An interesting discussion about civility and meaning of the political blogosphere has popped up at Dodos’ site. The American blogosphere tends to take much of the credit for rank hostility and vile flaming, but it’s easy to find here at home in Canada too. From the obvious examples of Small Dead Animals and Canadian Cynic, down to the gender [rights] opposites at Big Blue Wave and Bread N Roses, no zinger is too cruel to use, and no talking point too stale to reword. It really can leave you longing for the relative civility of John Gormley, mild personality of Charles Adler, rationality of Bill O’Idiot, patience of Al Franken, or temperance of Glenn Beck. And yes, I am joking about those adjectives, and of the longing for them.
Is it any wonder that most bloggers apparently would rather read about knitting and fashion/art? The bulk of the most popular Canadian political blogs are steeped in some pretty serious conflict. Is it more due to people trying to make entertaining blogs, or are people online just itching for fights? Do most political bloggers see their blogs as shaping or informing public opinion?
I don’t know if I’m as despondent as Peter comes across in his State of the Blogosphere. However, I am prepared to take up cat blogging to raise the blogging bar a notch if things continue to devolve around Canada. I could easily give up discussions where my debate opponents call David Suzuki “fruit fly doctor“, and they argue for continued pollution, because China’s going to do it anyway.
==
In another thought…
Bureaucracy is a system where the people in charge of making decisions, don’t actually do the work involved in implementation. This system decreases the likelihood of timely (or any) action on a problem, because a motivated individual is frustrated and delayed by encountering a lazy or oppositional person in a complimentary role. In fact, the other person involved in deciding if/how the work is to be done, doesn’t have to be lazy or contrary to hold up the work. The simple act of the worker being required to ask for permission (or the boss asking for work to be done), slows the completion of the task by enormous stretches of time. An individual, with autonomy, would complete the task in a more efficient manner.
Lesson: Don’t ask your kids to do the dishes, do them yourself to be more efficient :-) There’s no need to create red tape in the kitchen.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Ethan | 12-Feb-08 at 9:57 am | Permalink
But but….without arguments…how would we have any fun? Erm…uhh…you’re are teh suxorz Saskboy. Take that!
Cheers
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 11:10 am | Permalink
Why, we’d just have to be more creative, that’s all.
You have a good day too Ethan :-D
Sandy | 12-Feb-08 at 11:26 am | Permalink
Saskboy — I agree absolutely. When you have a debate with someone in person, and you disagree with them, do you scream and yell at them and call them names? Hardly. They’d walk away pretty quickly.
So, it’s amazing that bloggers actually think that calling you names or belittling you is clever, or “fun” and that it is just a difference of opinion. That behaviour is not a difference of opinion.
I agree, the blogoshere would be a much better place to meet without the type of behaviour you say “sucks.”
Have a really good day!
Robert McClelland | 12-Feb-08 at 11:29 am | Permalink
From the obvious examples of Small Dead Animals and Canadian Cynic, down to the gender opposites at Big Blue Wave and Bread N Roses
Nice try, but the occasional incivility of bloggers like CC and BnR is mostly in response to the ugliness spewed from the likes of Kate and Suzanne on a daily basis. There is no reasonable basis for claiming that the left and right are equally to blame on this issue. Furthermore, bloggers on the left quite often write meaningful posts about subjects that matter. By comparison, you’d be hard pressed to find a post by a rightwing blogger on any given day that did anything other than spew hate and lies at one of their “enemies”.
Kuri | 12-Feb-08 at 11:31 am | Permalink
I like reading about knitting because I like it just as much as I like politics, including drama where justified. Believe it or not, some people like knitting blogs not just as a reaction against political “incivility” but also because it’s an interesting hobby.
Same with fashion or art. It’s not a zero-sum game.
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 11:52 am | Permalink
The grapes, they are so sour.
rabbit | 12-Feb-08 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
RM:
the occasional incivility of bloggers like CC
Nearly spewed coffee on that one. CC has “incivility” down to a fine art form. He is the uncontested champion on the Canadian blogosphere when it comes to virtriol. No one can use words like wanker, tard, and of course the “hard C” word like him. I can only stand in awe of his mastery of sarcasm and the vindictive.
CC’s entire MO is to provoke and outrage. “The occasional incivlity” RM?
Wow - I mean - wow.
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
The problem is that CC is dealing and the rest of us are dealing with an onslaught of vomitrocious glurge and dreck, often politely delivered, to which there is almost no worthwhile response than the smackdown. If Saskboy doesn’t like it, he can come up with creative and interesting contortionist positions for our entertainment.
Civility, shmivility. Saskboy has been nursing a grudge, that’s all this is.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
I didn’t mean to say it was Kuri.
““The occasional incivlity””
I know what you mean Rabbit. I wasn’t drinking anything at the time, but milk shot out of my nose when I read that, that’s how funny that claim is. The justification of the incivility is beside the point I was making. Of course CC is reality based, while those he and his team attack are generally based in spin and lies. But his shtick is to use dehumanizing terms in a way that entertains people who look for cursing on the web. It’s not everyones’ cup of tea (sometimes not even mine).
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
“Saskboy has been nursing a grudge,”
Praytell, what be that may?
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
I dunno, you tell me why you have this thing for BNR.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
I’m asking you to define whatever “thing” you think I have, before I can possibly tell you if I have “it” or not.
