Talking nice in the blog world- try a little bit of chesed
Posted on March 29 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Educational Institutions.The frontpage story in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Bad behavior in the blogosphere: Vitriolic comments aimed at tech writer make some worry about downside of anonymity, inspired me to post about an issue which has concerned me deeply over the past few weeks-how we can talk to each other on the blog as human beings.
The Chron story was about a well-known woman blogger who had been the subject of vicious attacks, including death threats. Who is this woman and what did she do to inspire such hatred? “Kathy Sierra,” Dan Fost writes, “is an author who promotes the notion of emphasizing the needs of the user in Web site design.”
Yeah.
Really.
I always thought that Israel-Palestine issues were uniquely explosive. People on all sides of the debate get triggered easily, experiencing what is otherwise known as the “kishkes effect,” which creates an irresistible urge to yell, scream, and otherwise dismiss the other person’s right to exist.
But no, apparently, people who disagree about web design get just as worked up- some of them even want to kill each other.
Chronicle writer Dan Fost writes:
The incident and its aftermath have drawn back the curtain on a computer culture in which the more outrageous the comment, the more attention it gets. It’s a world that many women in particular see as still dominated by men and where personal attacks often are defended on grounds of free speech.
In addition, many of the newest tools of the Internet are coming into play. Blogs and online communities were supposed to herald an era in which “the wisdom of crowds” guided online behavior to a higher plane. Instead, instances of mob rule appear to be leading the discussion into the sewer.
Some observers believe the incident eventually could serve as a warning to Web communities to increase accountability and stamp out the vitriol that characterizes much of online conversation.
“We need to say this is not acceptable behavior,” said Tim O’Reilly, CEO of Sebastopol’s O’Reilly Media, which publishes Sierra’s books and runs the ETech conference where Sierra was scheduled to speak this week. “If you start making offensive comments, they will be deleted from a blog. Don’t give people that platform.”
This resonated with me. Though I understand that women can be as in-your-face as men, in general less women comment on the blog as the discourse gets more, well, pugnacious. I certainly haven’t been able to talk to other progressive Jewish women bloggers about this issue because…I don’t know any! And it’s not because women aren’t online, don’t read, or aren’t an essential part of peace-making.
When blogger Philip Weiss talked to the Forward about leaving the NY Observer and starting his own blog (which you should frequent), he said:
“One of the problems with the Observer site was the invective,” he wrote, “which I did a lousy job of policing.” He invited visitors to his new site to be courteous. “If people want to comment, they should keep out obscenity, scatology, etc. You know where the line is.”
There are lots of people who are really comfortable with this level of discourse. One blogger told me he doesn’t take the political personally, and I respect that. But I don’t think all of us feel the same way. I need not go into a lengthy discourse on speech and mystical Judaism to make the point. Words are powerful: they create, they destroy.
Far from a distraction, this all goes to the heart of muzzling. Part of what happens is that few dare comment on Israel/Palestine because of the inevitable personal attacks and smears. Who needs that? In the end, we are all robbed of the open dialogue we so desperately need about foreign policy, the Middle East, Jewish identity, whatever.
This blog wants to open up dialogue, not shut it down. We encourage people who disagree to join fully in the debate. That’s the whole point.
But an anything-goes atmosphere in which people call each other names, or use any opportunity to make ad hominem attacks does not actually add to greater dialogue. It shuts it down.
I’ve had some excellent dialogues offline with some of the commenters on this blog (with well over 1,000 comments, I make it a policy of not getting into debates on the comments pages. Some of the other Muzzlewatch bloggers may have different boundaries around that, but I am happy to talk directly to people who email through the contact link on the blog.)
I respect and like people who have different opinions. I don’t care about your politics- I care about you as a person who wants to engage in a thoughtful, important and impassioned way. I also understand we’ll all draw the line at what is OK and what crosses the line into abusive.
So I ask you to think twice and take a deep breath before pushing the send button.
I have always resonated deeply with Shimon HaTzaddik’s 3 pillars on which the world stands: On Torah, service [of God], and acts of loving-kindness.
For our purposes here, I think that trying a few acts of loving-kindness might bring us all some nice surprises.
One commenter with whom I have great political difference said, “lead by example.” He’s right.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 30th, 2007 at 4:59 am
I appreciated your heartfelt plea for civility, and (as the person who shared with the writer that I don’t take the political personally) I certainly hope that any comments I’ve contributed to this blog in recent weeks are not seen in any way meant as personal insults. In truth, I’ve not spent much time arguing it out online in many a year (really since the early days of UseNet and talk.politics.mideast – if anyone else is old enough to remember those days when the Wild West World of Internet debate began). While the main reason I’ve contributed here is because I believe this is a subject worthy of debate, one of the reasons I’ve stayed is because the usual “he-said/she-said” invective that usually spins discussion into not just rudeness but tedium seems less here (so far) than in other forums I’ve chosen not to take part in.
From experience, pleas like this are often followed by one poster providing an example of the atrocious online behavior of someone holding a political opinion they oppose and using that to condemn all of their ideological opponents in the name of “civility.” This is followed by a counterexample to “prove” that it is, in fact, the other side that has no online manners. Since anecdotal evidence is usually the fodder for such accusations, all one needs is a rude contribution to an unmoderated comments section to demonstrate the incivility of one’s opponents (and thus prove the virtue of one’s own side).
Since such predictability is the essence of tedium, I have two “outside of the box” observations to offer since this thread is really asking everyone to determine where legitimate (even forceful) potentially illuminating debate crosses the line into personal attack or fallacy-laden point scoring. The first thought is summed up in this piece I wrote several years ago on a dare to see if anything profound could be written about Ed Woods’ Plan 9 from Outer Space:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101804F
My distinction between Criswell’s Razor and The Principle of Charity, while hardly original or definitive, at least provides the way to see the difference between real debate and, as one Muzzlewatch poster has mentioned, a Monty Pythonesque paid “Argument Clinic.”
The second observation is that a plea for civilized debate has to be directed both inward and outward, and not limited to individual exchanges, but to the entirety of a debate subject. While there have been some postings that seem Criswellian in nature, I’ve generally tried to avoid them and focus on the arguments Muzzlewatchers post that I consider your strongest (the Principle of Charity). However, the very reason I’ve chosen to debate people in this forum is because I find the entire premise of this Web site worthy of debunking. This site is dedicated to the preposition that anyone using their time, resources, energy or words to support one side of a legitimate political debate is automatically guilty of “muzzling” or censoring the other side of that argument. As a simple matter of rhetoric, it’s an attempt to control the debate by pre-emptively accusing one’s opponents of bad faith or ill will for simply exercising the free speech or freedom of assembly rights that you legitimately hold sacred for yourselves. As a practical matter, this stance is already putting Jewish Voices for Peace in a difficult position, since opponents can simply apply your own formula of criticism = muzzling to your own legitimate criticism of opponents and thus find you guilty of not just “muzzling” but also hypocrisy.
For these reasons, I would posit that this site itself, not just individual comments on it, could be construed as an incivil contribution to the very debate on the Middle East you are also trying to civilize. Since I have a copy of FrontPage and the allowance my mom gives me would allow me to afford to buy a URL, I could – for example – create a Web site called “Jewish Voices for War” in which I describe every act by a member of Jewish Voices for Peace” that could in some way be construed as hostile or ill-behaved and make the case that this discredits your entire organization. Such a venture would be legitimately considered unfair by the vast majority of your members who do not take part in such activity, but would such a site be any less provocative in its essence than the accusations upon which Muzzlewatch is based?
Civility as it applies to the exchange of individual comments to a blog are easy to spot and analyze, and point of fact if things ever get too stupid or ugly, with debate ending in just an exchange of insults and cherry picked examples of the other side’s bad behavior, then for all intents and purposes, the blog is dead (or at least too dull for people who want to have a real debate to visit). The question is are the creators of Muzzlewatch sufficiently committed to the notion of civility to reflect upon whether or not the very premise of their site both represents and invites uncivil behavior?
Anyway, it’s off to work. And in answer to one person’s question about whether or not I and others who post on this site have a job, I do but am actually looking to start a new career. If anyone is aware of a symphony orchestra looking for a professional triangle player, please have them contact me.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:17 am
I couldn’t agree with you more and infact I wantt to than you for this post. Seriously one of my biggest problems with online communication is how little actually carries across and how quickly conversation de-volves in the blogosphere. I have actually stopped reading news on some websites because of this. I think that part of the problem is that so little of communication actually has to do with the words themselves, the rest is nuance, it’s tone of voice it’s facial expression and body language and even if a person chooses their words very carefully when replying or commenting on another person’s opinion there’s rarely any way for the reader to capture the fullest sense of the writer. A comment written in jest could be taken in an emotionally damaging way simply because there’s no way to be certain that it was humor and not intentionally glib or hurtful. On the other side of things having nothing to react to, like another person’s face or voice, abusive language can become the normal way of communicating and a person can let loose with things they would never in a million years say to a person’s face and this is at least partially because there’s no indication that the person is even going to react at all, it’s like punching a thing in a bag; it might feel good, and even cathartic, you might enjoy yourself until you discover that the thing in the bag you were punching was a kitten.
Maybe I’ve spent too much of my time thinking about all this but after blogging for a few years and giving and recieving my fair share of what-have-I-just-done type verbal abuse I can’t help but have something to say on the matter.
By the way I love this blog.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Yes Cecilie I really agree with what you’re saying and also with the thoughtful comments above.
I’m hurrying home for shabbos and don’t have time to develop this thought very well, but…
I’ve been thinking about the Internet, and blogging, as an addiction.
There are many ways of avoiding God, of shutting holiness out of our lives - by which I mean, avoiding seeing our smallness in the universe, avoiding feeling respect for Creation and the humility that comes with it.
It’s funny that we want to do this, but we do. We like to feel big and safe, so we hug the ground and avoid looking up.
Argument, as it takes place on message boards and blogs, can be very compelling. It offers a momentary satisfaction to say something clever, or to make a nasty remark to a person who holds disagreeable views. The satisfaction is truly transient, since it’s never long before another commenter responds in kind. It’s an ego exercise, which is what makes it unfulfilling and addicting.
It’s worth considering the question of why we blog, why we comment in the light of the bigger question of why we’re here.
At best, I think, we try to say things that are meaningful. We try to connect with other people in a positive way. Maybe we try to convince people of something we believe, something we feel deeply is true, and will make the world better. That is dispute, not argument. But to dispute, both people need to be willing to hear and to change.
Of course, you can’t help what comments people leave if you’re going to have open comments. We can only try our best to ignore provocation, and say what is heartfelt and useful; and, more important, to listen for others who are doing the same.
Thanks, Cecilie, for doing this blog. And if this comment is too flaky, feel free to delete it.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
To Jon Haber, what an interesting turn, to try to equate ad hominem, incivil behavior with this site’s existence. I suppose one can try to connect anything to anything else. You have every right to disagree with what muzzlewatch is doing, post here civily, etc. But your claims that muzzlewatch exists in order to stifle debate is either a willful misreading of the site or a too naive reading.
Haber writes:
“This site is dedicated to the preposition that anyone using their time, resources, energy or words to support one side of a legitimate political debate is automatically guilty of “muzzling” or censoring the other side of that argument.”
Muzzlewatch is attempting to chronicle attempts by mainstream Jewish American and Israeli forces to control and/or stifle real discussion of what JVP considers important voices that are simply not very available in the US media. It is further attempting to describe how US politicians talk about the middle east and what might be influencing the almost monolithic political culture in this country. Further, Muzzlewatch chronicles how mainstream “pro Israel” groups in this country attempt to marginalize activist American groups that are working to end the occupation, whether jewish or not, in a way that is different than what Haber thinks is appropriate. Haber misses the point, if one side participates in activities that are designed actively to quash actual open debate, black ball voices and groups that they disagree with, than that is beyond the parameters of free speech. The fact that Haber needs to immediately demonize muzzlewatch as a whole, with decidedly specious argumentation is telling. Why not just join the debate here, why the need to unsuccessfully deny muzzlewatch’s right to exist?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Some of us who post here (I won’t be so bold as to speak for Jon since he speaks much more eloquently for himself than I could) do join the debate not by denying Muzzlewatch’s right to exist, but by trying to refute the false premise on which it was founded– that somehow debate on American policy vis-a-vis Isarel is “muzzled”. In addition, Jon has demonstrated the hypocrisy of both claiming that one’s point of view is being silenced and joining a lawsuit aimed at intimidating someone else’s right of free speech.
JVP’s point of view gets wide publicity in the media both in the US and around the world. The claim of the argument being “muzzled” appears to stem from two facts which JVP leadership cannot accept:
1. This viewpoint (i.e. that Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state is not worthy of support) represents an extreme fringe of opinion within the American Jewish community. Regardless of the debates in the 1930’s and 1940’s over whether the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland would be a good thing or not, the matter was essentially settled in 1948. As has been shown subsequently in the rescue of the Ethiopian Jewish community (or at least most of it) and the absorption of much of the Jewish communtiy from the FSU, Israel provides a home for Jews from around the world who have no place else they can go. Since the organized Jewish community institutions reflect their boards and their communities, and support for Israel as a Jewish state is one of the clearly enunciated pillars of our community, JVP finds itself “outside the tent” and cannot accept the fact that the overwhelming majority of American Jews simply don’t agree with them. Obviously, their arguments can’t be at fault, so it must be some type of unfair “muzzling” that occurs.
2. Similarly, the United States Congress has also shown overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel’s existence. The case can be made that money from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC is the reason for this. So? As long as campaign donations are legal under our system, why shouldn’t Americans donate money to candidates who believe what they do? If JVP’s point of view is so compelling, then they should be able to get many people to donate via an organization that supports that position. Obviously, that’s not the case. Interestingly enough, when various groups attempted to get together to form an “alternative’ to AIPAC, the effort fell apart because some groups insisted on continuing to stand for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state– and other groups didn’t. On which side of that divide did JVP stand?
So basically, if you can’t get traction for your extremist POV, despite the fact that it gets supported in frequent OpEds in the LA Times, SF Chronicle, even USA Today (!), not to mention constant support from the Guardian in the UK, then it must be that you are somehow “muzzled”.
You’ve got all the right in the world to state your case. You’ve done so. Now deal with the fact that most of your intended audience disagrees with you on the basic premise of your organization, rather than trying to claim that you are “muzzled”.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:14 am
I could write a book on blog abuse since I’ve suffered from it continuously since I started my own blog in 2003.
I think you have to be willing to police yr blog, ban certain commenters & delete comments. It’s unfortunate & I try to do it as little as possible. But if you don’t you simply won’t have the right tone in yr comment threads.
I just had some Kahanist jackass wish cancer of the rectum on me for God’s sake. This crap used to really get me riled up & sometimes it still can. But I now have plenty of protective techincal tools at my disposal that give me more control over the nitwits’ access to my site & my comment threads.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Mike, I have to speak to your second comment. You are absolutely right to say that Americans are free to donate money to candidates who believe as they do. I wonder, though, if Jewish Americans have a viable choice in this respect when candidates feel that unquestioning support for Israel is a “goes without saying” sort of requirement. Maybe they support a candidate for reasons other than the candidate’s support for Israel.
Although I’m not one who donates to political campaigns, I have been voting since the late 1960s. I evaluate candidates on the basis of how well it seems to me that their positions reflect Jewish values, particularly concern for the poor and other under-represented or marginalized populations in the U.S. and around the world.
If I may inject partisanship here for just a second, I can only hope that the current administration will just leave Israel alone, given what I view as its complete incompetence in other areas of the Middle East.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Leah, everyone’s got their own priorities when it comes to supporting candidates. While Israel is my main priority (i.e. I won’t support a candidate who I believe won’t support Israel’s right to exist in peace and security), I won’t support candidates whose positions on other issues are incompatible with the Jewish values that you describe. So I am like the overwhelming majority of American Jews– pro-Israel, and voting Democratic.
I can’t help but agree with your last paragraph– well meaning but incompetent friends can get you into just as much trouble as your enemies. For example, letting your friend, who’s a REALLY bad driver (say he;s already driven his car into your neighbor’s house and totaled both the car AND the house), drive you home after a party……
But as far as the choice of candidates and positions available, there are many fringe party candidates who share an anti-Israel point of view. And that may be one of the reasons that they are indeed fringe candidates.
As far as language, the owners of this or any other blog absolutely should immediately delete any comments of the type that Richard was subjected to. I for one certainly condemn whatever idiot subjected Richard to that type of abuse. Should the use of appropriate language also extend to refusing to stand at anti-Israel demonstrations with those who chant “Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs” or “Nasrallah, Nasrallah, bomb Tel Aviv”?