tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2869098627907576373..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Don't debate the dishonest - Maxims for bloggersBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-81720328501394176062016-02-06T04:11:00.354+00:002016-02-06T04:11:00.354+00:00Bruce,
You are spot on in saying that internet co...Bruce,<br /><br />You are spot on in saying that internet comments should be heavily screened so as to not allow the purpose of a blog to be subverted. The dangers of unedited comments are multiple. The volume of comments from critics can drown out the intended message (blog swarming). The comments can degenerate into name calling. The thread can be taken in irrelevant directions, purposely or accidentally. <br /><br />On the other hand, it can be useful to solicit critical, but civil, comments if you are looking to explore a topic for new viewpoints, especially on a subject where the issue is an open question in your mind. Debate can be a useful exercise. The internet, however, is not conducive to fair debate. Most forums are not. <br /><br />It can also be useful to take apart a few critical comments. I know of one blog where comments are not allowed, but where an occasional “letter from a reader” is presented and then refuted. This is useful if the purpose of a blog is to educate readers on how to handle opposing arguments. <br /><br />The First Amendment is good and valuable, but any good idea can be subverted, and, in our current environment, will be. The Berkeley Free Speech movement morphed over the years from its original sorry focus (promoting swear words) to something even worse, leftist-mandated speech codes. Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-2771097815703979522016-02-04T20:57:10.012+00:002016-02-04T20:57:10.012+00:00Very good advice and thank you for keeping the com...Very good advice and thank you for keeping the comments section around here so tidy. It is a joy and keeps me coming back.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14131427883067501547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-46908315008121912772016-02-04T18:06:15.098+00:002016-02-04T18:06:15.098+00:00@V - I think so probably - but I find the concept ...@V - I think so probably - but I find the concept of 'free speech' incoherent and unworkable and very subversible - much like the concept of Human Rights. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-28286023828768682532016-02-04T17:58:46.632+00:002016-02-04T17:58:46.632+00:00If I understood you correctly, you in essence said...If I understood you correctly, you in essence said that precious values and information are vulnerable, and easily subverted by plausible sounding rationalizations, thus that kind of commenting is not free speech or giving a fair hearing, it is just drowning the free speech of the speaker. Hence free speech must be protected, or else it will not exist. <br /><br />Because free debate and hearing the opponents views are important too, perhaps there should be politically fairly neutral free speech forums, where polite discussion of any topic is allowed? Neutrality is of course impossible, and the sites will curve to one side or the other and perhaps crowding out the other side, but we have to still try regularly.<br /><br />The same sentence could be healing or subversive in different context. "In this universe man has mandates of ant" could be the first step in the journey to healing among crowd of people, who are on average too ego-centric and might incline to some extent toward narcissistic features. On the other hand, if that sentence is used among humble Christians, it is subversive.Valkeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10835782570473516162noreply@blogger.com