Creek Running North

Just when I become comfortable with the notion that you are a Very Good Writer, and store that notion away in some corner where it becomes background and I don’t have to think about it… just then, you whack me upside the head with a two-by-four like this one that forces me to bring that notion back out, think about it again, and marvel anew.

“Thanks” is a pretty poor comment, but it’s all I’ve got in my quiver.  Thanks, Chris.

You are SO banned.

Um, I mean thanks, Sherwood.

‘Sokay.  I like bands.

Very persuasive. I will have to re-think my own policy on comments.

The internet has expanded human community across a different dimension, of intentional interest instead of incidental geography. 

Deleting a hostile comment isn’t censorship, it’s just taking out the trash.  What’s left, as you said, is more likely to be a positive, constructive community.  There’s nothing stopping the nasty commenters from starting their own blog if they want to.

But there is no such thing as not making a decision…

I am wrestling with what to do.  I want a wide range of opinions but…

...to decide against participation by those who are intimidated or annoyed into silence.

...and i don’t want to miss those individuals.  It is precisely the reason I already take the unusual step of auto-censoring some of the better-known profanity.

I have a few commenters who use anti-Muslim racial slurs but a few others who reliably take them to task for it.  That exchange is useful in itself but probably rough sailing for some good people who choose not to comment.

Guess i should work up a standard for deleting comments and post it as you’ve done here.  Got to figure out what the threshold is.  But you’ve crystallized one thing for me.  I’m adding the aforementioned slurs to my censor list which already ###’s out far less offensive profanity.

Thanks again, as always, Chris.

I teach a media ethics class where I try to get undergrads to grapple with things like censorship.  I’ll be teaching it at a new school next semester and can’t wait to discuss your post with them.

One honest question to pose--can you begin to define any clear means of drawing the line between those comments you immediately trash and those that give long pause?  A certain gut-level feeling that “this will hurt some folks and silence more” seems a start, but then again you and I once had a difference of opinion over a funny video about the rights of vegetables. (I’d link to the Pandagon thread in question but I can’t find it anymore.) You thought those who thought it was offensive had too thin a skin and not enough sense of humor about themselves.  I agree, and certainly that video hurt no-one, but my argument at the time (I believe) echoed yours above--it’s not just about who is hurt, but also about wider effects on who feels comfortable to speak, etc.  Perhaps an unfair comparison.

Anyway, what Sherwood said about the two-by-four above.  This is the kind of post that makes me pause and think: Damn.  That is writing.

Thanks, nashe.

My answer is a two parter:

1) As I said to a friend earlier today discussing this post, hard cases make bad caselaw. There are certainly going to be many times when it’s hard to tell whether a person is arguing in good faith or not, but the vast majority of comments are clearly either in one category or the other. Being hesitant to deal with the obvious stuff because someday a case might come up that’s not so obvious — the approach I see a lot of folks taking — makes little sense.

2) And (as I imply above) making that determination is going to be a lot less tricky in the difficult cases if there isn’t a constant din of jerks.

2a) I do not like the person I was becoming at Pandagon. And I was very grateful for your humane response in that thread. I don’t like the “grow a skin” argument as a whole, and really only one person in that thread was acting unreasonably. I’d do that thread differently today.

2a^1) I suspect that in a venue such as CRN, were I to run that Arrogant Worms video to which you refer, people would be far more likely to assume I was (at worst) teasing mildly, because there is not the climate of wholesale trashing here that there is there.

Such a well written explanation of decision making and then the decision; almost makes one want to steal it (but given the RIAA jury decision that would be a very bad idea). 

I frequent a political blog in the state of WA, because it: is a powerful voice in the northwest politics; is read by most reporters and staffs of local, regional, and national politicians; and is very well put together.  It is though, one of the only blogs to which i devote time and attention that has a zero censorship policy.  The host will not interfere with anyone’s free speech, and thus, the commons of the space are replete with examples of such vile hate that, at times, churns one’s stomach.  There are those that engage the trolls, there are those that ignore them, and there are those that continue the ongoing thread conversation in a dignified and social manner.  It is a space that is very hard to get used to, and being offline for the summer, i returned to find that i had to work through the annoyance and pain all over again.  A month in, and i can almost take it.  But it is my choice; i certainly don’t have to do it.

Your space has always felt good to be in.  The threads, some deeply troubling and heart wrenching, enjoy a community of commentary that is rich with caring, compassion, and humanity.  We need these sorts of spaces too, very much so.  Without CRN i would not be able to put up with that other space (one i read before i come here each day).  Please keep your space filled with your heart and mind; they offer treasures for this weary world.

Hey Chris,
Great post as usual. Thank you.
I am here everyday, and hardly ever post. I just don’t often feel I have anything significant to say, which hasn’t already been discussed. I love the writing and photos. I appreciate what your posts stir up in me, thoughts and feelings, as well as the reflection.
I post today to reinforce what spyder said above. This space does feel good and I believe the folks that visit and comment here reflect that. I repeat what spyder requests...... Please keep your space filled with your heart and mind; they offer treasures for this weary world. As far as what people say and do, I can’t seem to care much. Thoughtless action and speech seem to be the thing to do currently. Attention at all cost. In some cases to frame or distract discussion. Either way you handle this, just keep on keepin’ on.

=v= Are you banding Sherwood to track his movements?

I really can’t follow many blogs, so I don’t know any context about the topic that sparked this, but I am aghast at how traffic reporting trumps all.  I remember reading about how walls of flame from a Richmond refinery fire was slowing the commute, and only later learned that somebody died there; and how it took nearly a day to learn that there were no deaths in the flipped fuel truck in Oakland that melted part of the highway.

Malachi Richter, a friend of some friends in Chicago, self-immolated in protest of the war in Iraq.  The MSM coverage mentioned the fire, and its effect on traffic, but didn’t mention that it was a human being that was burning.

“Vandalism” indeed seems a crucial notion.

Does a given comment use words to obliterate and deter other voices, rather than engage them? Does its hatefulness vastly outweigh any substantive content? Does the site attract sufficient snarky savvy commenters (vide Pharyngula) to reveal a graffiti for what it is, and reflect its minority status?

There is no shortage of sites as wailing walls, encrusted with every passing git’s noxious spit.  Surely one can maintain one quiet cedar-closet of sanity?

quiet cedar-closet of sanity

I think we have a new CRN motto.

a thoughtful post, as always.  i like CRN because of its thoughtful discussions, and of course, your lovely writing.

there is no legal right for a person to go to a private website and spew garbage.  you are not the government, so the issue is not censorship at all; it is more along the lines of “vandalism,” as you said.  this is your living room and participants are your guests.  there is nothing unfair about dis-inviting someone whose purpose is to attack others, de-rail the activities, or otherwise run amok for the sheer fun of being an ass.

I was talking (in Real Life) with a blogger friend yesterday and we both noted how quicker we both are on the Delete button now than when we first started.  I am far harsher now than I was before.  My wife, mother, brother and kids are reading my blog - it has no space for crap any more.

thank you for this. i am a profound internet optimist; i do have hope that with increased communication we have increased opportunity for civilized exchange. your writing gives me hope that eventually the proper etiquette will precipitate out. it’s worse than high school sometimes. if we keep adding to the conversation as you have, we might someday mostly grow up.

Well, I just banned another troll and linked this.  I should bookmark this post, I swear.

Most excellent, Chris!  Not only a notion founded upon shared belief, but a splendid piece of writing to boot.  You said what I said on my own blog about comments, only you did it with with flair and beauty I could scarcely imagine.  Thank you.

Now can we talk about farm animals and mustard?  I’ve missed that comment thread.  Or would that be considered trollish derailment?

*bans jason*

Gosh, someone’s in quite a mood today.  Is the band precious metal or just some garish plastic thing?  I have fashion sense, you know, so it matters.

that depends, jason. you have a band name in mind?

farm animals and mustard, obviously.

That’s the right idea, kathy a!  It was either that or Poupon Pork, but my friends told me that sounded a bit tacky.

I’m behind on my reading lately. Thank you, Chris. Community, no matter how it’s achieved, is truly what reminds us that we’re human.

I think deletion is a very good policy (and it’s stupid for anyone to cry censorship when they can go and start their own blog whenever they want to).

The ultimate goal of a troll is to drive people away from a site by making it an unpleasant experience to be there (if they’re honest with you when you ask them, they’ll admit that their goal is to marginalize or shut down the site).  They are not interested in others’ perspectives or good faith arguments and they are a purely destructive force in the conversation.