Angels and demons

The other day, I had to disapprove two comments, posted by the same writer, because in an attempt to defend his own views he took to calling two co-commenters names. That brings the total number of comments I’ve disapproved to maybe four or five, all of them (at least in my view) bearing great offense not to me or Manolo personally but to our fellow readers.

The disapproved comments were atypical; by and large, as can be seen from a simple review of the hundreds of comments we’ve already logged, commenters or (my preference) co-bloggers have been generally civil. Oh, to be sure, there is much sarcasm to go around, and insults have been exchanged, but subtly.

While there is little evidence that we have actually succeeded in convincing others (much of our exchange consists of opinion firmly stated and, when challenged, even more firmly restated), we have managed to keep talking. The comments of a recent regular poster, completely cynical about all politicians and even the political enterprise itself, have probably tested the patience of other commenters. And yet the discussion continues. That, I would like to think, is no mean feat; merely keeping this small part of the public square open is already a good thing.

The limits of our virtual public square, however, are considerable. In a real plaza, we can hold forth on our political or other views—-and our audience, plus the occasional passerby, can see our facial expressions, our sometimes unconscious gestures, our body language. See and appreciate. A smile or even an apologetic look can excuse a direct insult; a ridiculous argument can be demolished with a hearty laugh. There are many things we can get away with, in face to face conversation, simply because so-called non-verbal clues are processed too.

Much of this “background” is lost in virtual forums like ours. (Heck, we don’t even have bottles of beer or cups of coffee to argue with.) This, in part, explains why there is so much incivility in Internet forums. (Thankfully, it bears repeating, not so much in ours.) Some people can be discourteous online because other communication clues they take for granted (the twinkle in the eye, when a well-argued line issues from our mouth; the nodding-in-agreement of others in the audience, which encourages us to pursue an argument) are missing.

Of course, other reasons exist for the incivility. The following links suggest some of them.

Butch Dalisay, the UP professor who spreads the gospel of Apple when he is not writing some of the country’s best fiction, posted “an anti-rant rant” in his blog last week. Apparently, the response has been, well, something to rave about.

And sometime ago, Randy David (Inquirer columnist and, yes, another UP professor) led off a column with some choice words on “demonization.” He was talking about “the ethic of discontinuity” that marks our politics in general and our political transitions in particular, but I think his remarks can be applied to much of public discourse as well: Too many of us have the tendency to demonize the other side’s argument, or the other side itself.

Angels, and demons. If we can get beyond these frames of reference, we may actually get somewhere.

Now, all that remains to be said is: What do you guys think about including politicians’ statements in our forum? We have one pending comment from “Team Gordon.” (Hey, they read us!) I don’t know whether we should post it. What do you think?

Share This