Whatever happened to dialogue and discussion? It seems that much that passes as interchange has disappeared, with the online world being the biggest killing field. Almost everywhere you go looking for intelligent input there is little or no thoughtful response to something that has been said or been posted. An honest and astute interplay of ideas is becoming rare because instead of responding rationally people seem determined to respond viscerally, ad hominen, and with raw emotions rather than enquiring mind.

Online forums (fora?) have become settings in which moderating or dissenting voices are literally drowned out by those who shout and pontificate. Each online setting develops its own peculiar brand of political correctness, and woe betide anyone who crosses a particular line in the sand. Often these correctnesses are contrary to the original intention of the owner of the site, and they will lean heavily in one direction or another. There is in many places what can be described as a Rush Limbaugh approach to conversation: not to listen to what another is saying but to shout the so-and-so down because he or she has no right to say such things in this setting, and besides, any fool knows that their position is wrong and not worthy of serious consideration.

The result of such a quarrelsome modus operandi is animosity so that those with helpful insights on a particular subject in that setting refuse to post there any longer because, honestly, life is too short to put up with that sort of wrangling. There is a particular site that I have visited for a long, long time and will probably continue to visit because it is helps me to stay up-to-date with things that are going on, but last week I wrote the owner to say that I will no longer be contributing because I just don’t have the stomach for the bruisings I so often have been given. I am delighted to engage with people who read the materials and want to discuss them, but I am no longer willing to be treated as if I am weak in the head, apostate, someone who taken up arms against the western world.

Wherever I look, on either side of the Atlantic, there is animus being hurled around online as one adamant group takes on the other. Scurrilous things are said which people should not be allowed to get away with—but because people like me have now opted out, they do. This only makes them bolder, less reflective, and more bombastic, so the whole sorry cycle is intensified. Whatever one’s principles or presuppositions, some of the things that I have read about the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Newt Gingrich, James Dobson, and so on, and so on, should be challenged because they are a parody of the reality. If there is such a thing as freedom of speech, and I believe there is, then individuals should not be allowed to get away with some of the things they write or say.

In a sane and ordered setting this is possible, but in one where an unyielding pack mentality prevails, the pack’s job is to pounce on anyone who strays into their little domain and questions what they hold to be precious and true. Anyone doing so reaches the point in the end where we find there is no longer any delight in banging our heads against this particular brick wall. Besides, no one is listening. The result is that creative debate does not take place, lines in the sand become concrete bunkers, and constructive dissent becomes impossible.

When I was in seminary and university in what is now the distant past we were rigorously schooled in the fundamentals of logic so that we might learn rationally to analyze an argument and respond to it in an informed and reasonable manner. It was some of the most valuable teaching I had, but in today’s forums the rules of logic and principles of rhetoric have all but disappeared. We have delineated ourselves into what are essentially two armed camps slugging things out. Moderating voices are sidelined and so the answers now HAVE to be right or wrong, black or white, left or right, liberal or conservative, traditional or progressive, and so forth, and so forth.

I am not sure that discussion in most places on the Internet as they are presently configured can be redeemed, partly because I am not sure that those who shout and holler from atop their particular soap box want to hear any other position or view than their own. They are convinced that they are right, they have the truth, and others are so wrong that alternative voices do not deserve to be heard. To function this way is to stray into very dangerous territory that will have disasterous consequences in the long term.

When this happens among Christian people then we have to examine ourselves to see if this is how we learned Christ.

View the original post

One of the problems is the anonymous nature of blog comments.  Since we don’t look at our advesaries, we don’t see them as persons whom we need to respect.  This can be solved by having more open dialogue in person and in open forums.  A few years ago, the Presiding Bishop came to Dallas and had a question and answer session with the clergy.  She was gracious and took all questions - but she didn’t answer them in any detail.
Another problem with the blog format is that it allows the easy construction of straw man arguments where a person will object, not to the actual argument, but to a mis-representation of it. 

A third contributer to this whole mess is the politicization of the discernment process within the Church.  We no longer prayerfully discern what God has revealed to us in Holy Scripture, but we create political action groups and push and strain at the boundries and dare anyone to gainsay us.  Our tactics are those of the political arena, not those of the Church.  This creates winners and losers and winners and losers share animosity towards each other.

What is the solution?  First, we need to debate in public with the ground rules of basic logic.  Second, we need to be sure we understand the arguments that the opposition makes.  We should try a forum where we actually argue for the opposing point of view.  When I debated in High School we had to be prepared to debate both sides of the issue.  This was very helpful.  Third we should refrain from political machinations as the means for discernment.  The last place that should be discerning doctrine is a political body.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Or as my good friend Fr Blankinship has often said: the Internet proves that a billion monkeys tapping away at keyboards will never randomly produce Shakespeare!

I think that Phil makes some good points, but I think that the problem goes way beyond blogs and the internet.  Phil says

What is the solution?  First, we need to debate in public with the ground rules of basic logic.  Second, we need to be sure we understand the arguments that the opposition makes.  We should try a forum where we actually argue for the opposing point of view.  When I debated in High School we had to be prepared to debate both sides of the issue.  This was very helpful.  Third we should refrain from political machinations as the means for discernment.  The last place that should be discerning doctrine is a political body.

I work at a law school.  One of the things done at law schools is that students are required to take part in “mock” trials - they are each assigned one side or the other of a contemporary legal issue and made to argue that side.  The rationale is that a good lawyer ought to be able to argue any position well.  Well last year, the issue chosen by the professors to be argued was same-sex marriage.  Students were assigned randomly to argue either side.

Apparently, there was one very liberal professor, who was unable to separate her personal feelings from her teaching, and she brutally attacked the poor students who had been assigned to argue the case against same-sex marriage.  This professor was completely incapable of stepping back and responding in a calm and gracious manner.  This seems to me something that is increasingly happening.  As someone in academics, I see this behavior overwhelmingly from liberals who are intolerant of and threatening towards anyone who deviates from their POV, but I have seen similar responses at times from conservatives to those with different ideas.

It seems to me that we no longer seek for common wisdom when making common decisions.  Instead, there is always an attempt by one side or another to invoke brute force in order to mandate their desired end.  This goes hand in hand with our increasingly litigious society - we are less and less likely to resolve political and social issues via political solutions, but rather always go to court where there are winners and losers.  We see this with the whole gay marriage issue in California.  Rather then having a political discussion on the issue of marriage in society today, and trying to work out something that everyone can live with, there is resort to constant litigation on the one side and referendums on the other.

When you resort to this sort of force in decision making, then there is a lessened need for cooperation and working together.  Instead, the mindset becomes one of “you’re either for us or against us” and the purpose of “discussion” (if we can call it that) is to ensure that your faction wins the levers of power.  For conservatives, this usually means whipping up the crowd into a frenzy, while for the liberals this usually means Machiavellian political machinations.

There are also power imbalance and pessimism about the future issues.  Peggy Noonan wrote a very insightful column a few weeks ago, which she concluded with:

When the adults of a great nation feel long-term pessimism, it only makes matters worse when those in authority take actions that reveal their detachment from the concerns—even from the essential nature—of their fellow citizens. And it makes those citizens feel powerless.

Inner pessimism and powerlessness: That is a dangerous combination.

I think that Noonan’s comments apply far beyond the specific issue she was addressing in her column.

I wonder what blogs would have looked like had they existed during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Talk about polarizing events! JFK assassination theories, Vietnam war disillusionment, Vatican II, the era of Nixon, changes in social mores, wow, what fodder for rancor and misunderstandings. Not only on the world scene, but there was the initial attempts to allow women to be Episcopal priests, a whole new/revised prayer book, new music, etc. I suspect that the choosing of sides and throwing darts at the other side would have surfaced in spades in blogs if they had existed. I think that we see the unruliness of whatever debates are now occuring because they are so public whereas in years (centuries?) past they were much more behind the scenes. The Pharisees and Sanhedrin do not appear to have been very tolerant of the followers of Jesus (and how many times did St. Paul get run out of town?).  That all said, I do prefer to confine my forum-following to ones that are moderated at least to a degree.  I stay away from free-for-all forums, especially where religion and politics are on the agenda.

I am so thankful for this blog!
There is only ONE who knows our hearts, and HE is the one who taught “Judge not lest ye be judged.” We never know what pain and fear might be motivating folks who go for the jugular on some other blogs.
Perhaps blogs such as this one will serve as places where people can feel safe to express their points of view without fear of rejection.

When I was in seminary and university in what is now the distant past we were rigorously schooled in the fundamentals of logic so that we might learn rationally to analyze an argument and respond to it in an informed and reasonable manner. It was some of the most valuable teaching I had, but in today’s forums the rules of logic and principles of rhetoric have all but disappeared. We have delineated ourselves into what are essentially two armed camps slugging things out. Moderating voices are sidelined and so the answers now HAVE to be right or wrong, black or white, left or right, liberal or conservative, traditional or progressive, and so forth, and so forth.

I remain convinced that a core problem is that the presuppositions (sp?) of different sides are never articulated. If you enter a conversation with someone with markedly different assumptions, and those assumptions are never acknowledged, the debate is likely to be frustrating indeed.

[I switched browsers and I miss the spell checker in Firefox]

Phil Snyder - 24 August 2010 10:42 AM

One of the problems is the anonymous nature of blog comments.

I don’t believe that this is the domain of electronic phase space.  Our culture seems to be isolating itself into clics of intellectualism, choosing those they agree with, without any strategic sense of community.

I have experienced this same angry polemic in person and at work, not only electronic forums, or one-to-one e-communication.  Even hand written letters, rare though they are, seem to have lost their art, and resorted to declarations, and meanness.

The problem seems a purposeful, though not always with awareness, inidividual isolation. The solution seems to be community where there is safety.  We as Christians need to see we have the inherent solution as long as we avoid being part of the problem.

I recall a moment when it became clear to me that civility in the US was at risk. It was during an interview with Gen. Wesley Clark after one of the 2004 presidential debates. Gen. Clark was part of Sen. Kerry’s campaign team and for several minutes the interviewer treated him with an incredible level of rudeness - interrupting every response from Clark. I never imagined that I would see a decorated retired general treated that way by a reporter.