This story is archived
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs »
Posted by: HealthDoctor 2 years, 8 months agoIs it too late to bring civility to the Web?The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
Submitted By:
HealthDoctor
I love to learn, which is why I read across the internet on a variety of topics, especially related to health. Since I'm doing ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 96
-
joeblowe
April 9, 2007, 10:24 a.m.Code of conduct? Ha. The "blogosphere" will be a lonely place indeed. Envision a dry, dusty plain with tumbleweeds blowing by. By the way -- someone has GOT to come up with a different term than "blogosphere." Our Guber here in Illinois is named Blogojevich - and he is commonly referred to as "blogo." His shape isn't that spherical so it doesn't apply.
-
Macondo
April 9, 2007, 10:46 a.m.Bloging should just follow the basic rules of civilization.
The net is nothing but a new social environment.
In the same way we could meet in a social environment a polite person or a nasty one, intelligent or dumb, we could debate with arguments or in absence of logic some one may use name calling.
The web is composed of the same elements as the rest of society.
Most of the lines of conduct are very personal, linked to factors such as educational level, cultural background, convictions etc.
This portion of the equation can not be legislated.
On the other hand, threats, slander, creation of collective panic etc are already contemplated by international legislation.
The basic rules of the game are already there and we do not need additional interference with our already restricted freedom. :)
-
Poulenc
April 9, 2007, 10:57 a.m.Sort of like the fact that the blogoshphere is a free-for-all environment. In an increasingly corporatized, homogenized, offend-no-one cultural environment, the Net remains the only place for the freest of free expression.
My experience has shown that it's also self-correcting: that the vilest and rudest are usually taken to task by the larger community and, in one way or another, placed beyond the pale. In fact, the Net is a kind of 24/7 Morality Tale, with virtue usually triumphing.
-
Macondo
April 9, 2007, 10:59 a.m.The degree of anonymity is a real problem due to the easy way cowards to express feelings they do not dare to manifest person to person.
Guidelines of decency could be produced as far as there is no censorship.
-
-
crespi
April 9, 2007, 11:32 a.m.Hate-trolls seem to be dwindling.
But after 27 years of abuse from the Ulta-Conservative, Fundamentalist Christian, corporate, or Libertarian Neo-cons, well...
Let's just say Gandhi's methods of peaceful protests wouldn't have worked against the Nazis.
Sometimes one has to learn to fight these people (on some level) just to defend our freedom to discuss, and our constitution.
"Letting bygones be bygones" will merely usher in another fascist administration.
When Republicans are on Book-TV bragging how they program students to disrupt the classroom and their classes to put forward vicious ideological hatred created by a Right-wing think tank, they ARE GETTING TO OUR KIDS.
Hate sources like FoxNews, or Ann Coulter must be isolated and eliminated if one ever expects to experience logical, civil, discourse.
-
Bonded
April 9, 2007, 11:56 a.m."That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make - believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech. Free speech is enhanced by civility." - Tim O'Reilly
-
Poulenc
April 9, 2007, 12:40 p.m.I don't know that free speech is ENHANCED by civility, exactly. Decorum can discourage disruptive emotionality and therefore lead to clearer thinking and easier exchange, but much can be realized in the heat of feeling.
Example: Imus's recent outburst, though repellent, forces us to look, however briefly, at our own attitudes, our own prejudices, and the issue of what is permissible to say in public. I'd sort of rather that he said what he did than not, for those reasons....
-
susanlovesiowa
April 9, 2007, 1:14 p.m.The people who cry "censorship" and "don't tamper with our freedom of speech" seem to me to be the ones who want to be free to be vulgar, hateful, abusive and filthy in their thoughts and language. Have they ever heard of respectfully listening to someone else's point of view and--if they wish--disagreeing politely? If you say that 2 2=5, I can disagree nicely with you without personal attacks on you. It's called common decency and good manners . . . something that is sadly lacking in the New Millenium and destined to disappear unless we do something about it.
-
elel
April 9, 2007, 1:38 p.m.I see nothing productive coming from "hate" speech or type. I don't see a problem with censorship, by expecting people to treat each other in a civil manner. I like to thing we live in civility, and the web should be an extension of that. With any civilization, community, it thrives better with standards. Even here at Netscape, some language is not excepted, is that censorship?
-
itsbenj
April 9, 2007, 1:50 p.m.nah, that's not what blogs are for. debate over the internet is not supposed to be a big exercise in politeness and blandness. the whole point is for people to be able to have a conversation or argument which is far more honest than an in-person one would be. ****** so-called "civility" is for church and PTA meetings. people should be able to be honest and say what's on their minds on the internet, whether that involves swearing or angry insults or not.
-
worthlesswhiteman
April 9, 2007, 2:36 p.m.Why is it that the snipping whine of women tend to grate me?
Now try and tell me that these complaining women aren't somehow responsible or otherwise should have known when to "shut it up."
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 2:58 p.m.The key to understanding this issue is found in the "Christian" claim that they are only being honest when they tell you that as a matter of fact you are inhabited by Satan and will burn in hell for eternity, i.e. "They hate the sin,not the sinner".
However, you will notice that almost everything out of their mouth is an ad hominem (a personal attack - usually repeated from Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson) and it is you, not your soul, they want put to death or thrown in prison for an insane amount of time.
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 3:17 p.m.27 years is about how long these idiot preacher types have been spewing their bile. People on the other side will scamble to find a reference for their position. Right wing nuts don't ("intelligent design" being the weak exception).
They believe in any nut who claims to be a "Christian" and backs their prejudiced hatred, but can't even consider a scientific theory and evidence. They don't have the capacity to hold two opposing truths in their head at the same time (i.e. yin & yang). It must be black/white or it doesn't even register. They are as blind to truth as a Japanese is to the letters, "l" and "r". They actually cannot hear it.
THIS IS THE SIN I HATE, NOT THE SINNER! FORGIVE THEM FATHER, THEY SIN AGAINST THEIR OWN JESUS AND DO NOT KNOW IT. WE ARE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY ARE IN OUR WHITE HOUSE DESTROYING OUR CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF JESUS! Who's more dangerous? Who are the most dangerous "terrorists"?
-
MajJohn
April 9, 2007, 4:23 p.m.So you can't just say that the idea is moronic? You have to make it personal? I find that those who reduce their thoughts to name calling are the ones without a defensible position.
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 4:11 p.m.moron - n. 1. very stupid person. 2. adult with mental age of about 8-12.
- Oxford Pocket Dictionary & Thesaurus - American Edition
NOTE: We pay taxes for all our state citizens to go to 12 years of school and, in the end, very few know how to think critically.
-
1-2-Oscar
April 9, 2007, 4:08 p.m.When I read the exchanges above it becomes clear that there are people on BOTH sides of the political divide who know only how to attack anyone whom they perceive as holding a different opinion. In such an atmosphere, which people like yourselves have created, it is futile to expect civil discourse. Left and right, Christian and non-Christian, everyone is "holier than Thou."
Why don't you all give up the pretense, and admit that you come here to fight? There can be no civil discourse among people who are themselves uncivil. After all, this board and the rest of the internet are products of your own creation.
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 4:27 p.m.Resolved: I am holier than Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson combined.
Let the debate begin in a "civil" manner. Please, avoid fallacies of logic, both formal and informal (such as ad hominems). If you should commit such an offense and I point out such offense, please, refrain from calling me a moron because I am an adult with, at least, the mental age of 13:-) therefore, such would not move the debate forward.
ENLIGHTENMENT, AS SCIENCE, IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH!
And, yes! Surely I jest! And yet, I am serious as well. How can that be? How is it possible to be two things in the same place at the same time?
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 4:29 p.m.Are you quoting a moron? If so please include the moron's book title and pubisher for reference...
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 4:42 p.m.It's a joke. It also has a deeper meaning only meant for those swift enough to follow. Swift boaters need not apply since you must be mentally taller than 12 to ride.
(PS - I do realize the only one slower than a swift boater may be John Kerry himself who never seemed to realize how to turn that boat around).
-
PatrioticAmerican
April 9, 2007, 4:46 p.m.if there was a " Terms Of Conduct " for Blogging, then the dems would not be able to blog ever again because they do nothing but insult and belittle those who disagree with them. So please please please inact a terms of conduct, it would making the "blogesphere a much better place.
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 4:53 p.m.Are you calling the kettle white or what? My experience has been exactly the opposite, ad nosseum.
-
-
curley-zark
April 9, 2007, 5:13 p.m.Instead of "ENLIGHTENMENT, AS SCIENCE, IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH"; I should have said:
DEBATE (AND/OR "DISCUSSION") IS A FIGHT FOR TRUTH!
...EVEN IF THE DEBATE IS JUST A DISCUSSION WITH ONE'S SELF.
Call it "critical thinking". However, you must actually listen to the other side. If you can't make the other sides argument yourself to yourself, you aren't really listening.
If you don't understand, try to form a specific question, "Huh?" doesn't make your question clear enough.
-
4cprocess
April 9, 2007, 5:14 p.m.I would like to state that I do agree with an effort to raise the bar on civility here. I'm a conservative but I have many liberal friends whom I get along quite graciously with even though we disagree on a lot of issues. I my self have some liberal beliefs and it among that common ground that we tend to gravitate to in our conversations. Creating discourse is easy but rising above it takes effort. It's within this effort that real "critical" thinking takes place. Shout if you may and please feel free to express your true feelings. This is positive feedback for the soul but the impunement of another person for self gratification leads us all down that slippery slope.
In God We Trust
The first 75 comments are shown. Show all 96 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
