The War with Words
With the increasingly nasty tone at this month's town halls over health care, I have been thinking a lot lately about the notion of free speech in a civil society. But over the past few days, this very important concept has come to a head for me in my little Facebook world.
I read a post from a friend that says that people who refer to their adult women friends as "girlfriend" should be slapped. I do that all the time, so I guess I am somehow inferior. When I made a post about Michael Vick that said, "I stand by our legal system's notion of restorative justice; if you commit a crime and serve your time you are entitled to move on and not be punished for your crime for the rest of your life" someone responded by saying that they think Michael Vick should be shot in the face. I have been called a Nazi by the father of one of my son's friends because I asked his 14 year old son to tone down his profanity. I have been called a dumbass because I said I understood Kevin Youkilis' anger over being hit by a baseball traveling at 98 miles per hour. I have been called basically sweet, but stupid by my cousin because I posted something in favor of health care reform. Quite a weekend, huh? With friends like that...
So, am I an innocent victim of all this vitriol? Absolutely not. You see, the thing is, you reap what you sow. I have chosen lately to operate under that same set of rules - that someone who disagrees with me is not worthy of my respect. I've been the perpetrator of that kind of dialogue here on this site. I have attacked people instead of their ideas when I have disagreed with them. In fact, I owe someone called Linus an apology for something mean I said a couple of weeks ago. If you read this, I'm truly sorry for being so nasty to you.
As I drove to work today I suddenly realized that tears were streaming down my face and they still stream as I write this post. This war with words is not the kind of world I want to create, so for me, it stops now. I am going to try to operate under the paradigm that just because something can be said, doesn't mean it must be said. The purpose of free speech and a free exchange of ideas is to create a better world, not a demeaned one. I am not one of the main posters on this site, but if you have seen my posts, you may notice that I changed out my avatar with a real picture of myself. I am not longer going to hide behind my anonymity as a way of being able to post things to this site that I would not say to you if I were to meet you in the real world.
So, my name is Carey. I live in Idaho. I'm a single mother, raising a child I adore more than anything on this earth. I organize educational programs for a living and I want to leave this world better than I found it. I am craving a vigorous exchange of ideas, but I'm no longer interested in anyone's nastiness, least of all, my own. Will you join me?
Welcome.
Most here enjoy and engage in civil (if sometimes a bit snarky) discourse. Of course, there are the minority who attack and blather, but either ignore or discount - consider the source so to speak.
From your post, it seems to me you may have found a site very well suited in achieiving your goal.
I look forward to your posts and comments.
Rec'd.
August 17, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like any community, there are sometimes little explosions as personalities vent instead of communicate ideas. Don't sweat the small stuff. Nice blog.
August 17, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi darlin! Nice to find you!
This is so timely because, remember a couple months back when I posted something, uh, negative about Republicans on FB and my nephew got involved? You even commented "Are you going to let him have it, or should I?" or something like that. Well, we got into it via email and we both said some very nasty things. As a result, both he AND MY BROTHER, have "officially" disowned me. It's been quite the family drama.
What I learned (or am trying to) is that, while I know I am right (hee), if I am as "open minded" as I think of myself, that respect and tolerance has to extend to people with beliefs different than mine. I love a good, healthy debate, but it's got to stay within the boundaries of respect.
Thanks for writing this and posting it on FB. I adore you!
August 17, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have known we would find each other on this site eventually. I do remember that FB post and I'm sorry I contributed to the problem instead of the solution in that instance. As I said to my cousin the other day, when I think about how different I am from my family, I sometimes wonder if I was switched at birth. Somewhere out there, I imagine there's a woman whose parents are ultra-liberal, vegan, hippies and she wonders to herself how she could end up in that family when all she wants to do is hang a picture of Reagan on here wall. Oh well, can't pick your family, but you can pick your friends. Thank goodness I can count you among mine.
August 17, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Carey, and good post.
I disagree with the vast majority of the talking points repeated at TPM, so I'm very familiar with personal attacks. Plus, I recognize that my own style can be easily seen as offensive to a lot of people.
Personal attacks by someone you disagree with is a simple substitute, a shortcut, to CONTINUE INSISTING on the superiority of that person's position - when all other arguments failed to convince.
"Troll" is a good example, although it can be used in various contexts, including as a response to deliberate provocations.
Usually, by calling someone a troll, one would try to achieve two things: (a) insult them personally as a way of devaluing their point of view, and (b) avoid making an argument (most likely the same one that was already made 100 times before).
My observation is that people most likely to engage in personal attacks are intensely and emotionally invested in their own arguments - to a point when they become dogma and an article of faith (a bit like the public option).
So when an opponent refuses to concede a point by the time you run out of arguments we have a major build-up of frustration, etc.
As long as people buy into political propaganda and use it as a means to construct identify and self-perception, they will continue taking everything personally and personal attacks will be inevitable.
August 17, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Verbal abuse is abuse, whether the one using it is a troll according to the original usage of the term (someone just being irratating or destructive or looking for a fight just for sick kicks,) or whether one is using it as a weapon in promoting something one cares about.
I prefer not to have to read people verbally abusing one another, because it's ugly and depressing. Life is too short to spend a lot of time doing that. That's why I never object to moderation or peer pressure and other policing techniques in order to advance civility, even if they go overboard sometimes. I don't consider it censorship, I consider it editing. Especially since anyone can create their own verbal abuse blog if they happen to be a sadist. The use of verbal abuse by "peacenik" type people is particularly distasteful because it is also so hypocritical.
The ad hominen problem in the blogosphere will not go away, however, until website proprietors stop posting essays that include personal attacks of public figures, i.e., screeds about Limbaugh or Pelosi. For profit media has long known that what is easiest to sell, riling and manipulating people's emotions like a troll, getting them personally involved in a personal fight. That is the raison d'etre of things like the Jerry Springer show, and I see very little difference in the fight between Keith Olberman and Bill O'Reilly. Many people are sheeple on this front and will want to play, too, and the internet offers the interactive ability to do that. If forums put posts that do it, an audience that wants to participage will oblige. Ad then some, like Carey, will get bummed out when they think about what they have done.
My attitude is very simple: I never liked watching Jerry Springer, why would I want to spend time looking at similar on the web? I just say no to road rage when I've driving a car, too, it's just not my cup of tea to respond, much less being dangerous. As to personal life, any person that showed a propensity to verbal abuse always got a big goodbye from me. I don't think of myself as a pollyana who thinks it will go away, i.e. Rodney King's "can't we all just get along?" but it's that I don't want to spend time participating, think life is too short for that S&M play, there are a lot of better ways to spend one's time.
I think users here who have the same tastes should consider using the "report abuse" button every time they see a personal attack against another user. Especially since the stated comment policy here suggests that that is not welcome, althought all political points of view are.
Too bad we can't do the same with some contributor's posts when they verge on personal attack of a public figure, as those set the tone as to what kind of content and discourse is welcome.
August 17, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Troll" according to the original usage of the term...newbies ;)
August 17, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your link - to troll is "..to utter a posting on designed to attract predictable responses or flames".
From TPM front page: "Direct Connect. Bachmann: I'll run for president ... if called by God.
--Josh Marshall"
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/direct_connect.php
I will concede that with a name like "Talking Points Memo" and the clear strategy of eliciting predictable responses, this site should be recognized as a professional trolling site.
Before I get chopped to pieces, I hasten to add two mitigating factors: this is not Usenet and that definition of trolling must be really outdated.
August 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, well, one could accuse Bachmann of trolling, if one believed she was not serious about her statements.
I hasten to point out that the definition of "trolling" is the same as it ever was, but people - usually of the YHBT required caliber - have misappropriated it, as was predictable.
August 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be one chopping you to pieces for pointing that out. It's a real pity how many of the main progentitors of the liberal blogosphere have gotten drawn into the whole politics of personal destruction game, they don't step back and see forest for the trees, and don't remember why they started doing what they are doing. More than a couple of times, I've gone back and read the early posts of some of the bigger bloggers, and just got really sad about "what could have been;" you see an entirely different style and hopes for promoting a different kind of civic discourse, then, like Al Pacino complaining about the mafia, they get drawn in. :-)
August 17, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a post waiting for an author with a keen mind, on similarities between political blogs "trolling for newbies" and the political propaganda from our two parties.
As for your point about bigger bloggers getting sucked into the game, would my chances of getting chopped to pieces here increase if I called Obama "the Biggest Blogger"?
:-)
PS to Karl: is there a clever name for people hijacking someone's post WITHOUT an intent to disrupt and annoy?
:-)
August 17, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes and yes.
The dilemma, however, is that most blogs dedicated to serious discussion, free of ad hominems and personal attacks, are not as prominent and, often, not as fun to be at.
A good chunk of our personal participation politics is driven by personal excitement over issues and positions (in addition to identity politics and group-think, of course). And nothing energizes like a controversial point I feel I can argue down.
I remember the heaps of abuse thrown around at HuffPo. It was great - but then it got out of control and became inbearable.
So, what to do? And where to go?
August 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, it's nothing new. In the past there were those who thought PBS is boring and those who didn't.
People have to admit to elitism on the front of what kind of content they want and stop the guilt about it not being "democratic." That's simply deluding oneself about Juvenal's whole "bread and circuses" thing. A site that is open to all who can rise to level of a civilized educated adult is nothing to feel guilty about and not dreaming about a pony or a unicorn. Once again, the main contributors on the site set the tone, you then get a "children should be seen and not heard" peer effect, and most people will not participate unless they feel they can do so on an appropriate level, the breakthrough miscreants dealt with in other ways.
And there's really no problem with making it for profit, either: as technology advances, the niche marketing capabilities have ever more potential, where it as not as necessary as it was in the past to have support by charity or government. ("amike" is getting at this in his post complaining about Marshall taking lowest common denominator ads, if I were him I would think twice about ruining a brand that would be more valuable selling as a niche--and HuffPo is an example of having gone way over the dark side already on that--but that is no surprise as Arianna Huffington has spent her whole life trying to break into the "bread and circuses" market somehow, that is what she is all about.)
August 17, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let's imagine a political blog that is open to all, whose owner is interested in intelligent discourse and who therefore implements some kind of filtering policy, such as "approved" or "recommended" diaries that set an example.
As I mentioned, I think the problem with such site would be the lack of excitement, a-la PBS, which would result in less membership and less advertiser revenue.
You think it can be marketed as a niche site, which is probably true, but I'm not sure if that would mean "insignificant" in practice.
The strength of blogosphere has been the amplification, not depth. And in my view, "niche" usually means "specialized", not small.
So the reason Josh is accepting every single ad is because he makes a living out of TPM. Given his "small business" expenses, including healthcare, he's forced to make the only choice anyone in his position would - go for stuff that generates significant revenue potential (i.e. traffic).
That's the reason the charts here are decided by the readers, who (in a way) copy the trolling habits by the owner.
I think overall it's the same exact model as HuffPo, perhaps with a slight twist and Arianna's significant headstart.
August 17, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes people wisely decide not to expand their business to offer more products or services that would appeal to a larger market because they foresee what they would end up doing with most of their time then is something they would hate, even though the money would be better. (Not to mention that by doing that you can also end up a manager of people doing the stuff you once loved doing, which you no longer get to do because you have to do the managing...but that's a whole nother thing.)
August 17, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to think about it. Can you recommend any blog, if you know any, that's close to this model?
August 17, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez! What do you guys have against PBS?
(Joke alert.)
August 17, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, in ancient days I got all tied up in that great debate over MOMA's "Elective Affinities: Primitivism and Modern Art" blockbuster. I think the debate was dispersed over several journals, so you had to do quite a bit of research just to keep up with it. Man, it was so kewl. Rubin and Varnadoe of course were no slouches defending MOMA, and the attack squad of critics, anthros etc were top quality also. Anyway, it was like a good novel, and it spanned the topic arena from the museum blockbuster to the horrors of neo-colonialism.
But it got quite snarky and ad homininy - and scholars with all sorts of bona fides tend to be quite good at that sort of thing. I enjoyed that too, but then, I didn't really have a dog in the fight.
August 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
neoboho,
I understand exactly what you are saying, as a matter of fact, you saying that you mostly just read and did not participate because you didn't feel you had anything to offer on their level is the "children should be seen and not heard" effect I mentioned in another comment.
But your example offers a chance for me to further refine what my opinion is about ad hominens and why it is. In my experience, including as a moderator long ago on another site, a pretty hard and fast rule of no ad hominens (attack the argument and not the person presenting the argument) is pretty key to getting a handle on providing a higher quality forum if it is open to all and focuses on politics. It's unfortunate, as ad hominens can be done well, but what they do on a site about politics that is also open to all is just too destructive, and the effect of just trying to enforce a ban on them is remarkable. They are like an open invite to verbal abusers to jump in and have some fun; the Oscar Wilde's of this world are rare. Actually, they are more than an invite, I think they may trigger something neurological with many people when they see them, like Belushi yelling "food fight" in Animal House. Some feel they have to defend the honor of the puppy being abused, others smell blood and want more, whatever the case, it usually devolves into Jerry Springer unless it is a limited private club.
