Personal Insults in Online Discussions
Recently, for example, a fellow contributing editor of the History News Network's Liberty & Power Group Blog―let's call him Mr. X―made a post to call attention to a new blog. He might have done so by stating:
Those interested in science and peer review issues might be interested in a new blog, http://scienceblogs.com/clock/.
But, instead, he wrote:
Those interested in science and peer review issues for more than finding lame reasons to discount work on global warming might be interested in a new blog, http://scienceblogs.com/clock/.
Now, regular readers of Liberty & Power will recall that not long ago, on May 7, I posted a short article at this site under the heading"Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth" and that a lively discussion ensued in which Mr. X and several others debated various issues related to my article, in particular, issues bearing on the subject of human-caused global warming. In that discussion and others at the same site, Mr. X expressed strong claims for his position and suggested in so many words that those who disagreed with his views were, shall we say, personally deficient in some way, although the nature of the deficiency―whether it was intellectual, moral, or ideological―usually remained murky in the midst of exchanges that sometimes grew rather heated.
Well, all right, Mr. X is scarcely the only person with strong feelings about the science of global climate change, its methods, and its findings. But now, when he revisits this topic, he inserts in his post a gratuitous and backhanded characterization of those who disagreed with him earlier as"those interested in science and peer review issues [only] for . . . finding lame reasons to discount work on global warming." Disregard the clumsy sentence construction―after all, it makes little sense to suppose that anyone seeks"lame reasons" to support his views―and consider only the writer's inclusion of an uncalled-for insult in his statement. In 1944, F. A. Hayek dedicated his great anti-socialist tract The Road to Serfdom, evidently with complete sincerity, to"the socialists of all parties." Mr. X, however, feels no obligation to extend the same sort of courtesy to his intellectual opponents (as he habitually takes other contributors to Liberty & Power to be whenever they take issue with any of his views and at times defensively in anticipation that they may take issue).
Of course, my example is so mild and trivial that one might well wonder why I call attention to it, and I admit that it may have struck me in part because Mr. X has had occasion to throw verbal spears at me and my views in the more distant past, as readers of Liberty & Power with extremely good memories may recall. But apart from this latest example, any of us can surely point to a great number of instances in which contributors to Web-site discussions and debates have deliberately made ill-mannered statements rather than equally informative but courteous ones.
Often, I suspect, this nastiness occurs because the medium offers discussants personal distance or anonymity of a sort that other venues do not. If you insult your colleagues at a faculty meeting or in the hallway of your office building, then even if they do not retaliate immediately, they may await an apt occasion to pay you back in kind, perhaps with interest. In face-to-face settings, a certain amount of common courtesy suggests itself as sensible even to the nastiest sorts of people, if only to save themselves grief at pay-back time. On many Web sites, however, comments are allowed from one and all, and many of those who post comments do so while identifying themselves, if at all, only by Internet nicknames or enigmatic icons. The marginal cost of posting an insult for all the world to see is negligible, and the risk of serious personal retribution is virtually nil, especially for persons who have no established reputation to protect in the first place, so nothing impedes a person who is given to making spiteful remarks and dispensing personal insults.
I place an article of some sort on the Web perhaps every two or three weeks, on average, and many of them are later linked to or reposted at other Web sites where comments are invited. Over the years, I have been called nearly every insulting name imaginable by those who post comments on my articles. Perhaps the most popular insult is"idiot," although various synonyms also make a strong showing. The more vulgar writers declare me to be an"a**hole," a"s**thead," and so forth―if you are a man, just think back to your high school locker room for the rest of the inventory. For my views on war and the state, I am often described as a" coward," an"anti-American," or an"America hater"; I am said to lack"guts" and to be the sort of man who would stand by while his wife or daughter was raped or murdered―all this calumny being flung, mind you, by people who know virtually nothing about me.
Perhaps the most remarkable insults are those that dismiss me as a"socialist," a"liberal" (by which the insulter clearly has in mind a contemporary American left-liberal), or a"leftist." Strange to say, others describe me in contrast, often in a style more condescending than blatantly insulting, as a" conservative." Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with me or my views will understand immediately how far off base both of these classes of ideological insult are―I have been a lifelong opponent of socialism, and I am certainly no conservative―but Internet insulters do not feel constrained to learn anything about a person before they fling an insult at him. The Web seems to attract a host of people who are densely ignorant and do not read or think carefully. They visit Web sites wearing a bandolier of personal affronts, and on the slightest provocation they shoot from the hip, content to let Allah sort out their rhetorical victims.
If a site is open to everybody, then nothing can be done about this nastiness unless someone manages the site and suppresses the viciousness. On sites such as Liberty & Power, where only authorized persons can make original posts, it might be possible to use moral suasion to keep the start-up discussion within civilized bounds. I appreciate, of course, that in certain metropolitan areas of this country an insulting style of discourse is as common as traffic congestion. Many of us, however, hail from elsewhere, and we have acquired the perhaps quaint idea that nastiness does not make a positive contribution to the process of learning from one another. On behalf of these others, I beseech those given to insults: mind your manners. If you do, you may even find that people will pay more attention to what you have to say.
comments powered by Disqus
Gus diZerega - 7/14/2007
As "Mr. X" I disagree 100% with Higgs' characterization of my post that got his knickers in such a knot.
I wasn't even thinking about him when I made it as I had (until now) given him the benefit of the doubt regarding his concerns with peer review. I had been under the apparently mistaken imprssion that he was concerned with its general weaknesses, not with where the process led on an issue where his ideology found him on the other side.
Many of the criticisms of peer review that appeared on this site ARE lame. they served not to explore how science works but to attack one peer reviewed outcome among thousands because the authors were discomfited by the result. Sort of like intelligent design advocates.
That this happened on a libertarian site is particularly unfortunate because in science peer review functions the way the price system functions in the market. It creates manageable and adaptive order out of overwhelming complexity. Peer review is not perfect as a means of coordinating complex information, and neither are prices and property rights. To reject one because it is not perfect is akin to rejecting the other for the same reasons.
The stuff I referred to was an interesting example of a possible alternative approach via the web to do the same job. If it works some of the weaknesses Higgs identified (and I agreed with him they were weaknesses) would be ameliorated. It would also be a case of making better the spontaneous order process of science.
I am sorry that old grudges appear to have gotten in the way of examining an interesting development.
I also strongly suggest anyone impressed with the delicacy of Higgs' sensibilities to go back and compare his and my rhetoric in our past encounters.
I shall add no more - this is an old thread that has gotten about the amount of attention it deserved.
Sheldon Richman - 7/14/2007
Hear, hear, Bob.
Gus diZerega - 7/11/2007
the heading said it all
- Stanford historian uncovers the dark roots of humanitarianism
- Historian hailed for offering a history of the culture wars
- Scholars to set the West straight about "Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad"
- Why Eugene Genovese’s 2 sentences about Vietnam went viral in 1965
- Historians named to the 2015 class of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences