Curiously, I've been mulling over a post on this very topic. Why not post it, or something like it, there? (Ditto the McConnell post, which I agree with completely, and which is (despite that ;) ) quite good.)

It's an interesting problem. Made all the more so by the facts that (a) on each side we mostly already do understand what the other side's argument is and (b) topics about which we don't already have opinions tend to get less participation. The latter point, though, brings to my mind a measuring problem: you can only see the opinions of the people who post comments. those who agree with you, and don't say anything, or disagree and switch their computer off in a huff, are unrecorded and uncounted. You can't really know whether the ObWi experiment is working, because you only see a sample.

On the former point, I guess that's a source of frustration for anyone who wants to change minds. I don't disagree with you on, say, Social Security, because I don't understand your position (I say this not knowing your position, but confident that it is among a variety I've heard from different people over the years -- in this example, 'you' is generic) but because I've heard a variety of arguments, and in the end, most people come to a position on this kind of issue based on values. On the one hand (broadly, because there are of course more than two sides) there's the value of self-reliance, and on the other the value of taking care of the less fortunate. Add in the value of not unsettling settled expectations on the one hand, and of abandoning mistakes of the past on the other, and you get to a point where no amount of discussion -- especially of minutiae like when is the exact year that the system will go broke (if ever) -- is going to make anyone change. I get quite frustrated with a consistent point advanced by Charles Bird (for example) and others about how awful our adversaries in the struggle with violent Islamists are. As if my disagreement regarding tactics and strategy in the struggle stems from either not appreciating how awful they are, or from thinking that their awfulness is good.

I guess the shorter version is that we come to our beliefs about the great issues of the day by measuring the facts as we understand them against the values we bring with us. You can hope to change my understanding of the facts -- if I'm actually wrong about a fact upon which I have been relying -- but the values part is going to be very tough going.

My goal in commenting is usually to add some facts, as I know them. Often enough, though, I take the easier road, and make a values statement -- recognizing that it's not going to change anyone's mind, but putting it our there maybe as a marker. I view such comments as a failure, on my part, and when I see that that's what I've been doing, I generally regret it. And quit. If I had a delete key for already posted comments, I'd probably use it alot.

I've gone at greater length than I had planned, but I did want to say a couple more things. First, you may not be able to guess how much I, for one, appreciate your participation in Obsidian Wings from the comments I've posted there. I'm not sure what to do about this -- in the heat of writing a comment, I might well concentrate on a narrow point of disagreement, and it might seem more personal than intended. I think ill of very very few people I've ever encountered in commenting on blogs, and can correctly say I've never had a negative thought about you personally. But, as I say, I think you can well have gotten a different idea from what's been written.

The second thing I wanted to mention is something I'm not sure you can see -- a certain asymetry between the left and right perceptions of the other. You write:

On the right, the assumption appears to be that those on the left are more interested in bringing down America than protecting it, while the left is convinced that Republicans are evil thugs interested only in preserving their own power.

It's a gross but not unfair generalization. (I'll note that I do not answer to 'left' and never have. I'll play the role for purposes of discussion, however). As I say, I'd imagine that you are unaware of the asymetry, but anyone on the left receiving end would see it immediately in the context you are talking about. People like you, Charles Bird, DaveC, Slartibartfast, to name a few, may or may not be 'evil,' but none of you can be considered 'powerful.' You want your (I realize that I am attributing to you personally views you do not have -- and only do so for the sake of making a point about symetry, not about your personal views) side to retain power, but are not personally invested in it -- you are at most cheerleaders of evil power lust, not participants. On the other side, the charge is directly personal. I'm not just said to be a cheerleader of someone else's plan to turn over the country to the terrorists, but of being as fully individually culpable as anyone. You have Dick Cheney whom you can either support or decry -- I'm out there to face the treason charge all by myself.

I recognize that I may be as blind with regard to this as I am saying I think you might be.

Andrew,

I don't think that "convince" vs. "rally" comes close to covering the reasons for people's posts and comments on political blogs. Especially for comments, I very much doubt that people have a pragmatic purpose in mind at all in most cases -- most of the time the comments are just an emotional response to a world that fails to be the way we want it to be. I read comments like "Republicans are torturers" and "Democrats are traitors" as just paraphrases of the same underlying thought: "I have strong feelings about what the right course of action is, and I find it extremely frustrating that all those other people don't agree with me."

Is there a use for ObWi and such sites? I guess that depends on what you think it is (or rather, what it's shooting for). If you want a place where liberals and conservatives can shout at each other but still go out for a metaphorical beer afterward, then tacitus.org does that pretty well already -- it's been going strong for many years with no definitive tilt to one side or the other. I don't see much evidence there of people's minds being changed, but they do seem to be pretty good about not wishing death and destruction upon their political opponents. If you want a place that's a bit more open to opposing viewpoints than the average echo chamber, then that's what ObWi is right now, and even that amount of tolerance is rare enough in the political blogosphere. Moderate, polite righties can have productive conversations there, as long as they're able to ignore the more vehement lefties and respond just to the temperate comments.