Pssst, a secret: On the latter, I find myself not that offended by fancy schmancy ad hominen play when it's done by a select erudite group way off on a long dead thread. But open it up to the big public audience, and you've got the road to ruin (or the road to profit selling to the biggest lowest common denominator audience if you are a talk radio station owner, a TV talk programmer, or a professional wrestling promoter.)
August 17, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, in the 60s I was listening to talk radio and they were talking about JFK's time at the London School of Economics. A caller came on, and she was screaming "I don't care what you what you say, Kennedy ain't no communist. You guys are crazy!"
August 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire your newfound transparency, Carey.
The six word memoir under your bio should also be "don't tell me what to think".
August 17, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I use my own name, and have often wondered why so many don't. My theory was that Josh, Eric, Zach, et.al. do, so why should I be less accountable? I think it is personally responsible, too. I certainly don't like comments and blogs that are constantly agressive and over-the-top. Permanent rage means that no one pays attention when you have extra rage. I was mentioning earlier that there is one irate blogger whom i have wanted to suggest eat some bran, and don't forget his vegetables!
There is some line between abuse and anger, but perhaps we know it when we see it? Or is it easier to see whn it's aimed at ourselves?
August 17, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using a moniker is fun, kind of like you were a superhero ;)
Plus the Internet is a dangerous, dangerous place.
August 17, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tovarish, you are being noticed...
August 17, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some few crazy people on the internet that will do crazy things if they get your name. Sometimes for the most trivial reasons. If you get them pissed they will contact your work place, friends, business acquaintances, ISP, start a web site for the sole purpose of attacking you. No matter how innocent no one wants that. Even if its rare its a chance we all take if we are active in posting or blogging.
If my ideas and opinions don't stand on their own and if I'm incapable of supporting them with rational dialog, good research, and good links then knowing my name wouldn't and shouldn't make them more convincing. Even if I was a former high level government official an appeal to authority shouldn't carry weak ideas or arguments in public debate.
August 17, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition the use of a pseudonym has a long history in American politics. For example Thomas Paine's use of Vox Populi for many of his articles and the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay published under the pseudonym Publius
August 17, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, I often blog about my family, and in order to protect their privacy, I prefer to remain annonymous. There are many here who know my "real" identity, as I have come to trust them with that information.
We all have different comfort levels with posting under our own names. I respect those who post under their own names (who may or may not be who they claim to be), but I respect those who prefer not to (who may or may not be who they claim to be.) What I HATE is people who "create" personas to hide behind so they can jack other people up.
August 17, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. rec'd the post, and agree 100% that "discussing" with dignity is a VERY GOOD thing...
August 17, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I try to be responsible in what I write, and to the best of my ability contain the personal animus. I started commenting on the net with my real name, and it had consequences at a previous job with a very conservative boss, even though my work is largely apolitical. I was shocked. So now I hide behind this pug. Haven't quite sorted out the ethical implications of doing so, though maybe I should. Do I trust real-name commenters more than monikers? No. Do I feel more or less outraged when I get in a flame war with one or the other? No. I'm not sure I'm asking the right questions on this, but it's interesting...
August 17, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I use my own name, and have often wondered why so many don't."
Okay, but when everyone starts calling themselves 'Wendy Davis', it's going to be chaos. (Now, if I don't get ad hominim attacks for that joke, something's wrong here.)
I originally commented on a philosophy class blog that required pseudonyms to promote honest discussion. I had the silly name 'Kant Komplain' and just brought it here as 'I can't complain' since that was exactly what I was doing). I was on a few other sites before this (like Slate) where flaming and trolling was so commonplace, it was hard to discuss anything the least bit controversial. I do think anonymity encourages uncensored speech to a degree, but that can be good or bad.
August 17, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that was funneee. Touche, Don.
August 17, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much for this. It expresses the something I've felt fo a very long time. The thread of comments is pretty illuminative of what one can expect on occasion here. Threads have lives of their own, and pretty soon the points made by the article posted are lost in the dust of semi-private wars of words.
Thank again. I needed to hear what yu wrote.
