted to a particular discussion.) On to what I was originally going to say:
Well, now that the two of us have had what I think of as an amazingly substantive dicussion (for the blogosphere), I'm confused by your saying,
Only very rarely have I argued back with someone, and it's only ever been with another commenter and never with the blog host. Are you saying that you feel/felt that comments disagreeing with you are/were out of bounds? If so, I certainly apologize - it is, as just about all of the above commenters say, your blog, your perogative. I just assumed that a blogger who makes a claim in a post on a public blog (with comments enabled) is at least implicitly inviting comments on that claim.
On the topic of manners: once again, no one will fault you for deleting posts which you find objectionable. Manners are important, and helpful; I'd like to think the exchange that we've had has been due to keeping a civil tone, even with me disagreeing with you.
On the Atrios-lanche: I think, but am not certain, that Atrios was not the first (or even second) blog to link to you. The dates on the first icky comments on your blog predate mention of your blog on Atrios. I'm guessing you could check your referrer logs to see just where people were coming from.
On LGF: What Sander said. LGF is not the pinnacle of civil discourse on the 'net. In additon to the I/P incivility, I'd add the tendency of posters there to refer to any criticicism of the Iraq war, mild as it may be, as coming from 'traitors.' Particularly now, given the recent indictments for the Ohio shopping mall bomb quasi-plan, don't we have enough true 'domestic enemies' to worry about without including, for instance, Michael Moore? (A man, who, even if he were a 'domestic enemy', could easily be neutralized through the strategic placement of all-you-can-eat buffets.)
On the positive value of disagreements: I hope, for your sake, that you're able to ignore the trolls that have been infesting your comments recently. I also hope that you've been able to read the non-trolly posts and appreciate the arguments advanced in them, regardless of whether they're agreeing with you or not, regardless of whether they're coming from liberals or conservatives. I was disappointed to see you write that you were inclined to not consider points of view from "the Left" due to your treatment by some of the trolls; I urge you to critically examine both the arguments of those you disagree with and the views that you currently hold. Whatever decisions you come to on whatever issues, I'd be happier knowing your views were based on thinking, not emotion.
Posted by: Darkwater at June 16, 2004 01:25 AM (XYkvR)
11
Being critical of someone's intellectual ignorance becomes tantamount to character assassinations only when the original opinion is backed up by uninformed rhetoric in a serious manner. Read through your post, read a statistics book, and you will see how willfully misinformed your comments were, and how your lack of curiosity was morphed to accomodate your political views.
Posted by: Neil at June 16, 2004 01:32 AM (q/4gY)
12
Bubba Bo Bob Brain:
I was one of those 90 commenters, too, and I know Sarah wasn't insulted by what I said. Despite your fake email address : ) you're clearly not a troll, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2004 12:05 PM (r5M6F)
13
Hi Sarah,
I found this blog no doubt the same way many others did to your June 11 polls post: "Cruel Site of the Day" (www.cruel.com). Your polls post was linked on there recently.
Anyway, I disagree with all of the name calling, it does absolutely nothing and its bizarre to me that people get so angry about one person's blog - angry enough to make a post with insults in it.
I read your polls post and all of the replies.
I have a PhD in astrophysics (I am not kidding) and I use statistics often. My aunt works in the Bureau of Statistics creating the wording for various surveys and polls. Polls are often flawed in their wording and demographics. However if a poll of ~1000 people is truly random and much care has been taken to ensure that the question wording is clear and as unbiased as possible, then the results should be meaningful. Whether a poll has really been conducted randomly is only known by the people who conducted the polls themselves. Often polls are not presented in the media with enough information to allow a reader to guage how random the poll truly was or even how carefully the questions were worded.
Your polls post makes it sound like you don't care what other countries think and that you don't think we need to rally certain former allies. I think this is one of the reasons why a number of the people responding to your polls post seemed so outraged. Do you really believe this or were you referring specifically to the fact that these items should not necessarily be important for every poll participant when judging Bush's credibility?
In my opinion, it is very important to be informed of current events in the rest of the world. We should care about what the world thinks of the US and more importantly, why the rest of the world thinks the way they do. The rest of the world wouldn't matter if the US was
1. Entirely self-sufficient: a) If the US did not depend on the world climate, trees, oil, natural gas, and other natural resources found predominantly in other countries. b) If the Did not outsource employment to other countries, rely on foreign workers, or import manufactured products.
2. Did not need to defend itself against terrorists in other countries, and other hostile organisations or country leaders.
Unfortunately, we are not and never will be self-sufficient and security of Americans is a problem, so it is in the interests of the US to care about how other countries perceive us in order to keep the trade flowing, and help maintain the security of all Americans, not just the Americans here in the US, but the Americans in war zones, and American tourists in other countries. If the Iraqis liked the US, they would not be bombing American troops. If the US was well-liked around the world, the terrorist organizations would have a much harder time recruiting more terrorists. I think it is worth spending the time trying to find out why other countries and organisations dislike the US. What US foreign policies have caused these problems? Perhaps if we all knew why, then we might be able to really do something about it.
Ok that's all. I have enjoyed reading your posts and all of the responses.
Lhiannee
Posted by: Lhiannee at June 16, 2004 02:44 PM (MNGnB)
14
For all the talk about how rude some of the posters were, has it ever occurred to you that some of the things you said in the post about polls were not just poorly phrased, as you acknowledged later, but simply downright completely and utterly wrong? That pretending that polling was the equivalent of pulling numbers out of the air so as to keep your partisan blinkers intact (which is what you did with that unworthy "only 615 people said this" paragraph) was way out of line, and very transparently so?
Posted by: MasterJohnson at June 16, 2004 06:00 PM (AKgpm)
15
I try to conduct myself in a way that would make both of them proud because they taught me that showing others respect is important. It's a shame others weren't taught the same.
Trying to Grok,
March 21, 2004: "To quote James Lileks: Fuck you."
Thanks for the respect. You do better with statistics than manners.
Posted by: Mithras at June 20, 2004 12:27 AM (XcNgF)
16
Funny how those who criticise the manners of a blogger on their site usually do so in the rudest of manners, sifting back through many, many comments to find one place you slipped, and then dragging it up and trying to represent it as the norm on your site. (Which, BTW, seems exemplary to me in thought and analysis.)
It's been my experience that when you show politeness to an abusive commenter, all you get is more abuse. You never gain their respect - often what they're looking for is an argument and and an excuse to be obnoxious.
I'll do my best to keep my posts within your desired bounds of propriety and courtesy...
J.
Posted by: JLawson at January 23, 2005 10:39 PM (NI8wV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment