PhotoDude.com

The Daily Whim

The Daily Whim

A Photo Gallery With An Attitude

Tue. Jun 29, 2004

Sick of Ourselves Yet?

I’ve told you before, being in the middle, it’s been smack-in-the-face plain to me. But now those on the left and right are beginning to see it, too.

Back in April, I wrote, “It’s my opinion most of the political spectrum has been coarsened by this ‘partisan hackery,’ and it fully infects our process of choosing leadership. It’s got to stop, or we will get exactly what we deserve; a fractured country which no one can lead [...] The larger issue here is simple civility and intelligent discourse on heated political topics. This year, when it is most needed, it’s nearly completely AWOL.”

A week or so later, I used the church analogy to describe the common partisan rhetoric we hear that insures “the choir will give a big ‘Amen,’ and ‘Preach On’ to encourage more. For a preacher, that’s empowering. Makes you feel good to know you’re connecting with your fellow believers. It also makes you entirely forget your core mission … those people you’ve turned your back on. The congregation. The ones you need to convert to win in November. That is your Holy Mission. And with such preaching, you fail miserably. Heated rhetoric converts no one, it turns them off. They will then leave that church, and go on a likely futile search for another preacher who wants to address their concerns, not score points with the choir.”

And then it was only a few days before I it happened again: “Why do you need candidates to piss you off, when their supporters are doing such a superb job of it?”

That was two months ago. Since then, I’ve both intentionally and unintentionally “tuned out” the harshest of the rhetoric, at least, as it relates to my surfing habits. I’m still open to arguments from both sides, and still seek them out. But when the arguments evolve to be more about mocking than about substance (insert favorite Bush/Kerry slur here), I’m a departing trail of electrons. I’ve apparently made the subconscious decision that if you can’t discuss today’s politics without stooping to insults and slurs, you’re not worth my time. It’s amazing the places I don’t go anymore.

However, I still get out enough to see a significant trend over the past week or so. Even the partisans are tiring of the hackery. It would appear the clubhouses are getting boring. And their pointlessness is becoming apparent. Now, not everyone I’ve quoted below is talking just about politics. But they all have a common thread: our willing descent into the muck, and how ugly we look when we do.

Deb: I know I’ve more or less stopped posting, and it really isn’t an intentional thing. It’s just that I can’t take politics anymore, and pretty much everything in life is political on one level or another, so I’m not left with much to talk about.

I can’t take politics anymore because the last of the attempts at honesty have gone out of the thing, and we’re down to side A trying to brainwash side B into believing that Side B has already been brainwashed by the evil leaders of side B, with — and this is the part that’s wearing me out — absolutely no reference to reality.

§

Mindles H. Dreck: I wonder occasionally whether addressing partisan polemics makes you partisan yourself. That’s actually one of the thoughts that’s diminished my enthusiasm about posting. I know I’ll be backed into some argument where fierce partisans insist that if I don’t share their wildly unreasonable demonization of the other side I must be … one of them!

I know many people were backed up into the same corner defending Clinton. I hope I didn’t do it to them.

§

Billmon: Also, to be honest, over the past few months I’ve noticed a definite deterioration in the quality of the conversation here at the bar. Trolls I can usually give the bum’s rush pretty quickly – at least most of the time. But I’m seeing more and more stuff on the threads that strikes me as marginal at best – people who seem to get their main kick out of insulting or picking fights with the other patrons [...] So, very reluctantly, I’ve decided to turn Whiskey Bar into a commentless blog — just me and my occasional thoughts, there for anybody to read, but not for everybody to come along and throw in their two cents.

§

Anil Dash: One of the things I’ve learned of late is that, despite being a wonderful, generous community of truly warm-hearted people, sometimes the blog world likes nothing more than a good old-fashioned pile-on [...] I’m proud of what we’ve done in creating so many different weblog communities, and I don’t want our legacy to be one of having the positives overshadowed by our frequent, though understandable, tendency to be unkind or uncivil to those we’re communicating with.

§

Mark Bernstein: I spent the morning with an old friend. We both sense, frankly, that something is wrong in the weblog world [...] Finally, we need a process, a custom or a ritual in the blogosphere that let’s us tell someone, without terrible loss of face, that they’ve been uncivil [...] We need to think seriously about whether slashdot and its ilk have contributed anything lately, because it sure does plenty of damage. It may be time to pull the plug.

§

Rafe Colburn: I think that just about everyone faces the temptation of dismissing the things people who disagree with them say, and justifying it by focusing on their motives rather than on their argument [...] When I look back at all the things I’ve believed to be true over the course of my life, my overall level of confidence in my current opinions is reduced, and I think that would be true for most people if they did the same thing [...] I’ve been both vastly more conservative and vastly more liberal than I am right now. Dismissing people that I don’t agree with would truly be an exhibition of arrogance and ignorance, and that’s how I see it in other people as well.

§

I don’t have any answers to the above, though you’ll find some interesting suggestions among the links. But all of this was the inspiration for the quote I added from Walter Lippmann: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.

In this binary election year, that’s a real danger.

Later: I went to a couple of sites today I haven’t visited in a while. For the above reasons. But I saw them linked elsewhere, and took a peek. I got a textbook example of the above. Two simple links, which quickly dissolved into the usual partisan flamewar among dozens of people in the comments, cross-blog accusations of LIES!!!, followed by the posting of the actual personal address and phone number of someone involved, for anyone who was in a harassing mood.

Count me the Cheney-word out of that. You people are nuts. And need something more productive to do with your hands.


Peanut Gallery

1  Kevin wrote:

I think the answer is to stay in the middle. I know I’m as guilty as some of the worst offenders of doing this, and I’m just now starting to wake up from it. There’s real anger out there at the administration on the left, and real anger at the those who seem unsupportive of the President on the right. Trying to find a moderate voice is difficult, because I get so wrapped up in what I’m writing about (passion’s not bad as long as it’s not blinding). Maybe we all need to try to be a bit more clinical, stay away from motives and start talking about consequences? I don’t know, but it seems like everyone’s angry about motives (“Bush is evil!” “Liberals hate America!!”). There’s no good faith any more.

Comment by Kevin · 06/29/04 08:38 AM
2  phaTTboi wrote:

I think the root of this problem in so far as blogs and broadcast media are concerned is even more venial. There is this “Nielsen numbers” supported idea that controversy sells and that traffic is the precursor of relevance.

I wish I could figure out how to make civility commercially appealing. But if even Alastair Cooke was reduced to being a front man for PBS to the American audience, what hope have I of paying it forward?

3  emcee fleshy wrote:

I’ve been feeling the same way, and avoiding comments Thanks for putting a finger on it.

4  Reid wrote:

Mr. P. Boi, I’ll agree with you in terms of broadcast media and their commercial motivations. Or media in general. They are a business that makes money from attracting eyeballs, and they do it by whatever means necessary. They only back off from a tactic when it costs them.

But blogs? I don’t know. I have noted in the past that there are a few sites raking in over 4 figures a week running ads for various politicians and causes on “Their Side.” And that the traffic and cash flow party at those sites will likely come to a halt after November.

But it is a very few sites that are actually profiting from this partisan mess, while a hundred times more are engaging in the partisan hackery for … for … fun? Ego? The simulation of popularity that your crankin’ site stats can give you?

It sure ain’t for money. And given the tone of it, it isn’t for the sake of political discourse, or changing minds (calling the other side “idiots” is not a very effective tactic of persuasion). It’s like a web version of the dozens, set to a political beat.

The best answer I can come up with? Chest beating, just because they can, and because it approximates fun. For a while.

But what about when they realize it isn’t fun anymore, and probably never really was for most people? I think that’s the point a lot of people are reaching. “This isn’t productive, it’s bullshit. And a lot of it’s coming from my own side.”

A lot of people are simply shutting up and refusing to participate. I’m not sure that’s not the answer, either.

Comment by Reid · 07/ 2/04 09:02 AM
Comments are closed for this article
Contact me to find out more