Grappling with ideas, not insults
We’ve made it through the election season (whew!) and in the process we’ve attracted quite a few new blog readers and commenters to this site. To all you newcomers: Welcome to WORLDmag.com and WorldMagBlog.
Although I’m sure that many of these newcomers find the conversation here stimulating and thought provoking—and we welcome and encourage their contributions to the ongoing discussions—a lot of them I expect are turned off by the name-calling and immature behavior that often encroach upon the comment threads. And I’m talking about commenters from both sides of the ideological and theological fences. This behavior turns off a lot of “regulars” as well, as some recent emails we’ve received attest. So let’s try to show each other some R-E-S-P-E-C-T, as Aretha would say. And remember: Just because someone calls you a name doesn’t automatically give you the right to reciprocate. Let’s all try to remember the Golden Rule. OK?
And speaking of “rules,” I ask all of you—newcomers and old-timers alike—to CLICK HERE and familiarize yourself with our website policies. One way we’ve come up with to help our small staff enforce these policies is a new feature that I’m sure many of you have noticed: the “Report this comment as offensive” link, which has been attached to every posted comment. Please use this feature judiciously: It’s mainly designed as a means for you to report to us obscene, profane, or racist rhetoric, including unnecessary personal attacks. However, it is not there for you to gripe to us about someone’s ideas or beliefs.
As we state in our website policy, that although we present a Christian worldview perspective in what the editors and writers post here, we welcome and encourage the diverse point of view of others in the comment threads. Our free speech goals parallel the view enunciated many, many years ago by the Puritan poet John Milton, whose 400th birthday we celebrate in two weeks:
“Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
So let’s continue to openly grapple with ideas, but let’s check the insults and innuendo at the door.
Don’t force us to ban you from this site, because if we have to, we will. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
ADDENDUM: Some of you complain and criticize the blog staff for not being more actively involved in the comment threads, and it’s a legitimate concern on your part. In the past year, this blog has grown significantly in traffic and in the number of comments per post. Therefore, the staff, which is small and has many more WORLD-related responsibilities beyond the blog, depends heavily upon you to behave yourself and to some extent police yourself. It is our hope that the “Report this comment as offensive” feature will serve as a deterrent to bad behavior as well as a means to direct us to problem spots quicker. Again, thank you in advance in helping us make this a civil place to debate topics that arrive at the intersection of Christianity and culture.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top40 Comments to “Grappling with ideas, not insults”
What Milton actually said was:
“Yet if all cannot be of one mind–as who looks they should be?–this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which, as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate, provided first that all charitable and compassionate means be used to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw itself: but those neighbouring differences, or rather indifferences, are what I speak of, whether in some point of doctrine or of discipline, which, though they may be many, yet need not interrupt the unity of Spirit, if we could but find among us the bond of peace.”
Does this blog intent do unlaw itself? I would prefer it if the administrators would be more active in the comments, urging people to make arguments rather than quips in their comments. Every comment should have a debatable thesis in it.
But first let’s do like Milton advocated and ban “popery and open superstition” and everything that’s “impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners.” Otherwise, we should really stop invoking him.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for posting this. As a new user here, I honestly hope that we can continue to be civil and respectful…
Report comment to moderator
OOH
Report comment to moderator
“Some of you complain and criticize the blog staff for not being more actively involved in the comment threads, and it’s a legitimate concern on your part. In the past year, this blog has grown significantly in traffic and in the number of comments per post.”
Really? I thought comments frequency was down quite a bit. Maybe I’m just coming here too much.
Report comment to moderator
Optimism is the key.
Report comment to moderator
The comments frequency was up due to the astroturfing that wasn’t getting moderated before the election. I am assuming that astroturfing will continue to be tolerated by the moderators? That was the cause of much of the acrimony.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Mickey!
Report comment to moderator
As a Christian, what helps me most is to always have before me the realization that all people, whether believers or not, are made in the image of God.
Disagreement on the issues and over ideas should stay there (though many of us will fall short of that ideal from time to time).
Name calling and writing or speaking in a way that shows personal disrespect toward someone is also showing disrespect, by extension, for the image of God.
So on we go — take a deep breath, put on some decaf, and have at it. Nicely.
Report comment to moderator
“the staff, which is small and has many more WORLD-related responsibilities beyond the blog, depends heavily upon you to behave yourself and to some extent police yourself. It is our hope that the “Report this comment as offensive” feature will serve as a deterrent to bad behavior as well as a means to direct us to problem spots quicker.”
At my company, we call this approach “kindergarten management”.
Report comment to moderator
#4 I think you’re right MIM – Part of it is certainly election fatigue, but I think election fatigue must have affected the writing staff too. Most of the topics of late seem rather superficial and trivial – not worth commenting on …
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: What’s “astroturfing?”
Report comment to moderator
One suggestion: Perhaps we could have a thumbs-up-thumbs-down system where people could grade comments on whether or not they are respectful. People who leave a thoughtful, measured response get a thumbs-up, people who are less than kind (yet not obscene, racist, offensive, etc.) get a thumbs-down. It might be a bit complicated, but if people continuously left degrading and disrespectful comments it would reflect itself in their profile (perhaps a colored icon next to their profile pic.)
It might be too complicated, and certain commenters might try to use the system maliciously, but if there are enough people who value respectful comments then I think it could work. I know I see a lot of comments where I couldn’t call it offensive, but I would call it un-Christlike.
Report comment to moderator
I kind of knew this but had forgotten the details. From Wikipedia:
“Astroturfing in American English is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous “grassroots” behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.”
Report comment to moderator
Like a Youtube video bashing McCain that looks homemade, but was actually done by a professional marketing company in the pay of the DNC.
Report comment to moderator
I thank Mickey for his comments, particularly on the welcoming of diverse points of view. And I too would like to welcome all of the newcomers. Because there is a regular group that hangs out here and comments frequently, it can seem intimidating to a newcomer to “jump in”. But please do “jump in”! All of us were “newbies” at one time too.
*****
Re: #6
I there was very little atroturfing pre-election. We had a few newcomers that popped in during the run-up to the election and said some things. But 98% of the folks that commented are known Worldmagers. We did have a fair amount of parroted “talking points” though.
The registration requirement limits both astroturfing and trolling quite effectively on here.
*****
Re: #12
While in theory, the “thumbs up/thumbs down” idea sounds good, in reality it’s not much more than an “I agree/disagree” system. I am on several blog sites that use the “thumbs up/thumbs down” system or some variation of it. What happens is that the prevailing sentiment of the site controls the “thumbs up/thumbs down” that a person receives. For example, on dailykos, which is a liberal site, folks who make liberal comments receive a lot of “thumbs up”, and folks who make conservative comments receive a lot of “thumbs down”. It would be nice to think that people would be altruistic and give “thumbs up/thumbs down” in a fair manner. But people aren’t that rational.
Report comment to moderator
I think Anlir is right about the “thumbs up/down” thing.
Report comment to moderator
There could possibly be an option to recommend good/thoughtful/funny comments. I often read a sports blog that has that option. Registered readers can either “flag” or “rec” a comment. The flag is for profanity and personal attacks, like the “Report comment as offensive” link here. Good comments, esp. funny comments, will get “rec’ed”. It also doesn’t get overused to the point where it’s meaningless. Here we’d probably want to use it for more for thoughtful comments. Looking over this thread, for instance, I’d probably recommend Anlir’s #15, but that’s it. Not that the other comments aren’t “good” (they are), but they’re not quite the “rec’able” standard that I’m thinking of.
Report comment to moderator
Also, if a comment gets three recs, its background turns a soft shade of green, so it stands out from other comments.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I think what I would really like the thumbs up/thumbs down system to celebrate and encourage is general civility (I’m not sure if that’s what the dailykos site is shooting for), and not even so much whether or not if it’s a good post or worth reading. For example, if someone said, “I disagree with you. I think that welfare is unbiblical because the Bible says, ‘God helps those who helps themselves.’ You are arguing from a purely economic standpoint, and I don’t think that’s good.” They ought to get a thumbs-up for being polite, even though what they said wasn’t particularly intelligent.
I guess I had higher hopes for Christians who could recognize respect and civility when they see it. But considering how many reminders to be polite that we already get here, you may be right.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y, I think I’d rec #8, too.
Report comment to moderator
“I guess I had higher hopes for Christians who could recognize respect and civility when they see it. But considering how many reminders to be polite that we already get here, you may be right.”
Respectfully:
Tell me please.. when did we become so perfect and sinless that we no longer need reminders to be kind and civil? About the same time we outgrew our need for a Saviour?
I know I need constant reminders. There will never be a time on this earth when I will be so sinless as not to need a Saviour.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know if there was actual astro-turfing, but there certainly was a lot of mindless reposting of the same stinkin’ (and I do mean stinkin’) thing day after day after day. What makes people think that we’ll enjoy it the second time (much less the fourth or fifth time) if we didn’t like it the first time?
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man,
I would hope that Christians would have their reminders to be kind and civil coming from their conscience and the Holy Spirit, and not from the blog administrators or even (gasp!) non-Christians. I certainly believe that I’ll always need a Savior, but I hope that we might be able to grow by His grace to a point where we can be respectful on the internet without Lynn nagging us to do so all the time. ; )
Report comment to moderator
Lynn – Please email me and I’ll write it in more detail than I can in a post. I emailed Mickey about this phenomenon with links to several sites which describe it in its many forms. It was my opinion it wasn’t for no reason that one of Obama’s top campaign advisors, David Axelrod was also known as “The king of astroturf.” I also provided Mickey with my thoughts on a particular poster whom I believed was engaging in astroturfing. This person appeared on this blog with an offensive name and spammed the threads in post after post after post of negative content and links against everything Republican, Bush, McCain, and most especially Sarah Palin. This person was the source of fresh muck on a daily basis, and volumes of it, as well as an oft repeated tasteless joke about an ape in an attempt to smear John McCain. Paid operatives do this kind of thing in order to shut down real discourse, especially on conservative forums. In this election, the left employed these tactics to stunning effect. Apparently, Mickey was satisfied that this poster was on the up and up. The poster did, however change his offensive name, and has toned it down some since the election. He still gets in his digs. A trip through the pre-election archives, expecially right after Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket should make the astroturfing evident to you. Just pick any election related thread on any random day and you’ll see it plain as day. It became tiresome.
I will be glad to provide you with copies of the correspondance. I suggested that World Magazine might want to do an article about astroturfing and its effect on the campaigns and elections. A timely article would have appeared prior to the election, but a retrospective on it could also prove interesting. Apparently there were higher priorities for the WM staff to pursue.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: Something about pots and kettles comes to mind. Several of the WMB bloggers and regular contributors are wired so tightly into the Republican spin machine that they probably have their fax machines wired directly into their computers. Cut, paste and voila!
Report comment to moderator
My favorite aspect of this blog is the rare occasions when actual dialog occurs that leads people to a new understanding. This requires an ability to admit truth, even when it goes against your own agenda.
Contrary to what Arcadia says in #26, there are many conservatives here who were willing to criticize McCain or Palin or Bush when warranted. But never once has a secular progressive deviated from message or backed down from a full out defense of all things liberal and an assault on anything conservative. I have given numerous challenges to deviate from the script, but it is a genetic impossibility.
This phenomenon tends to limit conversations to bidirectional monologue and prevents us from going deeper.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I noticed this as well. Try as I might, I could never get a couple of the folks on the other side to acknowledge their “candidate” wasn’t down the line perfect in every way. Maybe it was a defensive action seeing as how they’re on a blog that’s of a more conservative bent, but still …..
It does shut down any kind of honest back-and-forth dialogue, unfortunately. We all should be able to step away from the politicians (and they’re ALL politicians, after all, a point we would all do well to remember) long enough to view them with a critical eye and be honest about that, even regarding the one’s we’ll be voting for.
Report comment to moderator
I was going to say that Arcadia’s post in #26 seemed to describe RPN’s behaviour to a “T”.
Report comment to moderator
There are a number of posters here whose sole purpose in life is to tear down and ridicule others. I don’t know how they sleep at night. They must have no conscience.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 27,
then I presume because I have criticized Obama’s energy policy for being at best incomplete on nuclear energy and his support of FISA being inappropraite, I must not be a liberal.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 30,
I agree with the essence of your point here, BUT if all one can do is ridicule, then I suggest one’s argument is perhaps deficient.
And if one is deficient in one’s argument, it would seem that a free marketplace of ideas will eventually manage the problem.
Report comment to moderator
The reality is that for this blog to succeed I suggest we need three things:
1) a reasonable attempt to ensure that we free market place of ideas: no one idea framework has precedence
2) each poster makes a reasonable attempt to focus on ideas and not the poster
3) reasonable enforcement when required and the behavior clearly needs correction
To be honsest, some of the moderators seem unwilling to accept postulate 1.
We have posters on both sides of the psecturm (but by the nature of the demographics on this blog with a majority on the conservative side) who appear to be unable to focus on the post not the poseter.
And I suggest that Lynn has demonstrated the best ability to be even handed in sceptre bonks. Other moderators in my opinion have been less successful and tend to show a significant bias.
Still, if you compare WMG with other blogs in genenal, I suggest that it is one of the better blogs.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I just don’t understand how people derive so much pleasure from ridiculing others. Who has that kind of time?
Let’s say I hated Nascar. Why would I embed myself on a Nascar blog and ridicule them day and night. What kind of person would I be?
Everyone is welcome here. I am glad you are all here. It makes the debate more interesting. But I still find it hard to understand the mindset of Christ haters who mock him day and night. I suppose we are all guilty of that to some degree. I rebuke myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 34,
good point.
Why would the posters:
1) ridicule liberals?
2) ridicule (or worse) those who are not Biblical inerrancy Christians?
Shall I continue?
Ridicule is ridicule, whether it is done by those who are conservative, believers, atheists, or other.
And in the end it adds nothing to the conversation.
But I will remember your spirited objection to ridicule the next time some one argues “Marxist” say, or “heretic”.
I am sure you will stand up for your opinion then when these occur.
Report comment to moderator
OK then, Musing – let’s call a spade a spade. Why do liberals come to a conservatively run Christian weblog where the majority of the posters are conservative Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy and ridicule them for being conservative and Christian? And for believing in biblical inerrancy, by dismissing arguments made from that position? Again why come to a blog to agrue against and ridicule the majority? Why come to a blog posing as a Christian, yet rejecting some rather basic salvation issues?
Are there a lot of conservative Christians going to athiest and liberal blogs just for the purpose of picking fights and ridiculing and flaming them for what they believe or don’t believe?
I understand coming to this blog for polite discourse, but most of the people of liberal bent whether it is socially, religiously or politically, have demonstrated that they are not in the conservative Christian neighborhood as seekers or with honest questions. But there is usually some kind of agenda, and it is not polite discourse. I suspect that some of them come here to smugly “proove” their mental superiority, at least to themselves and to other people who are not of the conservative Christian bent who lurk and also post on WMB, especially in matters of science, philosophy, morality and politics.
Still others come to do what I described in post #24.
I suspect others come here to proove that Christians are hypocrites by baiting them until they arouse themselves to conduct unbecoming a true Chriatian, like getting sucked into a flame war, and then pointing it out with great satisfaction.
I suspect that still others come here to eliighten us poor ignorant Chriatians about our belief in “myths and fairy tales and foolish things,” and all of the Spiritual aspects of the Christian religion that cannot be explained by science or acrhaeology; poor naiive, misguided things that we are.
And some others, for all their prosestations, are drawn here, like moths to a flame because they can’t stay away from the irresistable interaction with the Holy Spirit that occurs here when they interact with those who house that same Spirit.
Most of them don’t come with noble intentions and you know it, but they can’t live and let live. They come to antagonize all the while keeping to the letter of the WMB law.
If I were a moderator, I would insist on a measure of respect for those being talked to and about, especially sitting presidents, sitting senators, judges and congressmen – title and last name, because surely when the level of respect is elevated, whether voluntary of enforced by moderators, inevitably, the level of discourse is also elevated. Until that happens here at WMB, we can continue to expect more of the same.
Report comment to moderator
klasko post 36,
I can think of several reasons:
1) we were invited to come, as was anyone else who wanted to post within the posting policy
2) ones ideas can only be refined if they are challenged: why would I post in a liberal blog which is only going to agree with me?
3) I find it stimulating and enjoyable
And why would a conservative Christians post in a blog run by conserrvative Christians if they concluded that everyone was going to agree with them? Where is the interest AND where is the opportunity to refine your ideas?
And I suggest that I dont ridicule anyone for being conservative and Christian.
I will challenge forcefully (this is a debate as contact sport blog) anyone who can’t support their ideas and opinions logically and with facts.
And I suggest that since I am not an atheist, your atheist arguments seem a bit thin.
And back to the ridicule point: ridicule fromn anyone does nothing to further the discussion.
My sense is that bloggers here should hold everyone to a high standard of posting both in terms of intellectual content as well as focusing on the post and not the posters. I sense an sentimate on your part that perhaps only liberal atheist bloggers should be held to high standards, although perhaps that wes not your intent. You can of course refute my sense here by demonstrating equally strong arguments with conservative Christian bloggers who do not probvide sound arguments but resort to ridicule.
But having said that, I repeat that the tenor by the moderators has been that debate is a contact sport: if you can stand the heat of the debate, then get out of the kitchen.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko seems to be echoing a sentimate sometimes expressed in this blog: only conservative Christians should be posting.
Of course as the present posting policy is written this is nonsense.
What I suggest it perhaps demonstrates however is a fear that conservative Christian ideas may be unable to compete effectively in the market of ideas.
Personally, I believe that this sentimate is correct.
The task of conservative Christians is to demonstrate that I am wrong, or the conservatvie Christian world view will indeed fade away and disappear.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – I was referring to others besides you who come to this blog. You are for the most part polite in your discourse. There are others here who are not so polite, but with you, there is a point at which we reach an impasse. I may disagree, but I have never seen you resort to namecalling and flaming. I cannot say the same for others. The worst behavior I have seen from you is sarcasm, and I confess that I myself am also guilty of that. You are mostly frustrating, but I don’t want you to leave.
Report comment to moderator
My wife and I just watched the movie “Young at Heart”. Beautiful movie about old folks in a nursing home singing punk rock. I especially noticed the love and dedication of the liberal arts director. What a large heart he had!
Liberals have big hearts and I love them for that. Never, ever have them run a government or anything, but what big hearts. It’s fantastic! God love them!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!