A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs »
Posted by: HealthDoctor 1 year, 4 months agoIs it too late to bring civility to the Web?The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 89
-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
Code of conduct? Ha. The "blogosphere" will be a lonely place indeed. Envision a dry, dusty plain with tumbleweeds blowing by. By the way -- someone has GOT to come up with a different term than "blogosphere." Our Guber here in Illinois is named Blogojevich - and he is commonly referred to as "blogo." His shape isn't that spherical so it doesn't apply.
Reply -
0%
Macondo1 year, 4 months ago
Bloging should just follow the basic rules of civilization.
The net is nothing but a new social environment.
In the same way we could meet in a social environment a polite person or a nasty one, intelligent or dumb, we could debate with arguments or in absence of logic some one may use name calling.
The web is composed of the same elements as the rest of society.
Most of the lines of conduct are very personal, linked to factors such as educational level, cultural background, convictions etc.
This portion of the equation can not be legislated.
On the other hand, threats, slander, creation of collective panic etc are already contemplated by international legislation.
The basic rules of the game are already there and we do not need additional interference with our already restricted freedom. :)
Reply-
0%
Fangarius1 year, 4 months ago
Exactly, the problem I feel with blogging is, while it does emphasize the freedom of speech (so per se), it also encourages the delusion if you're anonymous, you can say anything you want without consequence or reprecusions to follow.
Sort of like Jekyll and Hyde, where your innocent person could be a strong-willed, temperamental loudmouth (to put it delicately) and goes round bashing blogs he/she feels strongly for or against.
The real problem is, as with the real world, you have people with opinions, and when those opinions collide, you have to expect some friction along with it. But in fairness, I do agree one should not slam another person for their own perspectives and views.
And as you said, you can't legislate on this factor in general, because then, you end up dealing with ridiculous regulations which devolve into sheer censorship, thus, ironically, defeats the purpose of having a blog in the first place.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
Sort of like the fact that the blogoshphere is a free-for-all environment. In an increasingly corporatized, homogenized, offend-no-one cultural environment, the Net remains the only place for the freest of free expression.
My experience has shown that it's also self-correcting: that the vilest and rudest are usually taken to task by the larger community and, in one way or another, placed beyond the pale. In fact, the Net is a kind of 24/7 Morality Tale, with virtue usually triumphing.
Reply -
0%
Macondo1 year, 4 months ago
The degree of anonymity is a real problem due to the easy way cowards to express feelings they do not dare to manifest person to person.
Guidelines of decency could be produced as far as there is no censorship.
Reply -
-
0%
mossback1 year, 4 months ago
It is only self-correcting within the limits of the group mentality though. If the particular group is politically left or right, those who make comments, even polite comments, that are opposite the group's "position" then the written violence is not self correcting. Witness any story about Rosie O'Donnel -- no logical comment (pro or con) can be written without a spewing of hatred from those who believe opposite. Also, the more emotionally laden the topic -- Bush, Global Warming, the War, Gay/Lesbian or whatever -- the more emotional and violent the responses. I don't the the blogosphere works except for like minded groups.
Reply
-
-
0%
crespi1 year, 4 months ago
Hate-trolls seem to be dwindling.
But after 27 years of abuse from the Ulta-Conservative, Fundamentalist Christian, corporate, or Libertarian Neo-cons, well...
Let's just say Gandhi's methods of peaceful protests wouldn't have worked against the Nazis.
Sometimes one has to learn to fight these people (on some level) just to defend our freedom to discuss, and our constitution.
"Letting bygones be bygones" will merely usher in another fascist administration.
When Republicans are on Book-TV bragging how they program students to disrupt the classroom and their classes to put forward vicious ideological hatred created by a Right-wing think tank, they ARE GETTING TO OUR KIDS.
