Understanding the Opposition
From time-to-time, I visit Vivian J. Paige, and I noticed she referenced (here) a Blacknell post (here) that derides the idea of a code of conduct for bloggers. I think the thesis of Blacknell’s blogger, MB, may be best summarized with this quote.
It’s (that is, the Blogger Code of Conduct) giving legitimacy to this idea that form is more important than substance. That so long as you say please and thank you, you ought not be held to account for anything you say between those two words.
MB clearly does not want to be so restricted. MB feels his opponents beliefs need to be challenged much more strongly.
I discovered that a vast swath of Virginia political blogs are dedicated to promoting some of the most ignorant, hateful, and harmful lies out there. Islam is dedicated to killing you. Allowing equal rights for all will lead to the collapse of society. Black folks ought to be thankful for slavery. I’m not going to link them, as there’s nothing to be gained by it, but I’ve come across all of these sentiments and worse in the posts and comments sections of Virginia political blogs (and this is to say nothing of the daily homophobia and xenophobia). Ignorance like this ought not to be met with acquiescent silence, or a polite murmur of disagreement. It needs to be engaged head-on, called out for what it is, and exposed to the sort of ridicule that a flat-earther might experience at meeting of geophysicists.
MB went on to make it clear he has no patience for those who do not share his beliefs. I wonder if MB understands how much he risks becoming exactly what he purports to hate, intolerant. Much of humanity’s ills have resulted from misunderstanding. Does MB honestly think verbal and written assaults, essentially bullying, will improve understanding? I do not think he cares. Instead, I believe his purpose is to shame those who oppose him into silence.
Anyway, I believe MB misunderstands the primary purpose of a Blogger Code of Conduct. I did not post a Code of Conduct on this blog so I could hold anyone else accountable. I did it to hold myself accountable. These are standards I have adopted for myself, and I wrote them down to remind myself of what I believe. Except by my own example I have no idea how I could force my standards on other bloggers. Moreover, I do not crave the ability to force my beliefs on others.
MB’s post had 13 comments. Although some offered a mild defense for the idea of a Blogger Code a of Conduct, no one seriously challenged MB’s desire to ferociously insult other bloggers. Do you suppose it possible that such visitors have been made to feel unwelcome?
Understanding requires that we treat all people, particularly those with whom we disagree, with appropriate courtesy. After all, how can you understand somebody when you are subjecting them to ridicule?
Whenever you choose to do something anyone might possibly notice, there will be someone who wants to stop you. Sometimes they might have a good reason, and sometimes they might not. In either case, it generally pays to understand your opposition’s reasoning.
- Since each of us is fallible, the opposition might be right.
- If you do not understand the opposition’s objection, you are unlikely to persuade them to your side
- To have the best chance of out-thinking the opposition, you have to be able to put yourself in your opponent’s shoes.
And, as usual, you miss the point. Perhaps intentionally. Nowhere in that post do I say that I have no patience for those that do not share my beliefs. I welcome other readers to take a look at the whole post and sort it out for themselves. I do admit that I don’t cater to delicate flowers.
There are plenty of interesting and informative conversations to be had with people who have beliefs completely different than my own. That’s a huge part of what makes the web worth caring about. There’s also an enormous amount of crap. This crap tends to be generated, in excess, by a particular subset of users who have no actual interest in a conversation. If you can’t differentiate between these groups (or are unwilling to, in service of some empty code of conduct), well, I guess we all choose to waste our time differently.
I certainly do cop to being willing to ridicule some people. I think that those that traffic in the examples above deserve ridicule. I also advocate, albeit indirectly, ridiculing Flat Earthers. Did that strike a nerve, Tom?
MB — Thank you for your comment.
Flat Earther? Undoubtedly, if future generations prosper materially, they will find some of our scientific theories as erroneous as this generation has found those of past generations. What future generations will think of our opinions on morality, we can only speculate.
We have outlawed many practices that were once customary and would be generally considered evil today. Does that mean our ancestors were evil while we, on the other hand, are good?
Although each of us is unique, our mental limitations force us to classify and label each other. However, this need to label is not the same as an entitlement to pass judgment, to label someone as good or evil, enemy or friend. The label we put on someone does not give us a right to punish and attack. Nonetheless, too many do exactly that. Yet there is only one excuse for such violence — including verbal violence — self-defense or the defense of another.
The Internet provides the opportunity for exchanging ideas or abuse. In the exchange of ideas, particularly on sensitive subjects such as politics and religion, we all find it difficult to maintain self-control. Many find a Blogger’s Code of Conduct helpful.
Frankly, I commend Blacknell’s refusal to capitulate to xenophobia or homophobia under the tent of “Understanding requires that we treat all people, particularly those with whom we disagree, with appropriate courtesy.” There is no courtesy for hatred and ignorance; it would be tantamount to complacency to be quiet and act nice.
I don’t read his post as one of refusing to understand his opponents. I read it as someone astute enough to reject bigotry, which is clearly a quality we need more of in the blogosphere.
Alice — This is a republic. The majority rules. Then consider the examples of Martin Luther King and Ghandi.
To counter ignorance, we inform people. To counter hatred, which usually results from fear, we calm people’s fears. We begin by being patient and courteous even when others are rude.
When we have no other choice, we defend ourselves from violence. If we must resort to violence to force others to adopt our point-of-view, perhaps we need to rethink our point-of-view.