Why do comment threads deteriorate or degenerate so much on a pundit blog?
What is it I’m missing here?
Example: The Evangelical Outpost does a reasoned post on Pat Tillman, an Army Ranger who was killed while serving overseas. And the comments section runs amok.
Pardon my language, but why does punditcy turn into a pissing contest?
What is in this post or US political posts in general that causes men to verbally debase themselves and others? The foolishness and rage is a form of obscenity to me. (And spare me the cliche about Canadian politeness)
ken,’Drooling fanboys with a Big Mouth and lotsa courage as long as they’re anonymous on the Net, safely out of fist range while they masturbate over all the rest of us.’what? you ahve some serious issues.sorry to dissapoint but i’m 45 with a 9 to 5.
Then why aren’t you acting it?
What is it about politics that causes the loss of reason and civility?
And I have to ask the question again. I’d be pleased if pundits and others took time to answer.
Why is verbal abuse permitted?
I’m speaking to god-bloggers - and I don’t need a free speech lecture.
Would these men speak this way in front of the mothers or fathers, wives or sons and daughters?
Would they mouth off like this at church?
Would they act this way in front of co-workers or the boss?
Do they care they can be read by others from all over the world?
This kind of attitude is what courage and maturity is about. Rev. Mike lost his temper with a couple of Australian bloggers regarding US politics. And this is how he acknowledged his verbal abuse and understanding that how he spoke to others reflected on him, them, his citizenship, and his faith.
The two unsuspecting targets could not have been any more vulnerable to a pre-emptive smackdown. It felt great.
It also was despicable. No one should treat anyone the way I treated Phil and GreenMan in the ensuing commentary, much less one Christian toward another. As a result, I have probably done irreparable damage to my relationship with both of them.
I’ve spent the past two weeks searching my heart for a way to say to these two brothers how much I regret the manner in which I disagreed with them. I ask their forgiveness.
Since that apology, I have not seen Mike speak with rancor or harshness in any comment section. In lively political debate in posts since he has not been disrespectful to others or himself.
Self-restraint speaks very loudly.
If you are a god-blog pundit, tell me why it’s okay that men who claim the name of Jesus Christ can rip each other and others apart on your blogs. Step up and answer anytime gentlemen.
Published 4 years, 2 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
- No related posts
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Hey Bene,
You brought up many of the same thoughts I’ve had all day.
If you are a god-blog pundit, tell me why it’s okay that men who claim the name of Jesus Christ can rip each other and others apart on your blogs.
It’s not. And I hope that it isn’t Christians who are to blame for these type of comments. (To be honest, I couldn’t really say since I have given up reading many of the comments that are posted on my own blog. It’s sad that I don’t even have the stomach to wade thru that nonsense.)
I’m not really sure what to do. I don’t want to take away the comments section. At times I receive feedback or corrections that are invaluable. Up until now, though, I’ve been hesitant to institute too much “editorial control.” But I’m beginning to wonder if I’m not failing in my duties by letting such incivility prevail.
Joe:
I have had angry people comment on my political posts. I refer them to my site policy and give the ‘play nice’ warning. I have to say once I give that, the commenter simmers downs or leaves.
I acknowledge I have lost my temper a few times, and have been quick to apologize.
I don’t see any option as a believer or as a member of a society.
I had a reader threatened by a blogger, and will not permit others or myself being abused here. Interestingly I haven’t had to delete anyone once I’ve given the play nice warning.
Thanks.
In any email correspondence with you and in your posts you are polite, respectful and highly intelligent.
I’ve seen you step into your comments and moderate. Is that what it takes?
I’ve received angry email from a pundit the past few years who has behaved as badly as their commenters. (His comments degenerate faster than yours do!) I’ve also had apologies from pundits that took time to dialogue and clear up misunderstandings. God bless them.
I honesly wonder why your commenters don’t afford you the same courtesy you show others?
Have you noticed many start off well and then get crazy and rude and right off the rails? If they can start off well, they can show self-control all the way through or walk away. They aren’t children.
Anton Hein of Apologetics Index gave me invaluable advice. He gets some scary, rage filled people writing him, and will not tolerate abuse, models respect and set firm boundaries in love.
Regardless of what happens, and regardless of who is right or wrong, we always benefit from taking these kind of situations to Jesus. The Holy Spirit brings peace (See Philippians 4:4-9). Conflict, on the other hand, is not of Him (see James 3:1-18). Our natural inclination is to defend ourselves - or even to go on the attack. But the way of the Spirit is different…
As a “pundit blogger”, I’ve experienced little of the vitriol that you’ve seen on ther political blogs. I wonder whether the bloggers set themselves up for rude comments by taking an outlandish stance or couching their arguments in rude phraseology. Also, many of the political blogs are echo chambers where dissenting voices are unwelcome. This cliquey attitude might lend itself to impolite comments.
When I put together the E-Group blog at BlogsCanada, I purposely recruited political bloggers from as wide a spectrum as I could. The debate gets slightly heated from time to time but seldom, if ever, gets ugly. Of course, we mainly blog on Canadian politics - hardly as emotion-stirring as the Iraq war, the US Patriot Act or the suitability of George W. Bush as leader of the free world.
I have, however, blogged on those topics in my own blog and while dissenting opinions have been expressed in the comments section, they’ve rarely been obnoxious. I think the blogger needs to set the tone. If he/she sees the comments deteriorating, some refereeing would be in order. I can’t help but wonder whether some bloggers tolerate or even encourage rudeness for the sake of spectacle. Links and traffic are the currency of the blogosphere and the sight of a nasty comments war gets people looking and pointing.
I couldn’t agree with you more that the blogger sets the tone.
I like your comment about some blogs being echo chambers where dissenting voices are unwelcome. That is what I get the most email about. Readers get discouraged very quickly when they are trashed or not heard.
As I read E-blog (I like the group aspect) and other Canadian pundits, I know that as we gear into election mode, our rhetoric may get heated in our back and forth. I hope at the end of the day politics won’t over ride respect. I’m not prepared to accept that blogging has to go the way of many use-threads etc.
What good is the currency of blogs (links and traffic) if verbal thuggery takes precedent?
Flaming in comments may ‘enrich’ the blogger in the short term, but in the longer term guilt by association only loses the very people that I think pundits may wish to reach. Spectacles are a dime a dozen and get tiring real quick. Blog on!
Although I get frustrated by the language, tone and general feeling that is used against people who disagree with each other, I also know that I fall into that trap sometimes.
I think though there is a positive side to all this. In the past, some of the people who are now arguing online had no exposure to each other. The technology of blogs, egroups etc has cut down some boundaries of communication and we are now experiencing the birth pains of that. Never before in history has someone like me in Australia had input and interaction on some hot political issues with people in other countries on a daily or even hourly basis. The immediacy of the medium also means that when you are hot and emotional, you can click on “send” too easily.
The world is bitterly divided over the Iraq war. But, I suspect that our technology has added to the division and allowed a forum for the heat to be experienced in a new and sometimes painful ways.
But, despite the pain at times, I think we are involved in something exciting and beneficial.
What becomes apparent really fast is that nobody is learning anything, at least, not about the subject you want to dialogue about.
It’s difficult being torn to shreds in your comments and then told you are ‘allergic’ to legitimate criticism.
It’s kind of like war, actually. Like, I can do anything I want–I can blow your head off with God’s full blessing. Their god is nobody I want to have anything to do with.
You make some important points BD. How we talk to our “enemies” (I use the term loosely!) says much more about our love than how we talk to our friends. But I also agree with Phil - the arguments are the outcome of the exposure that this technology enables. I don’t quite agree that “The immediacy of the medium also means that when you are hot and emotional, you can click on “send” too easily” though. That’s true of the way arguments run when you’re face-to-face, but when you’re sitting at a keyboard? The process of reading & typing ought to enable those natural pauses which allow us to consider our words. Opening your mouth and “putting your foot in it” is one thing. Typing and pressing send is quite different - being unpleasant or offensive in this medium is a choice.
I have a question Phil:
Some of us want to learn, listen to different viewpoints and dialogue, even debate occasionally.
But if you look at most pundit blogs a couple of things come up.
One, not many women or men in are willing to put up with the name calling etc.
It is verbal abuse.
Two, if a pundit writes to bring you around to their point of view and commenters are so willing to mock, what’s the point?
If you read Laura’s thread, she didn’t deserve that, and I’m sorry it happened to her. The hurt is real.
Does the pain of changing ones opinion need to include that kind of harm?
Three, those of us outside the US don’t have to cast a vote in November, so we are ridiculed and dismissed. Why is that ok?
And four, how does this ridicule further one’s faith or the faith of others?
Bene: I guess I just wanted to say - that despite the negative consequences of this meduium, there is much that is positive.
I am certainly not condoning the language or name calling in that thread.
Hi Phil:
True.
There is a great deal that is positive about this medium.
Any thread can get out of hand I think, and oddly it’s often ones we least expect.
It SHOULDN’T be OK. Blessed are the peace-MAKERS.
Now, good old-fashioned heated debate…that’s different!