Civility in an uncivil blogosphere
The NYTimes had an article about a voluntary "civility" code of conduct for bloggers to take some of the opprobrium (and death threats!) out of the blogosphere. Sniping at each other online behind a pseudonym is so damn easy. You can even cite your sources (bible verses, etc) to give some "academic polish" to your otherwise ill-mannered screed. Amazon.com and imdb.com reviews are also fair game. (Of course, as lawyers we know the best way to fight icky speech is with counterspeech. But equally-ranty and insane counterspeech never served anyone well. And they make me slightly nauseated, anyway.)
Civility in communication online is more important than ever. We have at our finger tips the means to cause unmitigated psychic suffering through slanderous comments, cheap shots and personal attacks rather than engaging the ideas that some might find particularly loathsome.
example 1: A letter to today's University Daily Kansan applauds the increase in price for birth control pills. When I first read this letter, my response was, in this order:
1) What an asshole. No girl is ever going to have sex with him now. He better like being chaste.
2) I really hope he's not pre-pharmacy.
and
3) Damn, the poor brainwashed kid is just quoting some religious dogma force-fed him in youth group. It's not really his philosophy, he's just parroting the party line. I suspect his view is representative of many people in our community.
So it is possible to attack the idea rather than the person. It is just less satisfying.
I guess the areas in which this is most evident are religion and politics, though it probably extends to everything, quarrelsome bunch that we are.
Hence, in my adrenaline-fueled frenzy, I should post scornful messages on various religious blogs decrying the X religious institution and its adherents in general. (Aside: I think Bill Tammeus' blog is actually quite well done. I love Dolores Lear, the Christian Spaceman lady, commentator. Otherwise, there seem to be some instigators (and counterinstigators) who are out for blood.)
Note to true believers: I realize nothing I write in this blog is ever going to change the mind of a "true believer" of whatever stripe. You are set in your ways and I accept that.
Is the vitriol online merely frustration at not being to make others agree with you? Or is it the lack of real life human contact, which through years of training, gives us the social controls of manners, fear of retribution (i.e. self-preservation) and the need to complete daily life activities quite removed from one's publicly expressed opinions, that is missing on the web?
Civility in communication online is more important than ever. We have at our finger tips the means to cause unmitigated psychic suffering through slanderous comments, cheap shots and personal attacks rather than engaging the ideas that some might find particularly loathsome.
example 1: A letter to today's University Daily Kansan applauds the increase in price for birth control pills. When I first read this letter, my response was, in this order:
1) What an asshole. No girl is ever going to have sex with him now. He better like being chaste.
2) I really hope he's not pre-pharmacy.
and
3) Damn, the poor brainwashed kid is just quoting some religious dogma force-fed him in youth group. It's not really his philosophy, he's just parroting the party line. I suspect his view is representative of many people in our community.
So it is possible to attack the idea rather than the person. It is just less satisfying.
I guess the areas in which this is most evident are religion and politics, though it probably extends to everything, quarrelsome bunch that we are.
Hence, in my adrenaline-fueled frenzy, I should post scornful messages on various religious blogs decrying the X religious institution and its adherents in general. (Aside: I think Bill Tammeus' blog is actually quite well done. I love Dolores Lear, the Christian Spaceman lady, commentator. Otherwise, there seem to be some instigators (and counterinstigators) who are out for blood.)
Note to true believers: I realize nothing I write in this blog is ever going to change the mind of a "true believer" of whatever stripe. You are set in your ways and I accept that.
Is the vitriol online merely frustration at not being to make others agree with you? Or is it the lack of real life human contact, which through years of training, gives us the social controls of manners, fear of retribution (i.e. self-preservation) and the need to complete daily life activities quite removed from one's publicly expressed opinions, that is missing on the web?