Saskatchewan Politics - Dear Blogosphere, You Suck. Sincerely, Us | Saskapedia | 12-Feb-08 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
[...] Dear Blogosphere, You Suck. Sincerely, Us An interesting discussion about civility and meaning of the political blogosphere has popped up at Dodos’ site. The American blogosphere tends to take much of the credit for rank hostility and vile flaming, but it’s easy to find here at home in Canada too. From the obvious examples of Small Dead Animals and Canadian Cynic, down to the gender opposites at Big Blue Wave and Bread N Roses, no zinger is too cruel to use, and no talking point too stale to reword. It really can leave you longing for [...]
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
If you can define for me what “is” is.
Come on, don’t play these games, it’s unbecoming of a such a fine upstanding civil chap.
Ian H. | 12-Feb-08 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Have you never seen this theory? It explains everything…
rabbit | 12-Feb-08 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
Ian:
That is downright profound in its elegance.
As I’ve mentioned in Dodo’s blog, there are some blogs that have a moderation system where common users get to vote on the quality of the postings. Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) is one of the them.
Bloggers who get poor ratings soon acquire bad karma, and effectively become invisible on the blog. It’s the only really effective method I’ve seen for circumventing the equation you just showed.
I don’t know if it would work on political blogs or not. Too much chance, I think, of people putting partisanship over quality when voting.
Robert McClelland | 12-Feb-08 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
He is the uncontested champion on the Canadian blogosphere when it comes to virtriol. No one can use words like wanker, tard, and of course the “hard C” word like him.
Like I said, look at where it’s directed. CC’s vitriol is directed at the hatemongers. He doesn’t go after targets who don’t deserve it. When it comes to the right whingers on the other hand, going after targets who don’t deserve it is one of their core values.
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
Slashdot’s comments section is usually extremely tedious and IQ-reducing, and often quite interesting stuff is voted down.
The Daily Kos uses such a system. Naturally, what happens is a bland sea of political conformity, just as its owner likes it. But hey, it’s civil. So very civil.
rabbit | 12-Feb-08 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
RM:
Maybe, maybe not. But what on earth drove you to use phrases like “the occasional incivility”?
That represents a massive rupture of the mind-reality interface.
Lynnh | 12-Feb-08 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
In many ways this is how people relate to each other (or would like to) in real life. In some work places crass language, insults and off color humor are standard fare. In other cases it may be more “nuanced” but the effect and meaning is the same. It all depends on where you work and who you work with.
I had the opportunity to work for many years in a job where I was able to interact regularly with both tradesmen/laborer’s and management/engineers and sometimes act as a go between. Transmitting dialog between the two groups was similar to translating foreign languages. But in essence, beyond the actual word choices, they each were just as confrontational.
The blogs and bloggers separate styles is much the same. If you can get past the words and search for the meaning, most have valid points. Yes, sometimes there is also pettiness and personality clashes but that too is just a reflection of “real world” interactions.
The exception is HR and professional student types, who are so insulated that they have very little concept of real world interactions.
rabbit | 12-Feb-08 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
BNR:
I find slashdot’s comments considerably higher quality than that of the typical Canadian political blog.
There’s only so much of “you’re a tard”, “you’re another one” that I can stand - even when I’m the one saying it.
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
You mean you don’t get bored by the repetitious circling around of what RMS said in contrast to the wise words of Lessig and …
*yawn*
Robert McClelland | 12-Feb-08 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
There’s only so much of “you’re a tard”, “you’re another one” that I can stand
So don’t read those blogs. CC’s style of blogging is the exception, not the rule on the leftwing side of the blogosphere.
Prole | 12-Feb-08 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
I don’t remember the rule where anyone was forced to read blogs they don’t like.
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
I made the rule with my awesome rule-making powers, don’t you remember?
Bell Northern Research | 12-Feb-08 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Oooh, spambotted!
anne cameron | 12-Feb-08 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
This “boy” has a mean on for B’n'R. Probably because it’s a site where feminists congregate for discussion, for analysis and for jokes. Many jokes, many laughs. And, since feminists are supposed to be humourless, the “boy” has become paranoid and seems to have decided the jokes are really code for infernal machinations aimed at him. He fears the feminist hit squad is going to hitch-hike to Saskabush, hunt him down and deprive him of his testicles, spectacles, watch and wallet.
Relax, boy, feminists have no intention of any such thing. Feminists hardly even bother to notice you. Mostly we prefer to deal with men, not small men, half men, or fractions of men.
We have, as the saying goes, bigger fish to fry.
And you can pout as much as you want, it’s okay, but you’re on your own, we won’t salve your wounded ego and we won’t show up with a band-aid featuring Dora the Explorer and use it to tape your typing finger to your thumb.
We won’t even make you take your thumb out of your bum.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
“Transmitting dialog between the two groups was similar to translating foreign languages. But in essence, beyond the actual word choices, they each were just as confrontational.”
And that’s a fair point, because as vile as CC is in prose, his heart and head is usually in the right place. The vitriol is due in large extent to the contempt many of us hold for the “other side” in a debate, be it the person or the ideas. Anne for instance clearly despises me as a person, even though our ideas regarding gender equality line up better than she might think. The inexperienced web-reader can very well be horrified by some of the content, but it takes a translator to point out that even though the words are harsher online, in most cases it’s simply due to the “when in Rome” effect. When in Rome, cuss and debate like a local or you stick out like a sore thumb (in bum or otherwise).
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
“If you can define for me what “is” is.
Come on, don’t play these games, it’s unbecoming of a such a fine upstanding civil chap.”
I’m not playing a game, you’re being vague intentionally, and I’m calling you on it.
==
Robert and Prole are right, no one forces one to read a blog they don’t like. I realized this (again) after Kate (SDA) made a mockery of the poem “In Flanders Field” for a political point, so I stopped going there entirely for several months (and only recently went back to get the other [sad] side of the most recent gaff she made). It’s harder to do something like that when you know bad things are there to debate against, because it can feel like you’re ignoring a problem. It’s easier to stay away from something if you’ve never heard of it before.
==
I find Slashdot’s comment system to be among my favourites. Years ago the trolls were probably the best anywhere on the web, not because they were mean, but because they were witty (if a little repetitive). I’ve considered implementing comment Karma for Wordpress, but really it’s not useful for 95% of the Canadian political blogs out there, because we don’t get 50+ comments for a given topic. I’d prefer my commenters club me or others with facts anyway, than a “thumbs down” button.
skdadl | 12-Feb-08 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Oh, my. Passive aggression from a subliterate (what on earth does “gender opposites at Big Blue Wave and Bread N Roses” mean?) resentful young male. That’s such a new experience for most women. Not.
Saskboy, BnR is not a blog; it’s a discussion board. And there are at least two dozen entirely civil and highly literate women who post there regularly and who, as you know, can and do write circles around you every day. Learn your limits, young man.
Like Anne, I prefer my men full grown, if you know what I mean. We have a number of them at BnR. I also blog with a bunch of them. I can’t speak for any of them, of course (and wouldn’t dare), but I seriously doubt you’ve made yourself any new friends among them with this petty, personal, and nasty attack on others.
You made a mistake. Admit it. And please stop snivelling. You’re messing up my monitor.
Marky Mark | 12-Feb-08 at 2:08 pm | Permalink
Well I started with comments on political blogs with a few political posts of my own, but have switched to mainly a running blog. Much more satisfying. Meanwhile I had an unpleasant back and forth with a blogger some time ago that I deeply regret–it could never have occurred in person. In fact we have now met and I have nothing but respect and admiration for that blogger.
Yes, blogs can be fun (and addictive), but they’re no substitute for reasoned debate with real people.
April Reign | 12-Feb-08 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Me. I’m tired of the poke…poke..poke ….swat…Waaaa they hurted me crap.
And for the record BnR is a board, not a blog. There is a difference.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
“subliterate, resentful young male… write circles around you every day. young man. I prefer my men full grown… this petty, personal, and nasty attack on others.”
The irony, it burns.
I didn’t “attack” BnR (or CC, SDA, BBWave for that matter), I simply pointed out how you’re collectively not civil in debate, and that BnR members are are gender RIGHTS (sorry I left that word out, my bad) opposites to BBWave.
Blog-schmog, BnR members are a force in the blogosphere whether you deny it or not by claiming discussion board amnesty as if it excuses you. You don’t have to justify your tactics to me or anyone, but some of you are coming across as a touch defensive, aren’t you?
Robert McClelland | 12-Feb-08 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
The vitriol is due in large extent to the contempt many of us hold for the “other side” in a debate
Oh dear. This is turning into “Let’s Educate Saskboy” day.
A pox on you April Reign for the contempt you harbour against the other side in the debate. That you’re unable to set aside your vitriol for one second upon hearing of the complications with Suzanne’s pregnancy proves! Saskboy’s point.
Seriously thought, Saskboy. Aaron Lee Wudrick and I are engaged in a very polite discussion about the motion to extend the Afghan mission. I harbour no contempt for his difference of opinion and I don’t see that he harbour’s any contempt for mine. Besides, with the current market price of contempt I wisely save mine only for the contemptible. People like KKKate for instance.
Robert McClelland | 12-Feb-08 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
I didn’t “attack” BnR (or CC,
I beg to differ. You unfairly accused BnR of being just as bad as BBW and CC of being just as bad as SDA.
skdadl | 12-Feb-08 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Saskboy, if I started out a post on cyber-civility at POGGE by dissing several of our fellow Canadian bloggers by name, I suspect that pogge hisself (yes, Virginia: there really is a pogge) would fire me, or at least he’d call me into the corner office for a serious little chat.
We just don’t do that sort of thing. You did. You wear it. There ain’t no irony there.
Out of the blue, you open an incivil discussion about … how incivil other bloggers are? Hey, chick: there’s the irony.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
(I did write this post before I learned of Suzanne’s unfortunate health setback, which is beside the point of all this anyway.) Thank you for linking there, because it is interesting isn’t it, that apparently bitter political enemies can manage to act like kind human beings to each other, even on the Internet? I haven’t been to a blogger gathering in “real life” where it’s ever come to blows (and I’d hope it never would).
“Aaron Lee Wudrick and I are engaged in a very polite discussion about the motion to extend the Afghan mission. I harbour no contempt for his difference of opinion[...] I wisely save mine only for the contemptible.”
Ah, but the “contemptible”, are they defined by their treatment of others, or their political views, or a combination? Because BnR, CC, and famous for their treatment of others through unkind words, while BBW and SDA are through their political views (and words in SDA’s case).
“You unfairly accused BnR of being just as bad as BBW and CC of being just as bad as SDA.”
It may have seemed that way, but I was trying to be fair in including the extremes of both sides of the political blogosphere (if it has sides, that is). I personally don’t think CC is politically vile or destructive like SDA tends to be, and I don’t think BnR erodes womens’ liberties like BBW tries to do, yet their respective members/bloggers largely tend to favour point-scoring over human feelings.
It’s been pointed out already that a lot of hyperbole is used, and that distorts the view people have of the heated “debates” on blogs. It’s an excellent point, and the kind words left for Suzanne certainly emphasizes that the blogosphere is not lacking people who value humanity (and the comments certainly raised my opinions of some of the BnR members, too).
matttbastard | 12-Feb-08 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
Somebody called?
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
“We just don’t do that sort of thing. [...]
Out of the blue, you open an incivil discussion about … how incivil other bloggers are?”
No, it wasn’t out of the blue, it was in reference to, and building on the thought started at Dodos’ blog (RTFA, is what I’d say for added irony).
Exactly what point did I make in my post, that was uncivilized? I’m trying to engage discussion to have people evaluate if their various blogging styles (civil or not) achieve what they set out to do, or if they create unintended consequences.
And as if his ears are burning, as I write this, Mr. Civil, Mattt stops by.
Prole | 12-Feb-08 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
“Exactly what point did I make in my post, that was uncivil? I’m trying to engage discussion to have people evaluate if their various blogging styles (civil or not) achieve what they set out to do, or if they create unintended consequences.”
Why are you always so concerned with other people’s blogging?
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Because I find blogging to be very interesting. If I was only concerned with my own blogging, I do believe that would be problematic, especially when it comes to interacting with different and various people.
matttbastard | 12-Feb-08 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
Mr. Civil–I love that. Is positively dripping with irony (on several levels).
:-)
Give it up, Sask–coyly feigning innocence doesn’t become you. In less *ahem* civil environs, this post (and the one that originally inspired it) would have been troll-rated–and with good reason. In other words, why don’t you worry about the stench of what you’reshoveling (keep digging, motes and planks, etc) and let us mean, narsty BnRs deal with our own shit, m’kay?
Gigi | 12-Feb-08 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
“Why are you always so concerned with other people’s blogging?”
Because until he references them, no one pays any attention to him.
Jackass.
(And yes, I call people that to their faces, and much, MUCH worse.)
skdadl | 12-Feb-08 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
Usage lesson for the day:
Uncivilized; but incivility — thus, incivil.
You’re welcome.
Prole | 12-Feb-08 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
You seem to want to impose rules on political bloggers.
LuLu | 12-Feb-08 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
You keep comparing us (CC, PSA and your truly) with KKKate and her flying monkeys at SDA. And no, I don’t care if that’s not civil - she’s earned so she can wear it. That’s CC’s biggest problem with your post and mine and I’m sure PSA’s as well. So we swear - a lot - big fat fucking deal. I’ll take honest pottymouths over “civil” hatemongers any day because the last time I checked, none of us were trying to score points using a purported Holocaust survivor as “prank” fodder.
So your comparison sucks - try again.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Thanks Skdadl, I fixed it.
==
“Because until he references them, no one pays any attention to him.”
I do enjoy it when I have more comments to read than I typically get in a day, but I also enjoy blogging more when the intent of my readers/commenters isn’t to insult me. That is not typically the case when I get a visit due to a link from CC, SDA, and BnR to name a few sites (but not BBW for some reason).
Gigi incidentally makes a good [and probably unintentional] point about how the blogosphere works, and why SDA and CC for instance are so well read. They both make links to places they strongly disagree with politically. Knowing how to use ‘incivility’ and ‘uncivilized’ in sentences without a tip from Skdadl also helps to attract their large readerships.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
“You seem to want to impose rules on political bloggers.”
No, I don’t. That would be stupid. What gave you that idea?
==
“So we swear - a lot - big fat fucking deal. I’ll take honest pottymouths over “civil” hatemongers any day”.
Me too. That is, I’d take an honest pooptalker over a sly hatemonger anyday. I’ve never said otherwise LuLu. Mr. Defensive, CC, seems to have misinterpreted my comparison of incivility and anger expressed on their respective blogs, into saying he and Kate are one in the same. They are not.
Prole | 12-Feb-08 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
I dunno, Saskboy, maybe I got that idea because of your continuous complaining about civility, tactics, and the devolution of the political blogosphere in Canada. You’ve called out other bloggers by name, and now you’re sounding suspiciously like Raphael Alexander, and by that I mean you write things, people react and respond (angrily sometimes, because whether you like it or not, what you wrote can be perceived as insulting), and then you backpedal and say “that’s not what I meant” or “I didn’t say that”. Maybe you are the one who should be navel gazing about why you blog, your blogging style, and the potential unintended consequences, rather than trying to chide others into doing that.
skdadl | 12-Feb-08 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
They both make links to places they strongly disagree with politically.
I guess that’s why the sites I live at are so unlike SDA, although I should say that all my best friends love us some CC.
Most of us have been around the block, or the mulberry tree, too many times to waste time running through first principles over and over again every morning. The world is full of people who are racing ahead with serious thoughts, and they’re not doing it by arguing with SDA.
Anyone who has been watching corrupt Beltway culture over the last few years recognizes the bogus argument you’re making here, Saskboy. How long before you drop a “bipartisan” on us?
When democracy is at stake, people with brains and good hearts argue from principle. You enjoy playing silly contrarian games for their own sake — any principle is up for grabs. That’s a cute boy’s game, and I think I’ll leave you to it. Me, I have bigger fish to fry.
Ian H. | 12-Feb-08 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
Intelligent people disagree all the time. In real life, they tend to be more or less polite about it, because there are real-world consequences if they are not. I think what Saskboy’s trying to say is that the tone of blogosphere (forum/bb/whatever) discussion is in general less civil than the real world counterpart discussion. And that raises a number of interesting questions, first and foremost of which is: why?
skdadl | 12-Feb-08 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
Ian H., why should I concede your point? You begin with the presumption that online discussions are incivil, and Saskboy has dissed some in particular and by name.
Have you read what I write at POGGE? Does that look to you anything like as rude as Saskboy’s opening post here today?
Have you read BnR? Most of the time, we’re known as the huggy-bear women’s forum, lots of dancing bunnies and group support. Guys in need of constant ego-reinforcement don’t come anywhere near us because, y’know, women who hug each other in one thread, live-blog Senate hearings in another, and then talk about Dostoevsky in a third are hardly intellectually respectable, right? I mean, what red-blooded male would be up for that?
You’d be surprised. Clearly.
anon | 12-Feb-08 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
Personally, I gave up having any reasonable discussion on any political blogs. There is no debate going on; it’s a pointless echo chamber. Following that, recognition, I decided I’d opt instead for the cathartic release that comes with wild-eyed rhetorical flaming. If we can’t have a reasonable debate, I’d rather just destroy the medium.
sheena | 12-Feb-08 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Hey! Screw those goddamn cocksucking knitters already! Cheese and shoes is where it’s at, man!
sheena | 12-Feb-08 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
BOOYAH!
Those knitter got it coming, man.
Aurelia | 12-Feb-08 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
I’m really not sure why this thread has deteriorated Saskboy, but I like the original intent of your post, and although you have linked to another blog, I suspect that some of this was inspired by my comment the other day. I hope you’re okay!
Yes, to all the commenters above, there is a whole other blogosphere out there, people who write about many many other topics and some *gasp* have more readers and commenters than the bloggers mentioned by Saskboy. That isn’t a value judgement on the sites he mentioned by the way, I read blogs on many different subjects, as most people do. Even though I am very political in real life, and enjoy nothing more than a good e-day brawl, I too am pretty floored by the comments that get made on Liblogs and the Blogging Tories, and not just because of the vitriol, but because of the inaccuracies.
I’ve read blogposts where people didn’t even read the article in question and knew absolutely nothing about the subject but still commented merrily away, sounding like total asses, and no one corrects them, not even the blog owner! That’s a flaw people, one that tears down the credibility of political bloggers everywhere. Especially among readers, who roll their eyes and click away never to return.
You certainly couldn’t get away with stuff like that on a craft blog. You’d get a knit one, purl two shoved up your ass in a nanosecond.
Gigi | 12-Feb-08 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
I kinda wish “real life” worked the way some people seem to think.
It would be way fucking cool if everyone I called “jackass” went away and never returned.
Unfortunately, people are just as neurotic and approval-seeking IRL as they are online.
Saskboy | 12-Feb-08 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
Sandy, I didn’t miss your comment if you were wondering. Thanks for injecting your two cents.
==
Sheena, take it easy on the knitters, they do have needles, and know how to use them, after all. The world would be a better place if there were more knitters. Instead of teaching people to smoke in hospital, imagine the sweaters we’d have today, if they’d taught more knitting?
==
“I’m really not sure why this thread has deteriorated Saskboy.”
I do, it’s called “past history” with some of the commenters here. After all, you don’t think Skdadl could be so condescending, or Gigi so rude in their FIRST discussion with me, then claim in all seriousness that I have no business saying there is rampant incivility in the blogosphere, do you? ;-)
==
Prole:
“You’ve called out other bloggers by name, and now you’re sounding suspiciously like Raphael Alexander, and by that I mean you write things, people react and respond (angrily sometimes, because whether you like it or not, what you wrote can be perceived as insulting), and then you backpedal and say “that’s not what I meant” or “I didn’t say that”.”
So when someone misinterprets me, I shouldn’t correct them, or my grammar error, and just pretend that they know what I meant better than I do? Gotcha, I’ll get right on that. No wonder our governments are paralyzed. If they correct a mistake or clarify something they are taken to the woodshed, because they “backpedaled”. It’s better to continue with the mistake because the reader is always right?
“Maybe you are the one who should be navel gazing about why you blog, your blogging style, and the potential unintended consequences, rather than trying to chide others into doing that.”
I didn’t start out by chiding chiding anyone, at least I thought it was pretty obviously going to be taken as hyperbole, but apparently I hit some nerves deeper than I ever intended. I’m still a little shocked that CC could actually be so sensitive to not laugh at the suggestion that he has incivility in common with his arch online-nemesis. Someone who swears as much as he does, shouldn’t blush if I mention it.
EDIT: I also have navel gazed about the result of this thread, (and I always reevaluate why I blog). I assume you do the same kind of stock-taking Prole?
Ian H. | 12-Feb-08 at 11:53 pm | Permalink
[...]why should I concede your point? You begin with the presumption that online discussions are incivil[...]
I’ve been blogging politics (among other subjects) for close to six years. I have never had a discussion offline that gets as heated as online discussions get with regularity. I don’t see that my point requires any particular leap of faith.
Ian H. | 12-Feb-08 at 11:59 pm | Permalink
BTW,
Usage lesson for the day:
Uncivilized; but incivility — thus, incivil.
You’re welcome.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incivility
incivility - the quality or state of being uncivil
Saskboy | 13-Feb-08 at 12:07 am | Permalink
“I think what Saskboy’s trying to say is that the tone of blogosphere (forum/bb/whatever) discussion is in general less civil than the real world counterpart discussion. And that raises a number of interesting questions, first and foremost of which is: why?”
Ian, I’m glad a few people like you are taking my questions at face value, instead of attributing malice to them. Although since this is a blog instead of one of those magical happy places where there are only great thinkers like a “discussion board”, I fear I may not get a number of interesting theories that don’t postulate that I am a poop head.
==
On an unrelated note, it’s long threads like this that make me yearn for a perfectly working comment paging system. One that actually jumps to the correct comment anchor link after the thread pages at 16 comments. Sorry about the difficulty reading, I tend to click the All button then hit the End key on the keyboard to jump back to the latest stuff, quickly.
Patrick Ross | 13-Feb-08 at 12:44 am | Permalink
So far as Canadian Cynic is concerned, all I have to say is this: truth hurts. Get a fuckin’ helmet.
Saskboy | 13-Feb-08 at 12:57 am | Permalink
That’s the thing though, the “truth” is obviously CC is known for flaming, and flaming commenters and blog partners. SDA is known for the same (commenters who flame at the drop of a hat). To point out that commonality between them shouldn’t hurt, it’s just a random observation about two completely different bloggers who happen to both be popular in part due to the nastiness in their posts, or in their comment threads left by other bloggers (such as yourself, I might add, Patrick).
RobertJago | 13-Feb-08 at 1:56 am | Permalink
Do you know what it is that makes a blogger uncivil? The commenters. The commenters can steer you as a blogger away from rationality and civility. You get a few fans every now and then - and if they happen to lean a certain way, you start playing to them. You play to them by moving your posts more in their direction, they link to you and you get heaps more traffic. There’s an incentive, a positive reinforcement mechanism in the blogosphere for people to pull to the far left or far right.
I was tempted by that ages ago, but after a while I realized that`s not really me. I don`t want to put on an act on the blog, I`d rather be myself and save the effort.
I’m not saying I’m civil all the time, but seriously if you met in person, you’d wish I was as civil as I am on the blog.
As for ‘CC’ and people like that - you want to make them more civil? Find their names and publish them. He’s a bloody coward to threaten and libel people and hide behind an alias. But it’s easier to be a ‘tough guy’ that way isn’t it?
Robert McClelland | 13-Feb-08 at 8:13 am | Permalink
Ah, but the “contemptible”, are they defined by their treatment of others, or their political views, or a combination? Because BnR, CC, and famous for their treatment of others through unkind words, while BBW and SDA are through their political views (and words in SDA’s case).
They’re contemptible because of their treatment of people who are undeserving of such treatment or because of their bigoted views.
rabbit | 13-Feb-08 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Ian:
No question that things are vastly less civil (thus avoiding the incivil versus uncivil debate) in blogs than anywhere else except driving in rush hour traffic.
If someone behaved in a corporation the way many people behave in blogs, they would be out on their ass in an instant. If people insulted people in bars the way they do in blogs, there would teeth and blood on the floor.
Bell Northern Research | 13-Feb-08 at 10:44 am | Permalink
“If someone behaved in a corporation the way many people behave in blogs, they would be out on their ass in an instant.”
That’s a plus point for blogs, not corporations. Spare us your pearl-clutching.
Bell Northern Research | 13-Feb-08 at 10:59 am | Permalink
“As for ‘CC’ and people like that - you want to make them more civil? Find their names and publish them. He’s a bloody coward to threaten and libel people and hide behind an alias. But it’s easier to be a ‘tough guy’ that way isn’t it?”
Dude has (rightly) laudatory posts on his blog about an anonymous protest and is complaining about CC’s pseudonym.
Saskboy | 13-Feb-08 at 11:21 am | Permalink
I don’t agree with outing bloggers, so long as they aren’t using sock puppets.
Ian H. | 13-Feb-08 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
That’s a plus point for blogs, not corporations. Spare us your pearl-clutching.
You’d honestly prefer that all real-world interaction happened on the level of discourse that typifies the average political blog?
Pages tagged "the wonder stuff" | 13-Feb-08 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
[...] bookmarks tagged the wonder stuff Dear Blogosphere, You Suck. Sincerely, Us saved by 1 others maddogza bookmarked on 02/13/08 | [...]
Bell Northern Research | 13-Feb-08 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
“You’d honestly prefer that all real-world interaction happened on the level of discourse that typifies the average political blog?”
I’d prefer that all real-world interaction not happen in the environment of wage-slave coercion that is the modern corporation, civility or no civility.
Dave R | 13-Feb-08 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
What I find interesting is that you could have a similar post from a conservative blogger, and you’d get all sorts of defensive arguments like we’re seeing here, but just the mirror image. Oh, the left is so awful, with their lies and character assassination, we have no choice but to be uncivil (or is it incivil?). The blogger would, of course, be accused of falsely equating the two sides, might even get called a concern troll.
As a non-blogger, but a reader, I just think it’s funny how there is almost no ability from either side* to consider, just for a moment, that they may be wrong. I think that’s where the lack of civility comes from.
*obviously there are some partisans who are an exception. Too few, I think though.
Patrick Ross | 13-Feb-08 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
“That’s the thing though, the “truth” is obviously CC is known for flaming, and flaming commenters and blog partners. SDA is known for the same (commenters who flame at the drop of a hat). To point out that commonality between them shouldn’t hurt, it’s just a random observation about two completely different bloggers who happen to both be popular in part due to the nastiness in their posts, or in their comment threads left by other bloggers (such as yourself, I might add, Patrick).”
I actually take no offense to that. I’m not trying to ply my trade as a blogger by being a nice guy. I take a certain pride in making the lives of select bad people completely miserable.
RobertJago | 13-Feb-08 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
I don’t think all bloggers should be outed, just those who commit libel by calling other bloggers pedophiles.
As for saying ‘out people’ one minute, and saying ‘hurrah anonymous anti-Scientology people’ the other minute - that’s called being a hypocrite. Everyone does it.
Patrick Ross | 13-Feb-08 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
“I don’t agree with outing bloggers, so long as they aren’t using sock puppets.”
I disagree with you on this one.
Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that every blogger should be outed. I’ve stumbled upon — mostly, purely by accident — the identities of various other bloggers which will remain secret.
The reason for this is actually fairly simple: because those people are good people who use their anonymity for entirely benign purposes. There is no reason in the world why they shouldn’t be allowed to continue to do so. They’re good people.
Now Cynic, on the other hand, uses his anonymity for malignant reasons. And personally, I see no reason to leave a weapon in the hands of a bully. Cynic’s modus operandi seems to be “I’m anonymous, no one can hurt me back, so I’m going attack and hurt people because I enjoy it.”
Given the opportunity, I’ll put a stop to that by taking his precious anonymity away from him.
rabbit | 13-Feb-08 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
Dave R:
I second that motion. There should always be, in the back of your mind, the notion that no matter how certain you are that there’s a possibility you might be wrong.
This does not mean that you don’t argue your views vigorously, but rather that you allow the other side a modicum of respect.
Given the above postings, I fully expect this opinion to be unmercifully slammed.
Bell Northern Research | 13-Feb-08 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Now Cynic, on the other hand, uses his anonymity for malignant reasons. And personally, I see no reason to leave a weapon in the hands of a bully. Cynic’s modus operandi seems to be “I’m anonymous, no one can hurt me back, so I’m going attack and hurt people because I enjoy it.”
Given the opportunity, I’ll put a stop to that by taking his precious anonymity away from him.
I, for one, don’t mind you playing judge or jury, as long you don’t play executioner.
There is never any justification for outing, except maybe self-trolling but that’s just funny.
This does not mean that you don’t argue your views vigorously, but rather that you allow the other side a modicum of respect.
See, it’s this “respect” whose relevance I don’t see. We are not at a tea party. We are not talking about etiquette with saucers or something. Someone is, eg, making a political argument about hurting me or people like me, and I owe them respect to salve the delicate feelings of third parties?
Nosiree. Let the pseudonymous slanderfest begin.
Saskboy | 13-Feb-08 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
“I, for one, don’t mind you playing judge or jury, as long you don’t play executioner.”
And I agree. Outing someone reeks of childishness, and petty nastiness. Even IF you’ve been personally wronged/harmed by someone who is anonymous, outing them is still entirely a vindictive and petty act, because if it’s you who has been wronged, the simple act of knowing the true identity (and being able to take legal action if needed) should be satisfying enough. To share that “secret” with the world is simply a method of seeking approval from peers and/or tooting one’s horn for being a “sleuth”. It’s selfish, and speaks volumes about the outer.
Saskboy | 13-Feb-08 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
“See, it’s this “respect” whose relevance I don’t see. We are not at a tea party. We are not talking about etiquette with saucers or something. Someone is, eg, making a political argument about hurting me or people like me, and I owe them respect to salve the delicate feelings of third parties?
Nosiree. Let the pseudonymous slanderfest begin.”
But here I differ. Respect doesn’t go out of style, it just has to be adjusted for the audience you are addressing, so they take note of it. Some people respect straightforward, curse filled arguments. Others respect polite legalese, and intellectual debate. If the communication style you’re using isn’t having the desired effect, it’s probably a good idea to try either a different audience, or a different delivery.
A “slanderfest” isn’t going to win friends or respect with political foes, or potential friends. Not with most people anyway, unless the perps are looking to cling as sheep to a verbose leader personality who leads mob attacks and is recruiting slander flinging goons. “Slanderfest” implies the attacks are not based in fact, which makes the attacks devoid of any honour.
Very few people think what they believe in politically is designed to hurt anyone. Even the ones who would remove social programs don’t all see it as a way to starve the poor. Through their ignorance of poverty, they’d more likely think it’s a way to provide motivation to supposedly lazy people who don’t work enough to pay the bills.
You could call people like that idiots (justifiably), but human nature will cause those people to clam up and defend their [incorrect] view when you break out the insults. If you approach someone with information and the right approach so they’ll listen to you as someone they respect, they can reconcile their views with the new information they trust.
It can be emotionally satisfying to club an idiot over the head with facts. But if you want lasting results that win hearts and minds, respect is the only way to go (unfortunately). Otherwise the eventual conclusion to using only insults, is war.
Bell Northern Research | 14-Feb-08 at 12:04 am | Permalink
Very few people think what they believe in politically is designed to hurt anyone. Even the ones who would remove social programs don’t all see it as a way to starve the poor. Through their ignorance of poverty, they’d more likely think it’s a way to provide motivation to supposedly lazy people who don’t work enough to pay the bills.
You think so, eh? You’ve never had the pleasure of debating USENET glibertarians, have you?
Patrick Ross | 14-Feb-08 at 2:18 am | Permalink
“And I agree. Outing someone reeks of childishness, and petty nastiness. Even IF you’ve been personally wronged/harmed by someone who is anonymous, outing them is still entirely a vindictive and petty act, because if it’s you who has been wronged, the simple act of knowing the true identity (and being able to take legal action if needed) should be satisfying enough. To share that “secret” with the world is simply a method of seeking approval from peers and/or tooting one’s horn for being a “sleuth”. It’s selfish, and speaks volumes about the outer.”
The idea that I would reveal Cynic’s name to the public (although I would stop well clear of publishing an address or phone number — regardless of the fact that he hasn’t afforded other people that same courtesy) doesn’t say anything about me that I’m not proud of.
I guess I’m just willing to go further to disarm a bully than other people. Fair enough. Someone has to have the courage to do it.
Bell Northern Research | 14-Feb-08 at 7:49 am | Permalink
I guess I’m just willing to go further to disarm a bully than other people. Fair enough. Someone has to have the courage to do it.
It ain’t courage.
Saskboy | 14-Feb-08 at 8:00 am | Permalink
Exactly, it’s not courage. As I already explained, it’s vindictive, selfish, and immature. It’s the kind of misdeed that can be done from a position of anonymity itself, and holds no noble purpose. Incidentally, anonymity gives CC no special power, it gives him a handicap. It means he has to always fear that some loose cannon will reveal his secret.
Ian H. | 14-Feb-08 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
You could call people like that idiots (justifiably), but human nature will cause those people to clam up and defend their [incorrect] view when you break out the insults. If you approach someone with information and the right approach so they’ll listen to you as someone they respect, they can reconcile their views with the new information they trust.
This attitude is at the base of the disrespect on the internet, though: the idea that, if only your opponent had more information, he’d automatically come over to your point of view. Patently, that’s false. Intelligent people disagree all the time on every kind of subject, and assuming your debating counterpart is simply ignorant is the beginning of the spiral downwards. More information does not equate with congruence of viewpoint, and seeing it that way only legitimizes the kind of partisan sniping that all too often characterizes political debate.
LuLu | 14-Feb-08 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
Patrick, you wouldn’t know courage if it bit you on your hypocritical ass. If anyone behaves like a “bully”, it’s you and your empty threats. People, including myself, blog anonymously for a million different reasons and, last time I checked, no one had declared you the Interent police. Although I’m sure it would appeal to your thug mentality.
Grow up and move on, your incessant whining is tiresome.
liberalcatnip | 15-Feb-08 at 2:46 am | Permalink
My blog’s calm these days. I’m just sayin’…
liberalcatnip | 15-Feb-08 at 2:53 am | Permalink
Incidentally, anonymity gives CC no special power, it gives him a handicap. It means he has to always fear that some loose cannon will reveal his secret.
Blogging anonymously doesn’t necessarily mean that you live in fear of being outed all of the time. There were only 2 times in my anonymous blogging career that I was afraid of people blowing my anonymity: one was when I was the target of a death threat, the other was when I was the target of a crazy blogger woman with a grudge who had come up with the crazy idea that I was some sort of threat to her. (She was a loon and a half).
Like Lulu said, people have lots of reasons for blogging anonymously. Personal protection (from physical threats) is a big one.
Bell Northern Research | 15-Feb-08 at 10:00 am | Permalink
“It can be emotionally satisfying to club an idiot over the head with facts. But if you want lasting results that win hearts and minds, respect is the only way to go (unfortunately). Otherwise the eventual conclusion to using only insults, is war.”
You’re making the assumption that we should care about what the idiots think. The point is, it’s spectacle, and certain types of denigration work over the long term.
“This attitude is at the base of the disrespect on the internet, though: the idea that, if only your opponent had more information, he’d automatically come over to your point of view.”
Pff, this I seriously doubt: who cares whether your opponent comes over to your point of view?
Saskboy | 15-Feb-08 at 11:44 am | Permalink
“The point is, it’s spectacle, and certain types of denigration work over the long term.”
Even if everyone involved understands that it’s “spectacle”, and not 100% serious, it’s still corrosive to open communication if spectacular insults are commonplace instead of the notable exceptions. For the most part I think the blogosphere is less spectacular than the notable exceptions I originally mentioned.
As a frequent target of denigration throughout my life, I can attest to the fact that it does not “work over the long term”. And if it has in any way, that’s certainly nothing for the perpetrators to be proud of.
Patrick Ross | 16-Feb-08 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
“Patrick, you wouldn’t know courage if it bit you on your hypocritical ass. If anyone behaves like a “bully”, it’s you and your empty threats. People, including myself, blog anonymously for a million different reasons and, last time I checked, no one had declared you the Interent police. Although I’m sure it would appeal to your thug mentality.
Grow up and move on, your incessant whining is tiresome.”
Well, Lulu, one of us has the guts to attach their name to their comments. One of us doesn’t — and writes a blog with the sole purpose of attacking people.
So tell me again about courage.