If you want a place where people listen to each others' arguments respectfully and are genuinely open-minded and non-dogmatic, where people are searching for the right answers rather than declaring them, then that's not what ObWi ever was, nor what it aspires to. I do think that such a community could be nurtured, and I'd be ecstatic to see it done, but it would require a vigilant and active moderator to expunge offending posts and warn/ban the partisans. And of course it would be drawing from a pretty small pool of potential commenters, as the study you mention suggests and our experience confirms.

I consistently stand up for the right to make stupid and uninformed comments! Because, lookit, eventually group blogs do get cliquiesh, and somebody needs to be contrarian.

you are at most cheerleaders of evil power lust

Are you talking about the cheerleaders with the big megaphones or the ones in skirts, Charley?

I personally like the flat style of ObWi, don't know how to look for things in Scoop.

Also, if every other comment in a thread says DaveC, outrage, accusations, questions, etc, just remember I'm a slow typist (Gary), and I respond in general statements.

If you want a place where people listen to each others' arguments respectfully and are genuinely open-minded and non-dogmatic, where people are searching for the right answers rather than declaring them, then that's not what ObWi ever was, nor what it aspires to. I do think that such a community could be nurtured, and I'd be ecstatic to see it done, but it would require a vigilant and active moderator to expunge offending posts and warn/ban the partisans.

Are you suggesting Macallan fix ObWi?

hilzoy,

I am not sure it would be wise to post this at ObWings. Just looking at the responses it has garnered here, I can only imagine the response it would receive in open forum at ObWings. Normally when I come back here to post things, it's as a cooling-off time for me, and certainly that is the case right now. While I believe every word of my last post to Jesurgislac, I regret posting it because it did nothing to advance the discussion and only further inflamed tensions. I should better discipline myself not to respond to certain posters.

Charley,

Granted, there may be a silent majority at ObWings with different impressions, but all I can go on is what I see in the comment threads, for good or ill. Anything else is speculation.

As for the generalization, it was intentionally broad in the (probably vain) hope that by making it very broad and almost cartoonish, neither side would fly off the handle reading it. It seems there is a sizable fraction of the population out there that wants nothing more than to take offense at something. And maybe you're right and the left doesn't consider individual righties to be 'evil,' but the ongoing insistence that anyone who votes Republican supports torture does seem to fly in the face of that claim.

ken,

Convince/rally was not intended to be comprehensive. Consider it more tautological: those were the kinds of posts I was considering.

Perhaps I don't understand the purpose of ObWings, but I was under the impression that, while nobody expects the socialists to come over to capitalism or vice versa, it might be a place where socialists try to understand how capitalists think and the reverse. When I throw out an observation like 'calling voters torture supporters might be a bad idea,' it's not intended as a personal criticism, it's intended to point up how that commentary is going to be received by those on the other side. Now if your intent is to not worry about what the other side thinks, that's fine, but then spare me the concern; if you're not concerned enough to try and convince people of the rightness of your position, I'm of the opinion you're just trying to show everyone else what a wonderful person you are. 'Look at me, I'm against torture, aren't I special?' Obviously I am in the minority on that front.

Andrew: your call about whether to post it here.

ken: I actually would hope that it would be a place where people could hear one another's views out respectfully. One of the reasons I want to write something along the lines of Andrew's post is that I think things have gotten more -- angry? -- lately. Possibly that's because there's a lot to be angry about, but I think it does no one any good at all to take out their views on torture on people who have consistently opposed it, just because they're further to the right on a spectrum that only exists in our imaginations anyways.

I think there's a hard line to walk regarding how much one polices a site to get the kinds of results one wants, versus letting things go in the name of autonomy. (And that's without mentioning the fact of limited time, fulltime jobs, and the like.) But I wish it were more like the place you describe, though I am unwilling to slap down each and every counterproductive comment to get there.

hilzoy,

I suspect that such a missive would be more favorably received were it to come from your pen. For many reasons, not least of which is my own stubborness and temper, I foresee a bad reaction to me posting something like this over there. And while ObWings may not yet be what we'd like it to be, I would prefer to avoid further contributing to taking it in the other direction.

Re the recent spate of angry comments, I suspect that LJ was right when he commented that the coming election is increasing people's frustration levels. Once the dust settles, things should get a little calmer again.

hilzoy, if there's a direction you want the blog to go in and you have the energy to make it happen, you should feel free to do it. I know you feel reluctant to take ownership, but Moe's gone, you're the most frequent poster there, and you command the most respect (and marriage proposals) from the widest range of commenters. If the direction were clear, it probably wouldn't even take much in the way of moderation -- part of the problem now, IMO, is the lack of clarity on just what ObWi is supposed to be all about.

I wish there were a way to have two separate comment threads for each post, one for the people who wanted to have a calm, respectful discussion and one for people who wanted to blow off steam or rally the troops or whatever. That way there wouldn't need to be much if any moderation (apart from pointing people over to the other thread), and both sorts of people could be served without pushing anyone out.

One thing that I do to moderate my posts, is to type up exactly what I am feeling. Write my spur of the moment thinking. Then I save it and post it after reading it again once I have calmed down.

You'll notice I don't post much.

I, incidentally, intend to come back to this point.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: