Posted by
Hueguenot on Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:35:45 PM
Hi, all, and welcome to the first installment of Civil Discourse (aka Toward Understanding). The purpose is to have a conversation that is as much about listening as talking. It is to be as much about understanding your adversary's point of view as helping them understand yours. I hope it is not a fools errand.
I was prompted to do this thing by the comments on Mike Gallagher's 9/20/07 column on the Jena incident (which I mostly agreed with but found somewhat flawed and lacking in pertinent facts). The posts amounted to a dialogue on race relations. There were a lot of insightful posts that genuinely tried to express the poster's point of view in a non-offensive way. There were lots of responses by people who really wanted to understand other people's point of view. Unfortunately, there were a lot of people who were only interested in making wholesale generalizations about and indictments of other races. Who didn't seem interested in where the other person was coming from. Different people had different understandings of the facts of the case, partly because the original column was short on facts, and so they were arguing from completely different sets of presuppositions. Even some of the reasonable posters drifted into it and you could see "battle fatigue" creeping into their tone. There was also some genuine ugliness there, too, by people who aren't grown up enough to engage in civil discourse. In the end, with a few exceptions, it degenerated into a gridlock something like this:
"You're just a racist"
"No, YOU'RE a racist."
Sometimes there would be slight variations on the theme:
"YOU'RE A SUPER-SIZED DOUBLE RACIST WITH SUGAR ON TOP!"
It was sad and depressing.
Cynics would say that that is the fate of any dialogue on race, or even any discussions between political adversaries and it's tempting to believe it. But I don't believe it, and I decided that if it is true, it won't be because I didn't do anything about it. Hence this blog.
So here's how it will go, if enough people are interested to get this thing off the ground:
This blog is a benevolent constitutional monarchy. That is, I make the rules, and if you violate them or what a reasonable person would consider common decency, they you'll be hitting the dusty trail. I know this introduces some subjectivity at the beginning, but that's the way it's gotta be. I'm the arbiter. I'm an arbiter with my own presuppositions and prejudices, but I strive to recognize them and to be fair. And if I err, I invite you to call me on it, and I will call people on theirs, even ones who agree with me. I will be part of the discussion and will also be an annoying presence hovering over it in an attempt to guide it.
The purpose in participating should be more than just stating an opinion; it should be an attempt to give as much information as possible as to why you feel as you do, and what has led you to your conclusion. And it should be as much about listening as talking.
Try to state as many of the facts of the issue as you can, so we can identify where our presuppositions lie. If we can agree on the hard facts of an issue, we'll have a much more productive dialog.
At times, I will try to sum up points that have been agreed on and ones still in contention as a sort of "thread maintenance" and ask the participants if they think I'm on the right track, or barking up the wrong tree.
Here is my one written rule: No name-calling or ad hominem attacks, period, whether against fellow posters or public figures. No matter how mild or seemingly innocuous. Rather than try to draw a line between what is acceptable and not acceptable, I'm just banning it all.
I'll give you from zero to 3 strikes. Depending on how egregious the offense, I may remove your comment or I may ban you for a time or forever. If it seems arbitrary, well, it's my blog.
We'll see how it works.
Some other guidelines:
This is very important for this here thing to work. If someone is obviously a troll, or a shill or doing some Moveon.org initiation rite or being nihilistic or just trying to hijack a discussion by sowing discord, then IGNORE THEM. I repeat, IGNORE them. Don't give them what they want. The best answer to give them is a deafening silence, or at least the sound of a lone cricket chirping in the back of the auditorium. If their contribution is beyond the pale, don't worry, I will use my dictatorial powers to remove their post. So IGNORE them.
If you have a problem with what someone says, ask for clarification and really try to understand their answer. Try to remember that a lifetime of inputs and experiences shapes who we are and what we think. Try to remember that someone who was raised by wolves won't have the best table manners, and try to make some allowances for it.
Please, don't bother regugitating someone else's opinion or talking points. We want to know why you think what you do, not what your favorite columnist thinks.
Try to keep in mind what unites us and what we have in common as human beings and work from there.
Recognize that there isn't much point in arguing details with someone who has a different world view and presuppositions.
If an exchange between you and someone else is going nowhere, recognize there may be a time to simply agree to disagree.
To the more, ahem, robustly outspoken among us, I'm sorry if this all seems too touchy-feely for you, too milquetoast and mamby-pamby. I'm just trying to come up with something that works and is sustainable. I'm not saying there is no place for passion or emotion, but don't let it detract from the purpose of the discussion. You have to be able to reign it in and govern your emotions. There are some favorite bloggers and posters of mine on Townhall who wouldn't make it under these rules. I hope they'll try to make some allowances to live within them so we can benefit from their input.
I'm not trying to stifle free speech, but if you can't make a cogent argument within the framework laid out here, then you don't belong in a civil discourse and there are other forums where you'll fit in better.
When I see thoughtful, civil and insightful posts elsewhere on Townhall, I invite them to be a regular presence here, a regular contributor. I hope that goes well, too.
I should be posting once a week on Sunday. We'll see how it goes. This is my first blog and I do have a full-time job, along with a wife and two young children.
Got suggestions or constructive criticsm? You've got my e-mail address, lay 'em on me.
This thing will either go or die on the vine. We'll see.