Hate sources like FoxNews, or Ann Coulter must be isolated and eliminated if one ever expects to experience logical, civil, discourse.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
One point here: Many a classroom NEEDS a little disruption. Sending a kid to school (at any level) and letting some knucklehead stand up in the front to fill their heads full of crap without anyone questioning it is just wrong. If the student asks no questions, it is clear that there is no thinking going on. And you must know, many teachers will teach their opinion as though it were fact. I've seen it personally, haven't you?
Reply -
0%
vidman041 year, 4 months ago
crespi: "Letting bygones be bygones" will merely usher in another fascist administration.
So, on a topic about manners on the net, you choose to expose yourself as a hate-filled leftist, blaming all the ills in the world on the right....same old lame bullsh*t I've come to expect from people like you....
Reply -
0%
Randomman4131 year, 4 months ago
Of course, crespi. The entirety of the right wing is fascist and full of hate. Obviously, everyone who subscribes to even a few of their set of beliefs is trying to destroy freedom and brainwash children.
And your own message is devoid of any hint of prejudice or rash generalization. People, such as yourself, who espouse such ravings against any and all Republicans are most certainly free from any cloud in judgement and hate of any sort.
In case you didn't quite catch it, that was sarcasm. Before you talk about encouraging logical, civil discourse, perhaps you should avoid hatefully politicizing every passing piece of information? When you step down from your 'our party vs. your party all the way no matter what' bandwagon (as so many people these days are wont to do), perhaps you'll see the the Left and Right have their extremists, neither side is as polarized as those extremists might try and make it seem, and each party has valid points and good ideas blocked by a you vs us mindset
Reply -
-
0%
donald511 year, 4 months ago
Pat Buchanon recommending assasination - where is a left equivalent? Reverse polling on McCain on if he had a black baby - where is a left equivalent? Going to war on lies and for what - where is a left equivalent? Problem is there is a far greater percentage of right wing people who believe in these extremes than there are lefties so polarized! But, the right would have you believe they are overwhelmed which is characteristic of their culture of fear and deceit - helps keep them in control until their cover is blown!
Reply
-
-
-
78%
Bonded1 year, 4 months ago
"That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make - believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech. Free speech is enhanced by civility." - Tim O'Reilly
Reply -
0%
Poulenc1 year, 4 months ago
I don't know that free speech is ENHANCED by civility, exactly. Decorum can discourage disruptive emotionality and therefore lead to clearer thinking and easier exchange, but much can be realized in the heat of feeling.
Example: Imus's recent outburst, though repellent, forces us to look, however briefly, at our own attitudes, our own prejudices, and the issue of what is permissible to say in public. I'd sort of rather that he said what he did than not, for those reasons....
Reply-
83%
slate1 year, 4 months ago
Sure you can have outbursts and be civil !!!!
Example:
I can't #%^&* believe that a Moron that makes *&()# and )(*&$^# is allowed to make such a stupid comment.
Versus
I can't believe you are so wrong in your view of the situation! Let me tell you why I think you're wrong.
You have just elevated the discourse from thuggish school yard bully tactics to actually saying something in a manner that the other person may actually want to think about and discuss. When someone on either side of the political spectrum starts or ends their comments with the basest comments so they can sit back in glee waiting for the return negative reaction, it completely reduces their comment to having no value IMO.
Reply
-
-
0%
susanlovesiowa1 year, 4 months ago
The people who cry "censorship" and "don't tamper with our freedom of speech" seem to me to be the ones who want to be free to be vulgar, hateful, abusive and filthy in their thoughts and language. Have they ever heard of respectfully listening to someone else's point of view and--if they wish--disagreeing politely? If you say that 2 2=5, I can disagree nicely with you without personal attacks on you. It's called common decency and good manners . . . something that is sadly lacking in the New Millenium and destined to disappear unless we do something about it.
Reply-
0%
katiecakes1 year, 4 months ago
I agree. However in our society we have been so programed with self esteem and the belief that we can do no wrong that we tend to percieve attacks when people really are just politly disagreeing. Personally I don't really feel attacked untill the name calling starts. Then I do what any mature adult would do when being called names by someone with that immiture mentality. I ignore it. If your being fully honest, we've all gotten angry a time or two and have posted coments that we later regreted, or wished we had put in a slightly different way even if we don't regret the point we made.
Reply -
100%
itsbenj1 year, 4 months ago
why is it so upsetting to people that some part of life be reserved for unrestricted debate? what you're advocating is what the rest of life is already like. why does everything have to be homogenized and toned down? can't people who actually want to have a debate grow just a bit thicker skin?
Reply -
0%
mossback1 year, 4 months ago
Maybe, but when the topic is an emotionally laden one -- like homosexual rights -- then there doesn't seem to be much civility. Suppose I state, as politely as possible, that I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin so egregious that it is specifically called out in scripture as one that leads to damnation the response will not be a polite disagreement on the exact meaning of the Greek and Hebrew verb forms that lead us to translate scripture from the original text into these statements. Instead people will shout (in writing) and scream and carry on with emotion and not logic. Manners and decency, as you suggest, only exist if you have no emotional involvement in the subject matter.
Reply
-
-
0%
elel1 year, 4 months ago
I see nothing productive coming from "hate" speech or type. I don't see a problem with censorship, by expecting people to treat each other in a civil manner. I like to thing we live in civility, and the web should be an extension of that. With any civilization, community, it thrives better with standards. Even here at Netscape, some language is not excepted, is that censorship?
Reply-
-
0%
elel1 year, 4 months ago
I respectfully disagree. My understanding and use of the term "hate speech", which I did use separately, is speech or type that is threatening and/or abusive. Both of which I find unnecessary to use in discussing difference of opinions. I would hope the manner in which I type, reflects the manner of person that I am, which is not hateful, racist or bigoted.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
itsbenj1 year, 4 months ago
nah, that's not what blogs are for. debate over the internet is not supposed to be a big exercise in politeness and blandness. the whole point is for people to be able to have a conversation or argument which is far more honest than an in-person one would be. ****** so-called "civility" is for church and PTA meetings. people should be able to be honest and say what's on their minds on the internet, whether that involves swearing or angry insults or not.
Reply-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
Can't we say what's on our minds on the internet and at the PTA? Is it so hard to make a point without a personal attack or vulgarity?
Reply -
0%
slic11491 year, 4 months ago
I believe that what is really bland is a constant stream of invective instead of a well reasoned arguement. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, even strong disagreement, but it's discouraging to have a discussion interrupted by name calling and insults. Too many times we have allowed the bullies to dictate the discussion. When that happens it serves no good purpose because the discourse ceases to be about ideas and becomes about personalities. If I am upset by a response to one of my posts I simply walk away from the keyboard until I can express myself without anger. These forums are not just about disagreement, they can used as a real town hall so people can begin to understand how others think about the great issues of our time. In a spirited and intelligent discussion of issues I have in fact been able to moderate my views and see things in a different light. If you wish to convince someone you must be convincing. Civility in discussion is always a positive thing.
Reply
-
-
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
The key to understanding this issue is found in the "Christian" claim that they are only being honest when they tell you that as a matter of fact you are inhabited by Satan and will burn in hell for eternity, i.e. "They hate the sin,not the sinner".
However, you will notice that almost everything out of their mouth is an ad hominem (a personal attack - usually repeated from Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson) and it is you, not your soul, they want put to death or thrown in prison for an insane amount of time.
Reply-
0%
katiecakes1 year, 4 months ago
Your right, but to be fair I have seen many Christians called nasty names on this site. Im not saying that their these poor defensless victoms. Im not saying that some of them arn't totaly out of line and rude. Im not even saying that some of them don't have those comments coming. Im just saying I've seen the other side be just as nasty and vindictive.
Reply
-
-
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
27 years is about how long these idiot preacher types have been spewing their bile. People on the other side will scamble to find a reference for their position. Right wing nuts don't ("intelligent design" being the weak exception).
They believe in any nut who claims to be a "Christian" and backs their prejudiced hatred, but can't even consider a scientific theory and evidence. They don't have the capacity to hold two opposing truths in their head at the same time (i.e. yin & yang). It must be black/white or it doesn't even register. They are as blind to truth as a Japanese is to the letters, "l" and "r". They actually cannot hear it.
THIS IS THE SIN I HATE, NOT THE SINNER! FORGIVE THEM FATHER, THEY SIN AGAINST THEIR OWN JESUS AND DO NOT KNOW IT. WE ARE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY ARE IN OUR WHITE HOUSE DESTROYING OUR CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF JESUS! Who's more dangerous? Who are the most dangerous "terrorists"?
Reply -
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
moron - n. 1. very stupid person. 2. adult with mental age of about 8-12.
- Oxford Pocket Dictionary & Thesaurus - American Edition
NOTE: We pay taxes for all our state citizens to go to 12 years of school and, in the end, very few know how to think critically.
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar1 year, 4 months ago
When I read the exchanges above it becomes clear that there are people on BOTH sides of the political divide who know only how to attack anyone whom they perceive as holding a different opinion. In such an atmosphere, which people like yourselves have created, it is futile to expect civil discourse. Left and right, Christian and non-Christian, everyone is "holier than Thou."
Why don't you all give up the pretense, and admit that you come here to fight? There can be no civil discourse among people who are themselves uncivil. After all, this board and the rest of the internet are products of your own creation.
Reply -
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
Resolved: I am holier than Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson combined.
Let the debate begin in a "civil" manner. Please, avoid fallacies of logic, both formal and informal (such as ad hominems). If you should commit such an offense and I point out such offense, please, refrain from calling me a moron because I am an adult with, at least, the mental age of 13:-) therefore, such would not move the debate forward.
ENLIGHTENMENT, AS SCIENCE, IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH!
And, yes! Surely I jest! And yet, I am serious as well. How can that be? How is it possible to be two things in the same place at the same time?
Reply -
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
Are you quoting a moron? If so please include the moron's book title and pubisher for reference...
Reply -
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
It's a joke. It also has a deeper meaning only meant for those swift enough to follow. Swift boaters need not apply since you must be mentally taller than 12 to ride.
(PS - I do realize the only one slower than a swift boater may be John Kerry himself who never seemed to realize how to turn that boat around).
Reply -
-
100%
donald511 year, 4 months ago
Dems tried to do this back under Reagan with the Truth in Telecommunications Act which Reagan vetoed - go figure! Where do you find the most egregious demonstration of uncivility? Only on Faux Fox Facts!
The internet remains a free bastion for the many and isn't it just tough that most of the world just doesn't think like you! Poor, self-righteous, persecuted right!
Reply
-
-
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
Are you calling the kettle white or what? My experience has been exactly the opposite, ad nosseum.
Reply -
0%
curley-zark1 year, 4 months ago
Instead of "ENLIGHTENMENT, AS SCIENCE, IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH"; I should have said:
DEBATE (AND/OR "DISCUSSION") IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH!
...EVEN IF THE DEBATE IS JUST A DISCUSSION WITH ONE'S SELF.
Call it "critical thinking". However, you must actually listen to the other side. If you can't make the other sides argument yourself to yourself, you aren't really listening.
If you don't understand, try to form a specific question, "Huh?" doesn't make your question clear enough.
Reply -
0%
4cprocess1 year, 4 months ago
I would like to state that I do agree with an effort to raise the bar on civility here. I'm a conservative but I have many liberal friends whom I get along quite graciously with even though we disagree on a lot of issues. I my self have some liberal beliefs and it among that common ground that we tend to gravitate to in our conversations. Creating discourse is easy but rising above it takes effort. It's within this effort that real "critical" thinking takes place. Shout if you may and please feel free to express your true feelings. This is positive feedback for the soul but the impunement of another person for self gratification leads us all down that slippery slope.
In God We Trust
Reply
Submitted By:
HealthDoctor
I love to learn, which is why I read across the internet on a variety of topics, especially related to health. Since I'm doing ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
