Clarity and Respect

Clarity, as some rather well-done adds have shown, makes all the difference. The difference, in this forum, is between discourse and disparity. In order to hold discussion, one must not only clarify their own perceptions, but understand those of others. In the political world, where ideas may be conservative to some, liberal to others, and balmy to everyone else, the position—logic, if any, behind one’s post—must be clearly defined. Furthermore, one should endevour to understand, rather than label, the rantings of others.

At times, political discourse resembles this:

<img src="http://www.globeandmail.com/series/cartoon/images/1monedcar.gif" alt="" />

Avoid falling victim to the cartoonist’s point.

Respect for opinion is necassary for this forum to exist. The personal baiting* of members will be frowned upon—should you launch such an attack, I will send you a very cross message via the personal mail device. You will burst into tears and be reduced calling your mother for emotional support.

[edited for strong language—this—to be heavy-handed—was not my intent]

Baiting 'lefty's' or 'righty's' is fine. Moderation, please. It's the personal stuff, which Has Already Occurred. This Must stop.

* See definition below.

Something all of us should remember:

THE DEATH OF DISCOURSE

By Xymog.

In the past few months there has been a sharp rise in strident, vitriolic message postings here on CHUD. This isn't a new phenomenon on CHUD, or even in cyberspace; the Internet has always had incivility, hatred, and venomous blather rattling around its provinces -- just check any of the old Usenet newsgroups or, if you remember back far enough, bulletin board message systems. You'll find the same people, or at least the same postings with the same tenor, flaming away at every topic under the sun.

I'm sick of it, and I have long since stopped contributing to any of those threads, in part because I know it won't help moderate the tone downwards, and in part because I really don't have the time to engage in the swamp-slinging verbiage that often passes for discourse.

To put it simply, discourse is dead. Don't nod in agreement, thinking how much you miss good discussion; we're all a part of the problem, and we've all helped flatline discourse, myself included. So sit back; this will take a while and you may want to take notes.

First, a definition, just so you know what I mean by discourse. As Mr. Webster puts it:

DISCOURSE
Pronunciation: 'dis-"kOrs, -"kors, dis-'
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : the capacity of orderly thought or procedure : RATIONALITY
2 : verbal interchange of ideas; especially : CONVERSATION
3 a : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence

The implicit concepts to take away from the definition are those of order, thought, and -- to a slightly lesser extent -- the ability to structure the discussion so that it can be understood.

"Just because you can talk, doesn't mean you can think." --CHUD quote of the day.

The blessing of the printing press was that anyone with an opinion could get it published. The curse of the printing press was that anyone with an opinion could get it published. The Internet and especially the message boards have taken this formula and blown it wide open in almost Big Bang fashion. Now anyone can publish anything, from shopping lists to atrocities too painful to read. This ability is free or nearly so, is usually unedited, unmoderated, or uncensored (depending on the venue), and is widely available.

Message boards commonly are the wide-open recipient for postings of any variety because the barrier to posting is practically nonexistent. It is commonly believed by your average Internet surfer that the ability to post automatically confers Great Thinker status -- a fallacy that is right up there with believing that owning a car means you automatically know how to drive. Talking, or in this case posting, does not mean you know how to think; it means you know how to type. Many people confuse the two, so much so that people cross-reference their own blather as evidence of great thinking. So much for discourse as an expression of thought; the first nail is driven into the coffin.

"Just because nobody understands you, doesn't mean you're a genius." --Unknown

Along with the nearly godlike ability of publishing anything far and wide via the Internet (can you imagine what such power would have meant in the Renaissance? the Middle Ages? ancient Babylon?) comes the overweening hubris of the artiste, the auteur, and the critic: "Because I have said it, it is holy!" Thus the prideful poster can say anything -- ANY thing! -- and claim it is the product of rational thought. The corollary is that, if the posting isn't understood, it must be the fault of the reader, not the author.

Read that last paragraph again. Look what it says. No matter how illogical, formless, scattered, disjointed, non sequiturish, specious, or just plain mad a posting may be, it's the fault of the reader, not the poster, for failing to grasp whatever it is that's being discussed! Can you imagine a more egregious display of ego? Yet just try suggesting to the poster that the material is less than logical and you'd think you suggested infanticide.

The problem with the zeppelin-sized ego posters who use this attack is that they never learned or mastered the forms and tools of discussion in the first place. They haven't done any of the following: read the great essayists and editorialists to learn how to persuasively communicate ideas; studied the great philosophers, historians, jurists, or religious thinkers in search of enlightenment or, at the least, to learn what's been discussed before; studied symbolic logic or the scientific method, to understand just what the difference is between an hypothesis and a theory, and why it matters; written a master's or doctoral thesis, a book, an article for a literary magazine, or anything involving pre-publication critique and editing; in short, they lack the ability to adequately (much less persuasively or masterfully) convey an expression of thought or idea. The communication failure lies on the poster, who is not a genius but attempts to claim the mantle of one.

Naturally, when the lack of discursive tools is pointed out, it's rejected flatly: "I don't need to do that; it's elitist crap." "What are you, some kinda pseudointellectual creep?" "Bugger a goat lately?" and so forth. Then the posters go on to use ad hominem arguments, paralogisms, personal attacks, and other niceties that are presented as discourse, and everything goes to hell. Nowhere is there any recognition that the ability to structure and sequence ideas might actually be of some use in the persuasive arts. The second nail is now in the coffin for discourse.

"Because it's old, it's good." "Because it's new, it's better." --Classical debate; author unknown

Finally, the opinions. *Everyone* has opinions. Frequently these are irreconcilable with other people's opinions. That's just the way of the world. But many posters don't see discussion as an exchange of ideas; it's seen as an intensely personal challenge or threat, one that must be exterminated at all costs.

This Sisyphean task is willingly undertaken by an astonishing number of people, most of whom should know better. They seem to miss a key concept behind discourse that's very simple: If you are engaging in discourse, you are merely exchanging business cards; you aren't agreeing to buy anything from the person. It should be a nice, arms-length discussion. A conversation, even.

Yet the war of words usually escalates from discourse to what is often mislabeled "debate" by those attempting to ennoble their postings. Again, a key concept is missed in the rush to start breathing fire at one another: Since the early days of Greece, debate's main purpose hasn't been to convert the opponent to your banner, but to persuade the other listeners to sign up with you and your cause. From high-school debate classes, to the floor of Congress, to the smallest, meanest court in the country, people debate for benefit of the undecideds, the judges, the voters, not for direct intellectual, moral, or spiritual victory over the opponent.

But on message boards this is inverted by those who aren't quite clear on the concept. "Debate" (read: argument) rages in attempts to generate an epiphany in the opponent, and any failure to create this moment of enlightenment immediately sets off a frightening jihad. This pattern should sound familiar because it's played out in so many threads that it would almost be comical if the content wasn't so mean-spirited, spiteful, and even barbaric. Discussion of idea has been lost in the cacaphony of verbal war. The third and final nail has been driven in the coffin.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." --Oscar Wilde

With discourse dead and off to be buried, I find that I just don't have the stomach to wade into the nihilistic mess that's left behind. It's a shame, because there are lots of interesting people with interesting ideas out there. But the boards just aren't the place to have a discussion right now. What's really sad is that newcomers see the flames, the hatred, the hyperinflated self-righteousness. Is it any wonder that posts from the older, more reasoned veterans have dropped off precipitously? It's not likely that everyone became frantically busy all at the same time -- more likely that it just isn't worthwhile to contribute at all right now without incurring flames of wrath.

So because I believe that it's not enough to bitch about a problem unless you're also armed with a proposed solution and the willingness to make it work, I make the following pledge:

When I post I'll work hard to keep the posts thoughtful, not thoughtless; interesting, not inciteful; informative, not ignorant; and helpful, not hateful.

I'd ask that we all try to do the same. It's the least we can do to bring back some civility to the boards; in time, I hope the discourse will return, whispering in our ears, "I'm not quite dead."

--Xymog

<img src="http://www.globeandmail.com/series/cartoon/images/3wededcar.gif" alt="" />

Edtited of irrelevant commentary. You don't have to find the cartoon funny.

Not relevant.

That's it Duke! no more lesbian goat-porn for you.

Yes. And it's not a concern—such posts encourage discussion.

My only real concern is lingering personal baiting. Such as:

"Israel needs withdraw from Gaza and idiots like so-and-so need to realize this."

—when 'so-and-so' is not yet involved in discussion, or has elected not to participate in political debate, for the moment.

That is all.

Aside from feeling the need to address the above issue, I wanted to establish a thread to be bumped, should discourse die. Furthermore, I felt the issue of "liberal" and "conservative" branding should be addressed(see the first post). This isn't a pressing concern, rather, it is concept which—in my opinion—warrants mention in this thread.

Aside from the issue Kronos addressed, I could care less about what goes on. Perhaps I should have made a seperate 'rules' thread, but I did not wish to dwell on the issue, or create clutter.

I do, however, wish raise points which I believe to be relevant in ecouraging good discussion. Such as being clear and respectful. I fealt Xymog's Death of Discourse post was relevant.

I chose to raise the issues now, rather than later, in the event things get nasty. Merely trying to be preventative.

I admit the newspaper articles are confusing—consider them earased. I was a bit ticked at the local rag for putting-out yet another crap issue. Though I feel actively selecting articles is important.

I appreciate your sentiments—I certainly won't be closing threads and such not. Rather, I will utilize the private message function to request that people not bait* individuals. It is, I feel, rather important to the sanity of this forum. There are some significant political rifts on these boards.

The request for respect and clarity was a suggestion. One in the best interests of the forum, I might add. I have no delusions of 'enforcing' things. I do, however, believe it is my responsibility as a moderator to encourage smooth debate. I started the thread—and people should be encouraged to add their own suggestions—for this reason.

Xymog's post was noted as reminder of what we should try and avoid. The thread title, and originating post was to suggest what Sojourner, myself(though it may be hard to see), and others have already pointed out: the partisan approach to every issue—reducing a topic to popular concepts of 'liberal' and 'conservative'—has become a somewhat pervasive problem. Again, I've no delusions of a crusade to end such cul-de-sacs for interchange, but I feel it is my 'position' as moderator to suggest that they may be 'counter-productive'.

In conclusion, I will re-iterate: the only item of offense which I perceive to worthy of pursuit, in the form of personal reminders, is the troll-agenda purveyed by those with a personal vendetta. Such actions, in my opinion, will be the quickest route to the conditions which inspired Xymog to compose his post.

* See definition below.

Personal Baiting: insult, with the intent to goad any particular individual into discussion, for blatant personal reasons, when said individual has elected NOT to participate in a discussion, or does NOT post in this forum.

[In retrospect, I should have been more clear about this.]