August 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised to hear about all your direct experiences and further fears of negative repercussions from using your actual names. I have lived so long in this same redneck county, and been very involved in campaigns, political activism, school activism, war protests, etc. There is no anonimity for me. Of course if one writes a letter to the editor, name address and serial number a re required. And of course there have always been repercussions to my work, acid letters back, sometimes negative consequences to our children. I didn't always like it, but for the most part learned to be philosophical about it. If my husband and I made less money (we are/were both self-employed, we at least never knew what we lost due to our politics.
What I am saying is that we live in a different environment from you all. I assumed the main danger from the internet was credit card fraud and stolen identity!
I'll shut up about it now....(smile)
Dammit--I can't. One more thing: I had hoped that if people identified themselves, there would be less name-calling and internet road rage. Guess not.
August 17, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever thought about the plain and simple fact that comments on blogs carry about as much weight as the conduct people exhibit playing a toon character on World of Warcraft? In those make-believe fantasy worlds, people quickly lose their sense of morale direction - you can do just about anything you want because a the end of the day, it' still just a game. On a blog, you are virtually anonymous, unless you know people personally that frequent the blog. And being anonymous means never having to feel guilty because if people begin to ignore you or attack you, you can exercise the alias naming convention and create a completely different toon and no one will kow the difference unless you make the same identifying mistake again. It's an interesting psychological phenomena.
August 17, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's sort of been my MO on this site, and it's certainly one blogging philosophy. It's just not working for me anymore so I decided to try a different tack. I think each of us needs to decide individually what works for us. I'm certainly not saying that everyone should be required to post in a certain way, just wanted to put an option out there.
August 17, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do play some WOW and I understand what you're saying but my experience on 3 different servers is that its not the norm. I was surprised at how easy it was for some one much older than the average player base to find relatively mature, helpful, cooperative, kind people to play with. I've met and dealt with the asshats but they are a small part of the player base. Perhaps that's due somewhat to always playing on rp servers rather than PvP servers. I've found the maturity level higher playing WOW than I have on some newsgroups or other discussion oriented sites.
August 17, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, Carey. I don't really get how the name/anonymity thing works so clearly for you, but I've heard other people say that as well. For me, you could have written this post without using your name and it would have had the same resonance. That's because there's an emotional foundation for the post. In any case, you've been on my "Following" list for a while now, so I think you must have made many more interesting contributions than you are realize.
I personally think there are a lot of frustrated and hurting people in the country right now and that the frustration finds an outlet online. I can't agree that it's an entirely bad thing to express frustration and anger; you obviously learned something from your own, and there's always value in learning what your limits are. In fact, it seems you arrived at an emotional breakthrough (the meanness wasn't the goal, identifying an underlying sorrow was, yet the meanness led you to the goal).
Anyway, good luck with your new tack. I like your new avatar, and I liked your old one, too.
August 17, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice blog twoviragos.Nice to see someone who cares.I think that over time you get a certain sense of personality of the frequent bloggers. Youve seen them write happy and angry,cheery and sad,brilliant and goofy,poetic and profound. When you see their avatar,it just triggers an emotion in you, glad to see their little picture and anxious to hear what they have to say.Sometimes magic happens and everything clicks and everyone gets on a wavelength and the thread rock and rolls.
Anyway, glad your here, your avatar is cute,plus you write witty and well.
August 17, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't that often we happen to see something with absolute clarity. It's surreal when it occurs. Just for the record, it is very normal that when it happens it is disturbing to us. A word of caution. This only ever happens spontaneously, always catches us by surprise and takes us to unfamiliar places. Go slowly.
August 18, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carey,
If you mean to say that we should all try to be good people, then I agree.
However, your blog comes out saying we should all try to play nice, and sounding like Obama's bipartisan message. At a time when our health care "reform" has not even considered single pay feature but it is in danger of losing public option as well to bipartisanship, this is not a good thing.
Playing nice and being a good person are not necessary then same thing. Constantly telling your child to play nice is the same as encouraging him or her to become a submissive slave. I would rather have a feisty child any day.
August 18, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying that I intend to challenge ideas without attacking the people who present those ideas. For example, if someone posted something that said they don't think the public option is a good idea, instead of calling the person who made that post an idiot, I would say that I didn't agree with the notion and then go on to explain why. I have come to learn about myself that I'm incapable of not speaking my mind, but I intend to do so in a way that has integrity for me. Again, as I said above, each person has to decide for herself what works. I personally have taught my son to stand by his ideals in a way that doesn't demean others. I don't think there's anything submissive about that.
August 18, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink