A Call To Spit In My Face
I ask for your comment on the effectiveness and tone of my replies and comments on this site. Now doesn't that sound like a desperate plea for positive affirmation? I have the desire to promote and act with openness and civility in public debate. I also want to have discussions that are stripped down, trying only to identify the base ideas and not get caught up in diverting traps (see my previous post). I use these discussions to practice or develop what I might call debate with honor. Debate is and should always be judged on this, a test in its efficacy. Tests should always be graded, otherwise, why take the test. So I am asking for a grade.
In particular, I am asking for a grade concerning my debating process concerning this blog post. I am not looking for a critique of my ideas, those can be done in the blog itself. I also don't want critiques of how others reacted in the debate unless it illustrates how I could or should have responded. It's all about me - "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!"
I feel, in what I saw as a frustrating and almost futile debate, that it is my responsibility to create an atmosphere that incentivises such a debate with honor, and in this case I failed.
I know this forum is used to talk about stuff, but I am finding, especially in the larger political sphere, that it is the how that is failing. From the media's staging of the political environment, to the press' failure in their obligatory, independent criticism, to establishing leadership through demogoguery. The perversion of political engagement in public debate is a signature pox that riddles the body politic.
Oh, you did OK. It seems to me Mike really never addresses your criticisms...
Is it a "failing" of you? Does it reflect poorly on the "how" of the blogosphere? Maybe, but it seems more anecdotal than anything else. On any blog, you'll get good discussions, and not-so-good ones.
I actually think it's the "about" that's the real problem. The "how" stuff -- Rush Limbaugh, for example, is just a sideshow. It wouldn't even be a big deal if the media wasn't failing to a large degree on the "about" stuff.
In the blogosphere, we really see much more detail and expertise on the intricacies of politics than we'd ever see in the news media. While there is a "vast left wing conspiracy" at play (and, I would agree, it's needed), the left wing blogs are more often than not pretty much factual.
I'm not even sure we ever had a time when the body politic wasn't "perverted" by the kind of public debate (or lack of) that we see today.
I think it's more or less what you focus on...in other words, yeah, you could find some bloggers somewhere demagoguing and corrupting the public sphere, but than you can also point to people like Josh at TPM, who are actually helping democracy by performing a new kind of journalism, one that's much more "public" than we get in the mainstream media.
Ooops, my comment wasn't all about you. Sorry. :-)
January 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you say it is a mistake to act in counter to these debates? By positioning ourselves in opposition, does it by effect limit the effectiveness or honesty of critical debate?
I think that the existence of Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman weakens the efficacy of true journalistic reports. So are we, by countering the "other side" with anything but solid debates, killing the belief that there can be anything but politically skewed news? Is the proliferation of the position based blogosphere ending our expectation of real news? As a bad analogy, what would we think of a newspapers worth if the editorial staff outnumbered the press corps 10:1?
January 3, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we've suffered because no one has countered the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaughs of the right wing media. I think building a vast left wing conspiracy was a necessity.
Whether or not it hurts the body politic is essentially irrelevant, because the alternative -- not answering that section of media -- was taking its toll. We'd be in a much worse place without the countering effects of the left wing media that's been built over the last few years.
It's also a reaction to the failing of the news media -- the question isn't whether or not we're ending the expectation that we can get "real news." That debate is over -- "real news" is dead, killed off starting with Reagan, but the real nail in the coffin was with Bill Clinton and the 1996 Telecom Act, a law that favored corporate interests over the public good.
The "public sphere" of which you speak was destroyed in the 1990s. There is no true journalistic public service anymore; only profit. Again, blogs are both good and bad, but they're the only thing right now that's rebuilding a public discourse, and the only thing doing anything that could be considered in terms of the public good. It's not perfect, but not much else comes close. There are no more Murrows, no more muckrakers, no more Cronkites.
The other thing is, if you think the blogosphere is lacking a good site for truly critical debate, the cool thing is, you can start one. You don't need a whole lot of money to invest in it; just time and dedication, and a few smart people to kick off the site.
To sum up: Real news is already dead. No one trusts the news media anyone. The news media is about profit, not public service, and in that, they've lost their audience's faith. True journalism today is coming from blogs like TPM, who are less beholden to bottom-line profits. Journalists are still required, of course, but as on-the-spot reporters. Not for connecting the dots.
If I want dots connected, I look to the blogs. (Aside from a few, stellar, old media types who remain invaluable, but, alas, exceptions to the rule.)
January 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think you have just explained the dark truth. Maybe Time's Man of the Year last year was more a savior rather than what it was ridiculed for.
Only taking the high road just allows someone to distract you with a circus freak show, then sneak up from behind and push you over the edge.
January 4, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion as an ex-moderator of another forum is that the problems that arose have nothing to do with you. It's all about member Tankard and his past behavior towards Mike. Tankard riles and teases Mike in a trollish manner, Mike stiffens spine, Mike reacts badly towards your criticism expecting the same, you react back in an ornery manner that might have been different if the discussion had started out without all the presumptions. I've seen it happen a gazillion times with others. If you will note later in the thread, Tom Wright disagrees with Mike and they have a nice discussion. That's because Mike already knows Tom Wright and that he will not be an unfair ad hominen user and is not looking to pick a fight for the wicked fun of humiliation or whatever.
This will always happen in discussions as long as the discussers are allowed to select out a person and label them as a member of a tribe which another tribe wants to fight with. This is the reason for the rule in some forums against ad hominens, to attack an argument and not a person.
I myself don't even like the debate form, prefering other forms of discussion. But from experience, I know that more rigorous enforcement of "attack the argument, not the member" would do a lot around this site to solve a lot of the perceived problems in debates. There are simply too many bad feelings in current members about being unfairly attacked and rated, and this results in more of the same in the angry/hurt attitude they bring to the table about that.
It's actually quite tiresome for me to even revisit the issue and I don't want to rag on it more,am jaded, been there done that, but I am doing so "one more time" because I think you are a member I would like to read more and I want you not to worry about it. That you care enough to make this post is a great thing in itself. You're doing fine, you just stepped into a minefield that should never have been allowed to happen. The problem is that Tankard is a liberal, so therefore hardly anyone here ever chides him in the form of downratings for the problems he causes, there is only group/peer enforcement against trollish behavior by conservatives.
January 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still haven't figured out how I feel about the rating system. I have used it before even though I really didn't know if they were a good representation of my criticism.
When using them, I either think they are either too dismissive or simply hollow. When not using them, am I neglecting my responsibility for the atmosphere of our forum?
When the opportunity arises to "call out" an inappropriate comment, I have decided to not comment in hope they would just go away; unless I am brought into it by reference. But at times I feel this is just like passively watching the mice steal from my cookie jar. At such times I find it beneficial to flick my computer screen the bird.
Thanks for your input
January 4, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
LitYankee, I note that you've been a member here for over 2 years. It seems you would have known a bit more about this site in such a time period than you imply by this post.
Anyhow, over on one of LJ's posts I read one of your comments and rated it a 5 because it was excellent. I did that before your foray into my most recent blog post. I think it's best if we take discussions case by case.
Cscs is entitled to his call, and he's also entitled to his falls. We're all in that boat. What causes people not to address specific points most often, unless it is a calculated attempt to de-emphasize it, is their greater concern with other points. These are hot button issues that most people who bother to engage ideas and arguments online have.
One of the problems of the internet forums as debating forums is the power of instantaneous response and posting combined with facelessness. Through machines, people tend to be less human. Witness the highway etiquette. There are no facial expressions or humanization to balance out what "appears" to be said, and more difficult still, what is meant. Or, God forbid, to get to know the people you're talking to just for the sake of same.
One thing that helps is looking back at posts after cooling off. I sometimes see where I miss a point because I focused on something negative or attacking the first go round. Then I'll go back if possible to address points I missed. Busy schedules also make it difficult to take the time necessary to really consider all the possible meanings behind what a person has written so that the work may be done to find the intended meaning.
One thing that helps: if you vehemently disagree with someone, don't start out with grammatical or spelling lessons. In a fast moving environment of forum posting there are going to be typos, grammar errors and spelling mistakes. When you start off with that sort of thing, it is a red flag that you are playing mind games instead of dealing with the other person civilly. It's worse, of course, if you are wrong or violate your own rules of weatherproofing. But in reality, it doesn't say a hill of beans about what you'd really do if someone needed your help, which is the ultimate question of who you are. I suspect you'd do like most people here and do the right thing.
We are in the ideas zone, and frequently we cut in on criticizing the ideas before fully understanding where someone is coming from. That happens a lot just about everywhere. It's a communication problem as old as humankind.
January 3, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your reflection.
I take your comment about grammar in honest regard. The next time I don't get something for whatever reason, I will just ask the writer to rephrase it. In frustration from you not addressing the challenge that I was not posing correctly, my attempt to simplify turned out to sound like trite arrows. In review, like you said, we were talking from different places about different things towards different goals - but not really.
With respect to future debates, and not knowing how you react, I will always challenge you on the use of your faith in arguments. Not necessarily about your decisions, but in how they are formed. By not having the same faith as you, I can not accept proof of an argument solely based on a faith perspective. To me, it sounds like "just because."
I have a strong familial presence of the Church. Some of the most fulfilling conversations I have had over the kitchen table have come because I would not let them rely on such arguments. Can you imagine the horrified and sometimes hurt reactions when an insolent little ten 10 year old posed such a challenge. We laugh now. In the end, we found that tying argument, cause and direction to the ideal with no criticism worked most of the time. Often, it made the ideals we all believe in, universally clearer, with a greater understanding and having a stronger attachment to them. Dare I say it strengthened the "faith" we have in those humanistic ideals we desire.
January 4, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Communication isn't complicated only because of language. It is complicated because people do it.
It is good to know more about how faith is involved in my arguments. I welcome your perspective on that, realizing I may distinguish or counter. For instance, I believe the Christian faith is the most humanitarian movement going, distinguishing those who miss the mark when they miss the mark and find themselves outside of God in their behavior and it becomes an issue in our discussion. It could be me. Sometimes I have to distinguish my own behavior. It's a path. Teaching of the faith: God is Love. I'm sure that in the process you describe above, your faith, its proportion and scope will be also be discussed.
Thanks for your response.
January 4, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were gracious, thoughtful, and effective (much more so than I) in a hopeless cause.
January 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really isn't a hopeless cause. Just takes a little bit of repositioning. The best debates to me are when both parties behave like journalists. They act outside of themselves.
In spite of all the Stuff, I imagine we are all trying to live up to those "basic truths."
January 4, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Been tried. Failed. But I wish you the best of luck. I enjoy your approach.
January 4, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were fine, I think it has more to do with back story as artappraiser suggests.
But in case it's any help to you, one rule of thumb that sometimes helps me when I feel like what I'm saying might come across in an obnoxious way, is to leave the words "you" and "your" out. It helps me to focus the conversation on ideas rather than on in the individual, and can clarify my thinking. Plus, I think just doing that can often take the sting out of a critique. Feels less personal or something.
January 4, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for your observation. following the rules of parliamentary debate and using the third-person is sometimes best.
January 8, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for your observation. following the rules of parliamentary debate and using the third-person is sometimes best.
January 8, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for your observation. following the rules of parliamentary debate and using the third-person is sometimes best.
January 8, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for your observation. following the rules of parliamentary debate and using the third-person is sometimes best.
January 8, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink