why did you get Zaj thrown out of here? I've never understood that. He was occasionally annoyingly and stubbornly obnoxious, but was the best poet (by far- even if Scupper is really good) we've ever had. Why did you go after him?
Not being hostile either, I truly am curious as to what happened.

Hyblaean-Julie:

I didn't.

By the time I got to complaining that he was calling a black woman writer a "ni**er bitch" and had made threats against me and mine, OS had already terminated his account. Please, by all mean, confirm this.

I also reached out to him several days later (after approaching Stellaa, who told me he was someone she valued) with the message that I would advocate for his return, assuming he satisfied OS on their issues.

A few people have told me they blamed me for his being banned. No one has that power, except OS. I can't quite understand why such a public thing, something easily verified, is still a reason for 2-3 people to simply cling to a factually wrong alternative. And I have written about this incident, in comments, on OS.

I can and will complain about attacking someone with that kind of language on any site. This is completely consistent with what I write above. But again: OS had already made their decision before hearing from me and several others. His last comments were full of personal threats against me. Serious language, claiming to know where I live and how to get to me. Perhaps that was the tipping point for the editors here. I certainly hope so. Anyone who makes such threats crosses the line. We can politely disagree, if you hold other views.

I appreciate your pertinent question. It's nothing but sad to me that he was banned for violating these necessary rules, and thus a talented voice was lost to OS – and that he died before he could choose another way of engaging here. But no one's talent excuses racial epithets or threats of violence.

Some of The Cantos is breathtaking and beautiful. But Ezra Pound was an active pro-Nazi anti-Semite, who gave literary credentials to first the Fascists then the Nazi occupiers. Artists can and do hold and vent terrible opinions, sometimes.

If this airing helps us all understand what really happened, I am grateful to you. If anyone wants to use this post as an opportunity to do the very things I criticize here and on many other posts, I will not delete anything. If you argue the case, then we engage constructively. If you just cling to an invention or want to just dump on me, then you'll simply prove my point.

I have written so often about my own struggles with these issues. To the point of boring my readers, I am sure. I am not naturally compassionate in this way, like my wife and many others I know. But I have been tested sorely in the last several years, and I will, imperfectly, continue to improve.

The main problem is lag time, for all of us. We catch ourselves tipping over from some fierce engagement to insult, however will-concealed we think it might be. The goal is not be false, or some kind of perfect. The goal is to be conscious, humble, forbearing, with ourselves and each other. And when we realize we are spinning our wheels, trying to win, yet again? It's never too late to find a simple gracious way to surrender the field.

I have been a jerk. Not so much anymore. My lag time improves. All the best to you.

You remind me--one of the many life lessons I've learned from my annoyingly clever spouse...concerning arguments/confrontations he often asks, "do you want to be right or do you want to be effective?" Your title says so much, and the image is way cool!

will you link to the post where he wrote that. I never saw him be racist myself, and would like confirmation.

But...but...but...GOD DAMMIT, YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!

In the name of "freedom" those writers are not claiming responsibility for the things they do/say as people. An avatar cannot type in those words, only an actual person behind it, and that actual person must accept that hiding behind a pseudonym or no-nym does not excuse that they, individually, are responsible for their remarks. It's amazing to see that virtual crowds can elicit virtual mobs, even in the realm of typed media. This is no skype group, or party line. The "right" to indignation does not suggest the entitlement to assault. Pointing out bad behavior is not an ad hominem attack, equating personhood with the behavior is.

While I respect the wisdom with which our founding fathers wrote many documents, we know with certainty they as individuals owned slaves, drank a lot of alcohol, smoked weed, kept mistresses and fathered out of wedlock children, had duels (verbal and with guns!) and fought endlessly for their right to make money. They believed in the common rights of some men, but not all, and only through time have we come to a greater understanding that all men can mean all people, including women, and women with children, and people who are not white or christian, or even born here.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee listening, understanding or respect. That must be earned by the speaker (or writer). It is not a given.

bluestocking: thank you. Yep, for most of us, the main lab is our marriage. I must also confess: I saw variations of blood+quotes doing a commons search. None suited, so I did my own. But I was inspired by earlier versions of the concept.

I chose the Little Rock image because those faces of hate were on people who quite sincerely, perhaps, wanted no race mixing. Their world view convinced them they were righteous. Such self-righteousness is almost always a clue that we are wrong. But I see that dignified woman, resolutely changing the subject by walking on, and I am inspired. No one, on any side of any argument, is inhabiting sacred and unquestionable.

Wrong is not fixed by muck and pain. It's solved by human dignity, allowed on all sides. I will forever keep this in my heart, even if – especially if – I veer some. I will veer back to center, and quickly enough, I hope.

My main point here is to advocate for at least some sites enforcing civility. We've seen over on dtms that it just plain works. People rise to the level of expectations.

hyblaean: His posts were taken down. I think the most direct way to confirm the main point – OS did this – is with common sense: no one but OS has the software controls to do so. They saw ample reason to do so. I know of no way to put words in some else's mouth here on OS.

If you are asking me to resurrect, yet again, all that transpired, from what I saved to my hard drive. you have to let me think about that. I suggest we all have to think about that. From what I have learned about Zaj, indirectly and mostly through Stellaa, way back when this happened, his wife is a lovely person. Resurrecting those fits of bile will probably accomplish nothing except pain for her. What would I prove, for me? Nothing of value that I can see. If the manifest fact of OS alone banning him does not take me out of someone's crosshairs, nothing will.

You have never been anything but kind to me, Julie. It would be sad to me if we can't improve our understanding, but i think for the time being I will leave it at this: I didn't do it. No one could do what you think I might have done. You can contact the OS editors, run searches on OS and come to your own conclusion. I trust they will be fair ones.

Matt: you make laugh and in that out loud way! Wait: now I start to feel the tendrils of "vindicated"...AARRGGHH. OK. We'll just say COMPASSION is right; the rest of us, not always. Thanks.

Oryoki: What a beautiful, beautiful comment. Fine sentences, and finer understandings. The capacity to mob is with us always. And I agree with you threading it thought the founding of America. It is one of the essential Goods of our American experiment: allow all to be heard. Thank you.

(I have chores today -- but will return and comment/respond)

I struggled with this recently when my life was a target of lies on OS. I fought with myself to not respond and lost a couple of times in comments on other blogs about the situation. I wrote a couple of poems where, without mentioning names I talked about the subject of how to respond to evil. I think it was general enough that it could have been any evil that happens to anyone. I did not know about your problems with Zaj until reading hyblaean-Julie's comment and your response.
I am happy that you are starting the new site and would love to contribute. I want to keep OS for poetry only so it would be a new thing for me but it looks and sounds exciting.
rated with love

As soon as I encounter name-calling, I write the blogger off. Anyone over the age of 6 years whose idea of adult discourse involves name-calling, invective or degradation is not worth any further time or energy.

"But no one's talent excuses racial epithets or threats of violence".

I agree.

Julie, not being a fan of poetry I didn't follow Zaj much, yet what little I saw of him included quite appalling racism.

I remember remarking on this and Stellaa telling me that he was a wonderful, well-thought of poet. Shrug. He shouldda stuck to poetry then.f

(It's possible that he was suffering towards the end and not mentally competent. An excuse for him, perhaps, but not a reason to have the awful things he said here on O.S.)

Oh and Greg, tho you make a good case in your essay here, I have to say that in my life I have found this attitude, while great in theory, fails in practice: I have tried to be civil in Real Life a number of times and (especially in the case of my first husband, but with other people not emotionally involved with me) have found that being civil, polite and rational simply infuriates one's opponents. More so perhaps than yelling insults back. My only solution has been to put such people on my notorious (among my friends) *list* and never have anything to do with them again to whatever extent possible.

Yeah, Ory, and I agree with what you are (I figure) implicitly saying, or what I will explicitly say: I don't grok American worship of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution any more than the gun-ownership and NO-SOCIALIST-MEDICINE-FOR-US stuff. Oops, I got carried away and went further than what you were implying!

Um, Greg, is it all right to be uncivil in an abstract no-personal-target kind of way?

"No one wins online fights. Never, ever, ever."
Exactly.
rated with hugs

The best I've read on this subject thus far.

What would the celebration be like tomorrow if the First Amendment had not only given us freedom to speak but compelled us to listen before responding?

RomanticPoetess: As difficult as it is to "let it go", I have come to understand milder and constructive is the only useful response, once you have a said a thing or two, without a vindictive or personal "spin", if you can avoid it. It turns out this does NOT prevent us from putting some pretty ferocious opinions on the page, if we feel needs must. Always leave everyone room to retreat gracefully, more or less.

Are you registered at dtms? if so, you can be a part of our Community Beta. PM me, and I will send the particulars. Thanks you for the warm comment.

Monsieur: Well, once again you say The Thing succinctly, and with fine language. I think deflecting and ignoring is a perfectly reasonable way to handle verbal brawlers. And I respond to you using the word "degradation". To me it has become like civil rights or freedom of speech: No matter what the provocation, more and more and I think of human dignity, mine and theirs. I remember the times I have indulged my own rapier, and I calm down. Thank you.

Myriad: I am glad you share your own experience with Zaj. I think you are right, that he was older, and ill, and this is a reason for forbearance on the personal level. In fact, the extremity of his remarks was so outlandish, this in itself argues for some kind of inability on his part.

You say such useful things here. I agree: it so often fails in practice. But one of the last pieces of the puzzle that fell into place, for me? was this: I do it for me – and to reduce suffering by not adding to it, at least. Realistic expectations are consistent with critical thinking, and if it were as simple as restraint and kindness we would all be eating pie in the sky by now.

And I claim no special insight into what is acceptable or not. But I really like your last comment. it's where the nitty gets gritty: how exactly can we be fierce, but not inflamed? insightful, but not inciting? Generally, you put your finger on it: a certain amount of abstraction, and no individual target. Yep.

So a statement like this is certainly challenging: "The illegal settlements in Israel, allowed by a right-wing Israeli government, has been poison in the well for over a decade. This policy of expansion by rightist theocrats invites the ongoing attacks, by extremists, on the other side." But it does not demonize either side. It links itself to choices, behaviors, and consequences.

But if someone says: "Israel is a Nazi state" then we are in la-la land. It's not that one can't or shouldn't make a case for any state's failures, up to and including the gradient from nationalist, authoritarian, totalitarian, to out-and out fascist policies.

But the point is: make the case. The more extraordinary the claim, the more rigorous the proof required. A sweep of verbosity like "Nazi", "racist", moron", "evil" does not bring clarity or insight, not even to one's own feelings or opinion.

I would counter a sub-part of my first example – the "invites the ongoing attacks" part, with some necessary caveats, to try to include the virulent "death to Israel" positions, and how those affect even progressive Israelis. And perhaps to refute the idea that one side's errors do not justify scorched earth no-right-to-exist positions, or civilian terrorist attacks, no matter what. But it would be tough sledding for me, because there are some whole grains of truth lurking in there: Israel must reverse and undo those settlements, as I see it, and get free of those simple-minded theocratic True Believers, or else continue to suffer rocket attacks and worse. Not because they "deserve it" or it's justified for Hamas to do so, but because they are, in my own and in the world's eyes, at fault. Even if it's true, that Israel will suffer these attacks no matter what they do, until and unless a moderating non-violent majority emerges in the Arab world, it does not justify the settlements. As a Jew, I abhor them.

But my meditations on the complexity of these issues, my promotion of writers like Leon Weiseltier, has cost me here on OS, and on FB. I have seen some astonishing insults aimed at me and other progressive Jews by leftists, simply for bringing a necessary nuance and complexity to the discussion. Up to and including some examples of the saddest kinds of leftist Anti-Semitism. Folks who think that they own progressivism, and can define it narrowly to exclude the examples of King and Gandhi and Mandala.

This here, these comments and back and forth? This is what we do at dtms. We dare to say things, and they are sometimes loaded and risky -- but we do so with the expectation that sorting it out will not become a brawl.

a pet peeve of mine is that in this complex,huge country, either political party could be 100% right all of the time. It smacks of a cult where followers stop thinking for themselves.

a pet peeve of mine is that in this complex,huge country, either political party could be 100% right all of the time. It smacks of a cult where followers stop thinking for themselves.

re: Myriad's question about the rightness of abstract incivility, I would remind readers of the cohort here that insists rather loudly such indirect criticism of unwanted behavior is "passive aggressive" and therefore cowardly. I wonder how much of the ad hominum name-calling here can be blamed on this interpretation.

Sharing

Greg:

Thanks so much for your insight (and longevity on this site). Before the legal beagles show up to push for their rights:

The actual first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That law gives OS the right to exist unfettered, but not all speech is protected under the first amendment: Obscenity, 'Fighting words', (hate speech), Imminent Threats, and Speech of falsehoods enjoy NO first amendment protection.

In j school they taught us, "No has the right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre." Pouring gasoline on fires is just as bad as starting one.

Matt, I think fake-abstract contempt that obviously (despite occasional denials) references certain people and particular 'discussions' here is not the same as what I illustrated, since few people here (and no specific targets that _I_ had in mind) get apoplectic about socialized medicine (okay, a couple) or founding-father-constitution worship...tho there are some gun-ownership defenders (whom I wonder what they think about an item I just read that said people with a history of mental illness are suing to regain their gun-ownership rights...and then would, in many places, be able to 'carry' into bars, universities and other places where arguments tend to break out...)

Oh well. I don't trust myself to argue civilly about these matters, so if any actual people here pontificate on The Other Side, I will go read something else... Meanwhile, my 'abstract' incivility stands...

Effective is always better than steam rolling someone with anger and personal attacks. If something or someone makes you so irritated or angry you lose control -- you lose the debate. I have always struggled with letting others control how I feel and react, that gives others too much power over me and what I think and how I react. I don't like that. You make good sense here -- we can all accomplish more if we ratchet down the invective, take your stands with class and civility and then relax. This stuff here, on OS is an outlet, it's not life, it's simply not that serious...

@Myriad - I don't consider it "fake" abstract to blunt a critique of someone's behavior by generalizing, leaving a particular person's name out of the critique, and addressing the behavior, which rarely is unique to a particular person. In fact, I believe strongly it's the more civilized way to address improper behavior in most cases. More effective, too, as it diverts the focus away from individuals and keeps it on the behavior. Now if you, for example (purely hypothetical here), were to accuse me by name of being "a crazy gun nut," I could choose to respond by denying your charge directly, naming you and questioning your evidence. I could also step back and admonish "people" who accuse other people of something, such as being a gun nut, based on this, that or the other. I would argue that the second choice would be more effective in getting my point across without revving up the dustup juices of the Saturday night fight club. After all, once the dustup gets going the initial "fighting words" are usually soon lost in the dust.

True that, Matt - but in these post-dustup meta posts that pop up on OS, there seems to me to be a large hypocritical *superior* above-it-all chiding tone towards unnamed culprits, and we all know who is being referenced.

Now Greg's piece doesn't do that...

Well said. Those who have occasionally accused me of being "nice" online would howl in laughter if they knew me in real life - I am NOT known for being "nice" - I never have been. I AM direct, and I do agree that most people simply cannot hear words spoken through the filters of insults, disrespect, hatred, rage. I wonder if most people who yell and scream either online or offline are more interested in venting than they are in resolving anything.

@Myriad - I get the sense that we are now venturing out onto the thin ice of subjective perception. "Hypocritical" is as loaded a word as you can expect to find in civil discourse, and "tone" is not far behind. Yet, despite all the sub rosa innuendo to which you refer, isn't it better that the dieseling after the engine shuts down, if you will, be done less confrontationally this way than to have the names batted back and forth indefinitely? We are writers, after all, and if for no other reason it gives those of us so disposed an opportunity to practice more subtle jousting, with only those who care in on the game, rather than distracting others from their interests?

I am new to OS, a friend started posting stories on her FB page and I got interested, found some wonderful stories (I'm a dog nut, will always read those), and did notice Linda S was always at the top of the list, but I assumed she was a favorite, had paid her dues to get there. but within a few weeks observed what is called a "dust up" here,I do not know what a Meta blog or post is ,and was amazed then grossed out and very much put off by it. It just went on and on and I tuned out.

I'm on lots of social networking sites and they not only have a flag for posts, they have a flag for comments, too.I'm from Minnesota where we pride outselves on being nice. I used to be embarrassed by that, not anymore!

I agree with you. I don't find sites where name calling and below-the-belt attacks are tolerated very interesting. I stopped reading a very popular site that is relevant to my industry because it was unmoderated and filled with threats, name calling, insults and more. I have no time for that stuff. Thanks for writing.

Matt, well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - else I'd have to name names and specify instances, which would get me in trouble and re-inflame dead coals...

Who are you again? I am dismayed by this post. I'm also offended. Look at my output. I don't post much, but yet, y'know I'm a drunk whore who wants it.
I AM civil, but I also don't gloss over serious issues in the name of some civility that exists in your made up world.
Really, to be civil I have to rise above and , I suppose, be part of your smug experience? I'm not interested.
I have had the utmost respect for you for a long time.I still think you're great, if that matters. But really...get off your high horse.
Howabout YOU deal with being called names. It's pretty gender specific, even if the sociopath shares your gender. But that was just a few weeks ago!
By standing up to a creep who wanted the world to know about polyamory...I ended up accused of supporting child molestation.
These things stick, as you know.

Nobody needs to be lectured right now. And I think it's pretty audacious for you to swan in to give me a lecture.

The day that you are called a drunk whore prostitute is the day when you can speak to me about being civil on OS and the internet.

Lovely, reasonable thinking. Thank you for expressing it so eloquently, and for calling upon us to behave ourselves and do what the framers of our constitution, and the founders of our country wanted us to do: discuss freely in reasonable terms ideas and make a good place for all people.

@Myriad - Just as well, altho I must ask what purpose would be served by naming names and citing instances?

@aim - Just last week I was called a misogynistic blathering old fuck. In a post title. Obviously that was someone's perception of me, but it's not mine, for what that's worth. I prefer my perception of myself, which is a tad gentler, but knowing another - or many others, possibly -may disagree is nothing I can do much about except try to behave by my standards, which I believe to be kinder and more aware than those of my accusers. Was I hurt? Had I seen some truth in the accusation I would hope I'd have felt hurt. I am old, I do blather, I fuck when I can and I might even inadvertently give some the impression that I hate women. I don't think I do, but perceptions are a reality so they can't be dismissed out of hand. So, yes, I was hurt. Yet, I sensed the accusation was made in such a public manner not just to hurt, but to enrage. Was I enraged? If I was, I'd have been a fool to reveal it. My public response was to laugh, make light of such a sophomoric insult. And even ludicrous as it was, it's given me pause to do a quick self-scan. Maybe my attempts at humor have been taken the wrong way by some, as humor often is. But I see I am blathering now, so I desist.

I'm sorry you were hurt by unfounded slurs. I'm sorry you evidently still hurt. I don't think Greg meant to make light of your pain. If he did, then I've got some choice words for him I haven't used since my Army days.

I have nothing original to say here. rather, I shall quote Confucious:

"When you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

Matt - when everybody knows the names and instances, talking about them in an obvious way while NOT specifying strikes me as, uh, hypocritical and, uh, something about the tone.

But I think you handled the insults thrown your way quite gracefully. I wouldn't want to be tested myself...

Another Steve s:

To that I would add:

"We tend to dislike in others things we dislike about ourselves..."

Myriad:

Why give them the extra publicity on OS by naming them? They just use it to post a "beat up on me here" type of thing. All that is attention getting behavior and naming them is exactly what they want you to do, so they can aim their flamethrowers filled with your own words (twisted and misinterpreted as Matt points out) back at you...

Greg and many others keep point out, this is not a problem exclusive to OS, this is a problem with the Internet and deserves being hashed and rehashed so long as it remains a problem.

hm.i see, sir,that you have lost your marbles by
suggest such odd shit as
"issues, reasoned opinions, suggested policies, verifiable facts, and all real ideas...'
crazy enough, then u did your own grave with this whopper:
" And to then get even better at recognizing and avoiding our own logical fallacies"


Sir!
America is not about logic. It is about paradox. It is
and always shall be, maybe, a hall of mirrors in a freak show
from hell at the carnival.

That said, I will never give up the fight.
For:
"Life just gets more complex,
and the media, the MESSAGE,
becomes ever more persuasive
TO DOLTS
and less tethered to empirical truth – and so it us up to all of us to change the subject, as often as it takes, back to .."


THIS Crazy stuff like anti-empiricism or any kinda thingy bob
that might not resemble social & cultural insane collapse...

james e, scholarly.

@ Matt: I was disgusted by that attack. I should have said so. I have been very clear about my opinion in terms of calling people out. I hope that i have been very clear all the way through - especially that I am not the arbiter of what is right or wrong.I also like to not take sides...although that's almost impossible.
i DO NOT like anyone writing a blog that purports to tell me what to do. Ahem. I'm not always fond of alters, Ahem.
yes, I remain hurt - not only by the words but by the entire deception .... and I hope I DID win the fucking war on the internet aginst Robin and her alters. I hope she gets some help, but really? I just wish her poison would go away.
Greg - still have so much resoect for you, but today is not the day for me to cache my words. I think I won. The important question is - does winning make you happy? No.
It diminshes me, and robs me of grace that I should be giving generously.
That's the worst part - that refusing to be "civil" ends up with the wrong person feeling exhausted, empty and bereft.

Jeez...I was away for about 6 mnths and apparently missed several bloodbaths on OS....in any case I want t say that these two lines are brilliant from my point of view.

"Information wants to be free. Personal online combat wants to slide into the mud and the blood and flow away, into a festering basin."

Thanks for these thoughts. May they be heeded.

To all: i just said goodnight to cousins with a small baby and lovable old dog, who came for the day. Too tired to respond except to say I appreciate everyone who commented.

I deserve, as so many like me, a certain amount of raspberry for writing such a post, and I accept that.

I have written, actually, about being tested and, in the last 5 years, getting better in how I handle it. Too often, according to many. I feel now: what a shame I wasted several decades learning it so slowly. Now I feel the reward of generosity and forbearance daily. Except of course, when I get mad, etc.

AIM, I take the essence of your point to heart. I wrote here a few times about some of the things that sorely tested me in the last two years. They are not hard to find, and I guess they would meet your criteria as stated, and then some. But I think you are making a larger point, about how hard this is. I am not glib. I do know how hard it is. And so I take no umbrage.

(I rather like the idea of me being a swan. That's a clever remark, too. But I am too plodding, too flawed, to be a swan. It is pretty to think so, if only for a moment.)

I don't get many readers anymore, usually. I am not surprised you didn't see some of those recent posts. I bared a lot this last year, and such agonistes weary the reader. But if you'd like me to send you the URLs, and if you read them, i think you would agree that I've earned the right over the last year and a half especially to write this post. I have a had a lot of bad luck, bad health, lately. Oh well. Onwards and upwards.

A last thing, to AIM (whose writing I admire deeply) and to all others: I don't read the dustups. Well hardly ever. I glance at some and flee. So I don't know who said what about which or why and in what order. Specifically, AIM, I did not know you were part of anything like that. I was thinking of no one but my family, my friends, myself, and the whole arc of these difficulties, for me and others, online. So NONE of this was with any person in mind or any recent or old or current problems that other people have with each other. As others say here, OS is just one of the places this occurs.

Perhaps... but, as I become more and more cynical regarding the mindset of those who seem hellbent on destroying everything that we are SUPPOSED to stand for.. I'm beginning to feel otherwise.

Now is not the time for "diplomacy"... nor is it the time for any more of the breathtakingly phony calls for “civility” that our ENEMIES are insisting upon (even as they fail to themselves)… quite the contrary.

Too much is at stake.

It is our responsibility as patriotic Americans to shine a bright light directly into the eyes of those cynics who spend all of their days deliberately spreading their poison; the “pretend populists”, the counterfeit "news networks" and the putrescent politicians who contemptuously and willfully hoist the resultant standards of the sickness that is consuming our culture.

It is time to call these miscreants out out onto the carpet of public scrutiny.. loudly, unapologetic, and unfettered by the obsequious cowardice that mitigates the true nature of the cancer that we are confronting.

Nothing less than our existence depends on it.

Just so.

Rated for community and lone wilderness voices.

Greg - I adore you. I was just about to send you a lengthy PM. One thing I have come to understand is that we never know what is precisely going on in another's life. I still stand on the side of free speech rather than moderation...because I can take it.
Stupid me, forgetting how much you have been struggling. You will always be one of my faves here - I hope that means something.

Yep. I've administered my threads here at OS according to the kinds of rules you suggest, and it's been a reasonable success. I invented The Cornfield as a mechanism for dealing incivility. It's a little clumsy to administer here, without specialized tools to help, but the experiment was a way of showing that even with relatively low-tech tools one could apply standards to a useful end. And it's easy to audit whether or not I've been fair about it because anyone can always click through to The Cornfield itself in order to see whether I've been fair. In that regard, it's also a victory for transparency.

Although fairness must, in my opinion, never be promised because it's too hard to guarantee and becomes itself the subject of squabbling, I think fairness is always a goal, or should be, even where not promised. And transparency becomes a useful tool because people who are concerned with fairness may be gunshy about using tools, worried they're being unfair. By making the effects transparent, there can be no accusation of improper censorship, only a question of venue, and that in turn means the administrator themselves doesn't have to fret overly about making a mistake. The process is auditable and most problems can be usefully repaired.

As you can see in my Cornfield, I have run into a few judgment calls where half of a comment was civil and on topic and the other half was ad hominem or off-topic, so moving the remark out was emotionally complicated for me.

Kent:

Visited your "Cornfield" for the first time and must commend you (for the amount of time involved in doing it in the first place and maintaining it) but I did look at the dates. I see this same argument has been going on for a long time. People who close the comments when the discussion is over for that day or few days, is like locking your front door before you go to bed. I see those who have montitored their own blogs (as many have suggested as the answer to NOT being monitored) are then slagged for closing comments.

Readers can always send an email if comments are closed, but there no publicity in that....

I've behaved civil-like, and I've behaved abysmally. Behaving poorly has, without exception, ALWAYS taken more energy and drained my spiritually and emotionally, and sometimes physically, than those times when I have taken the time to rally my senses and respond in a civil manner.

Kate, my Cornfield has comments closed so as not to invite comments there in protest. That might be good for ratings, but would be too tedious for me to maintain. People are welcome to raise disputes on their own blog space, and some have. I think a lot of this issue is about what the Supreme Court calls “time and manner” restrictions. It's not a matter of stifling speech so matter as controlling what may occur where. Were Greg, for example, to have asserted here that no one should be allowed to be uncivil anywhere, I might have objected. I think there has to be a place where the right to speak is absolute as an appropriate place to vent and also because I believe in another concept, The Freedom to Hear. It's similar to freedom of speech, but it's a right of a listener, not the right of a speaker. But not every venue has to be a place the listener has a right to hear something. I just care that there be a place. So if Greg wants to make a site where he controls how people speak, that's really great because it fits into a well-balanced set of choices... at least until I hear there are no places that are not that way. At that point, I'll start to be an advocate for more variation of venue, perhaps even an advocate of incivility. :) But, for now, I think incivility is alive and well and Greg is right that some civility is something we should invest more in.

Using reason. Curious solution. Especially in a time when victory only means having destroyed your opponent. The sophists of Athens convinced their fellows to sentence Socrates to death. The attacks online are a repeat of the same. Except the men of Athens had to cast a vote in person. Now cowards shout from the shadows.

Why do you assume that "critical thinking" is the antithesis of fighting for what you believe to be right? You cannot have the free flow of information without defending it, and that by its very nature involves critical thought. There are many here who want only THEIR information to be free; everyone else should be "moderated" to their standard of civility. As the saying goes, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I do not feel qualified to comment on the past flame wars and who hates whom, anonymity etc, on this site and frankly only use OS as a brief respite from the 'real world'.
When I'm bored I'll leave and grow sunflowers.

However, you do seem to have the right thoughts about this being an international problem / growing pain scenario and believe me OS is childlike when compared to many UK and other countries 'Venom' attacks.

I have noticed that the same moaners/jealous types come out of the woodwork frequently and this scares some bloggers away from posting what they'd really like to say. There are some great writers on OS and then like me, there are those who know our skills lie elsewhere.
It may be my Brit'ness, but that just cracks me up.

That's life I guess and Shit Happens then Evolves.
We get the 'friends' both virtual, vitriol and in reality that we deserve - sometimes. Other times we don't, but who said life was fair?

Good discussion this, thank you.
"Press send FRed(tm) we have work to do. And rate this with one of those Ug s from the box."

Good story. Effectiveness is always better than going nowhere. Kind of reminds me what I've told clients over the years: do you want to achieve your goals or do you want to spend money and get little in return? Thanks.

Just getting to this now Greg and I fully agree. I'd add that for any who find civility too difficult to master, ignoring the post and/or poster is an option well worth considering.

Down here at the bottom of the comment pile, a benediction from a wise man:

"I sing the body of electronic OS! the corpus delectable, the blurs of pain and sweet joy on the activated phosphor on the scratch-resistant glass; the orderly diodes, emitting light and heat and mess, the human mismatch and hurly-burly and kiss-kiss and disaffection and Original Glamour and peerless camaraderie

and here we are momentary love and the flounce of prevention and we are not ghosts in the aisles. Here we turn tap tap tap into feel and caress and blithe and horror and OUTRAGE and effort and

I sing the OS effort! the writers becoming, the writers who build their craft with the right rite: writing, just writing.

I sing the Voice! I sing the ears, I sing the full throat and the open heart, I sing the mindfulness and the inane and the twinkle; I sing the lark and the snark and the skewered trolling shark; I sing OS"

Linda S: Exactemente. Thanks.

lschmoopie: Thank you.

alsoknownas: So many intertesting things raised by that idea. Of course, impossible to enforce, and most of us would run out the clock, and fake it, formulating our deadly retort instead of listening. Ha! Thanks.

Kathy K: It's not just politics. We hold onto our memory of the facts instead of the facts. We prefer some narratives over others. We selectively choose what to believe. There's an idea called "Baysian Adapters" the people who consistently adapt to new, better information. It's about three percent of humans, though. Depressing. Thank you.

Matt: It's understandable that passive-aggressive is annoying. I guess I advocate for a sequence instead: a certain level of aggressive, if appropriate, but to the point. If things disintegrate, then passive, and then withdraw.

Heidibeth: thanks.

Kate: You make essential points. Since no actual theater is in danger, online, people feel emboldened. Here's the thing: I love OS. It is still possible to simply ignore the nonsense. I almost always do, and when I have something to say, it's to redirect our understanding, based on what I've learned so far. With great difficulty, as I keep adding. I don't think the meanness per se will close OS. But if OS falls away for financial or other reasons, it would be sad if we did not improve – or at least struggle with improvement.

Myriad: You and I share a deep commitment, it seems, for things like the Brady Center. The illogic of the NRA is pretty stunning. I don't hate giuns or hunting. I gave it up 40+ years ago, but I understand it. But "gun show loopholes" and "guns everywhere" are crazy ideas.

Marty'sHusband: "-- you lose the deabte." This is siply true. If they lost first, or right after you did, what does that get for us?

A lot of folks here and in private PMS on this post touch on the subject of how ineffective civility is. Hmm. The thing is, if you define effective viz civility as changing people or winning, then perhaps not. But if you define it as preserving your own dignity, and allowing the same for the other, no matter how this or that they are, then yes, civility IS effective. And on dtms (and I see it on other sites with similar restraints) we prove it can be much better than that.
I appreciate your personal perspective, too. And yep: OS: it's just a web site. It's not paradise or armageddon. Thank you.

Myriad & Matt: your exchange so far shows the merit of this: you drift here or there but you do not demean each other.

kitd: It's a banal truth, I think: venting it is, and it becomes a habit of mind. Nothing "wrong" with venting per se. I do it. Here's an example: "The World Bank just hired the former head of the criminal and failed Lehman Bros. in a top role. Really? Really? REALLY???!!" There. I feel better. Thanks.

Barb: I do not mean to impugn Nice. I like Nice. I like edgier at times, but Nice is just plain good. I guess I was trying to head off the misperception some have that it's black and white: you are either a cruel, ruthless, fearsome truth-telling beast, or a namby-pamby go-along. Neither of those extreme's would have freed South Africa (and would the boycott have worked if Nelson hadn't shrewdly played white fears of the ANC militias?) Thank you.

Christina: love your avatar. And thank you.

bnzoot: Thank you. No system can ensure perfect civility -- and shouldn't. You don't end child labor practices or segregation with civility alone.

another steve s: Yes! what a great quote.

James: I'm not sure I follow your points, as written. Thanks for commenting.

Mary Ann: It's all a personal choice. It doesn't suit everyone, to engage constructively. Thanks.

Sandy Berman: This is a polemic, it seems to me. It might strike a chord in many. I certainly feel the "fight" response to Michelle Bachmann's advocacy of blasphemy laws.

But there is little in the way of details or fine-grained clarity in what you write here. And online discussions can only be effective to the extent that particulars are discussed and people extend the minimum courtesies. Calls to abstract "action" and "crusades:, while self-satisfying perhaps, even "righteous", just fizzle on the screen. I have never seen one work, in terms of back and forth discussion.

One of the tests I just applied, in struggling to get a fix o your position, was this: translated ito an action item, say, a petition -- what would the petition say? "Shine a light in cynics eye's"? "Call for an end to standards of sickness"?

Thank you.

Seer: thanks. (coyote yips in the distance)

aim: thanks.

Kent: Very interesting concept. As an example of deflection, without deletion or attack per se, it certainly has merit. Creative solutions: we Americans used to to never tire of invention. (and thanks for pointing out those typos. Yikes!)

kitd: thanks for this personal perspective. My experience too. Even if "everyone" thinks you are "right"? Our choices stand there, stark on the screen. Do we leave the world better than we found it?

guerrilla: I believe Burr lived, and Hamilton died (tip 'o the hat to P.C. on that one). Thanks for commenting.

Stim: I agree that there's nothing noble about anonymous sniping. We human do this in cars too. Mild-mannered me becomes Tiger Driver when cut off. Thanks.

Creekend: I did not know that some Brit sites were notably venomous. I've seen that stale sandwich well-represented by all creeds and countries. Thank you.

Mary Stanik: Effectiveness! What a concept! Of course, it's the harder way to go. To restrain, think, formulate. Thanks.

Abrawang: Absolutely. Also, there's this: a gentleman(woman) makes guests comfortable in their home. And the only pertinent "revenge" is this, ultimately: they have to be them for the rest of their lives. (and we we have to be us, too). Thanks.

Jeremiah! My good friend. Did I write that? What a strapping youth I was. Thank you.

I TOLD you the other day there were some good writers round these parts . . . .

I am curious, what if any insight your post added to the latest OS drama?

Civility and critical thinking are code words for echo chamber.

Tilapia - you might want to change your profile.
Your a fresh water fish not from under the sea.
Nana or Tr ig can help if needed.

Ahh, you think it's an error? Use your critical thinking and consider.

Tilapia - that would strain my pelvic floor.

the jester sez:


The problem is exactly the opposite of what you have stated...the problem is polite agreement under the weight of such incredibly poorly laid out and poorly researched BULLSHIT.
(polite agreement to be polite & civil & blind deaf & dumb)
(poorly researched evidence is often the best, ha)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is also entitled to stick their head up their ass. I wish some people would just choose the latter.. It is infinitely more productive than spouting truthy as if it were truth.

well, ok,
but..

ha...

that is what we got the right to say, alas.

flags on underwear?
burn flag bra?


we have all been called bad names and know what hurt is.
some more than others, certainly.
some not enough,ha, but today is as j adams on
jerry denucio's post "pastiche..."
sez
tis a day of deliverance,
so truth is in vogue
today, why not?

soul search time, usa. do yr 12 apostles,
no ah steps
and make amends etc
and be NICE, GOD-F-IT!

While I love your writing, Greg, it's the comments that are food for thought. The exchange between you and Aim: perfect example of two people “listening” to each other across distance. Wonderful, that.

On the other hand, there are some preconceived notions reflected in the comments and brought to bear on your post: that you're guilty of elitism or that you're promoting some sort of muffling effect wherein one can't think AND fight for one's beliefs. Bullshit. Seems to me critical thinking allows us to review and on occasion reconsider our perspectives, to maybe consider what the other fella is saying. If, upon reviewing, we decide our point of view makes more sense, hey, more power to us. We can still believe what we believe and fight for it, with all the conviction or passion we can muster.

None of that requires challenging the other person's argument with comments like "you whorish, Zionist, f-cked-up, sexist, n*gger, bi-polar, terrorist, man-hating, perverted bitch asshole (insert name here)." How does that approach make for a good argument--or good poetry? It's a personal attack: nothing more, nothing less. Anyone that hates hearing disagreement that much belongs exclusively on a site that caters only to his or her beliefs...which describes exactly what goes on and everything that's wrong with this country at the present time.

Pointing out how unproductive it is to sling insults isn’t about stifling free speech (which is injured by the nastiness that passes as discourse nowadays); neither is it about the presumed superiority of group or that group or being elitist or insulting or condescending. It's about making it easier to talk and be heard.

Isn't that Greg's point? Don't we all want to express a point of view without being called names? Why is this a bad thing? Why is this a naive thing? Why the hell is this an impossible thing?

And why does this have to be explained to intelligent people who know damned well that online angry insults are not about free speech but about self-indulgence at the expense of someone else?

Tilapia: You don't provide enough information here for me to understand or engage with your thinking. "Civility and critical thinking are code words for echo chamber." Well, clearly we have different opinions about that, based on my post and comments, and your simple declaration. Can you actually make a case for this? If you can I am interested in reading it. Critical thinking is used as a technical term in philosophy and science. The arc of technological development in the last 500 years (wherein success builds on success, based on the scientific method, itself one aspect of critical thinking) would be far different if scientists simply reinforced each other, century after century. I use the phrase "critical thinking" in a looser sense, but still adhering to the avoidance of logical fallacies and the overall goal of constructive engagement. If you are asserting that not allowing endless insults is somehow necessary to avoid the abstract badness of "echo chamber"? you have some pretty tough work ahead, proving that. Thank you.

James: I confess I don't quite follow this. I am a big fan of Art James, and your comment seems, well, Art Jamesian. If I understand one part of this right, "we got the right to say", we certainly agree this is true. Thanks.

Nikki! It is not impossible. Nor does it guarantee anything. We are still required to make good arguments, keep it interesting, handle the contrarian view, sort it out. But if we don't waste time with insults or anything else that's beside the point, we at least apply our resources intelligently. Thank you.

__
Emma: At no point do I say anything like critical thinking is the opposite of "fighting for what you believe in". I argue instead for more constructive methods of making one's case. Insults are not constructive. I think the alternative you suggest – "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" – has no resonance in what I write. I think it's a straw man argument you make here, however unintentionally. The most upright people I know are the folks who are intelligent and thoughtful. The lowest folks II've met are the ones grappling in the mud. As someone with some mud on him I know this first hand. Thank you.

oops:
Sorry, Tilapia:
Change that last part to "If you are asserting that -- allowing -- endless insults is somehow necessary, to avoid the abstract badness of "echo chamber"? you have some pretty tough work ahead, proving that."

Greg:

The best advice I've read over the past week tells me, when on a blog if someone attempts to goad or insult you, DO NOT RESPOND! It's what they want. I've learned a lot this week (as a new bloggie) through the comments as well as the originating piece. I was laughed at for saying I'm going to wait 24 hours before commenting on something that makes me angry. I use that same logic when I want to buy expensive clothing. I sleep on it, and if I still feel the same way in the morning, I buy it! If I still feel the same way in blog morning, I say it! So, I am self-censoring to keep myself from becoming part of the problem.

Fascinating comment thread.

Thank The Maker (just watched Star Wars w/ a little anthropologist--that's a nod to C3PO, not an appeal to a deity...) that I've thus far avoided the major OS dust-ups.

Just as an observer of debates, I tend to throw my lot in with the person who is not going completely off the rails. Going off the rails doesn't automatically negate that person's argument, but it's often a red flag that they don't have the data to back them up. The ones who use credible sources and sound logic rather than creative invective seem to often have the facts on their side .

Not that I'm always rational myself, but it is a quality I admire in others.

Alien and new. Nailed.

All of this is why I rarely visit, comment or post here anymore. After two lengthy attacks of insanity, including being called a cunt and being so threatened physically the police were involved the the poster banned from O/S...the point is....?

There is a kind of orgiastic rage out there/in here that is simply bizarre. I've not seen such a level of personal animosity anywhere else.