Ok, I read various people's blogs. Friends mostly. And occasionally they express opinions about one thing or another. While the most common topic is probably politics, this applies to various topics. (Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, I want to emphasize that there is no one person, blog or post that I'm specifically thinking of here, so don't try to read too much into this.) Anyway, my friends have a tendency to say various sensible things, a few things that I might not agree with, and then drop in something that is down right ridiculous, silly, wrong or dumb. Here, I'll create an example for you (which I am fabricating from my own brain right now):
"I can't believe Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, he hasn't DONE anything! This sullies the reputation of those who have won the prize in the past for substantive work. And since entering office, Obama has decreased our likelihood for peace! Sure, nothing has happened yet, but because of him blaming America for everything, we are going to be attacked more for sure. I guess this is what we get for electing someone who is stupid."
So, lets analyze this hypothetical post. There are various things I agree with: Obama won the peace prize, and he hasn't achieved any meaningful peace, in my opinion. Then there are some things that I don't necessarily agree with, but that I can at least respect as a plausible opinion: America might be less safe now than when Obama took office, because of his policies. Then (and it always seems to be at the end) the post says something downright silly: that Obama is stupid. Say what you will, the man isn't dumb. He holds degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
So now we're down to my dilema as a blog reader. Someone I know has just written this silly statement that Obama is dumb. My first reaction upon reading is to write up a snarky comment pointing out to them that while they may not like Obama, they should stick to actual criticism, rather than illogical logorrhea. I usually get most of the way through the comment when I start to think about how the author will react. Because it's the internet, whatever I type will come out sounding argumentative and condescending (I think the internet does that to whatever you type, whether you mean it or not) and they will get defensive. Arguments will ensue, and now I've just taken a friend and created a whole bunch of bad karma. And the worst part is, I agreed with most of what they said! So, in the end I wind up not commenting at all. And they never know of their silliness, and they get no comments on their blogs.
So dear reader(s), what am I to do? Do I sustain my "keep the peace" policy? (Can I get a Nobel Prize for that?) Or do I try to politely point out that they are dead wrong on a topic and risk the ensuing melee? Some of my friends have some pretty strong opinions, and, while I know I do too, I try to remember that there are more important things than convincing other people that I'm right all the time. (Because I am, and deep down inside, you all know it.)
So, time for you to comment about commenting on friends blogs when you disagree with them. By all means, go ahead and disagree with me. :)
So, lets analyze this hypothetical post. There are various things I agree with: Obama won the peace prize, and he hasn't achieved any meaningful peace, in my opinion. Then there are some things that I don't necessarily agree with, but that I can at least respect as a plausible opinion: America might be less safe now than when Obama took office, because of his policies. Then (and it always seems to be at the end) the post says something downright silly: that Obama is stupid. Say what you will, the man isn't dumb. He holds degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
So now we're down to my dilema as a blog reader. Someone I know has just written this silly statement that Obama is dumb. My first reaction upon reading is to write up a snarky comment pointing out to them that while they may not like Obama, they should stick to actual criticism, rather than illogical logorrhea. I usually get most of the way through the comment when I start to think about how the author will react. Because it's the internet, whatever I type will come out sounding argumentative and condescending (I think the internet does that to whatever you type, whether you mean it or not) and they will get defensive. Arguments will ensue, and now I've just taken a friend and created a whole bunch of bad karma. And the worst part is, I agreed with most of what they said! So, in the end I wind up not commenting at all. And they never know of their silliness, and they get no comments on their blogs.
So dear reader(s), what am I to do? Do I sustain my "keep the peace" policy? (Can I get a Nobel Prize for that?) Or do I try to politely point out that they are dead wrong on a topic and risk the ensuing melee? Some of my friends have some pretty strong opinions, and, while I know I do too, I try to remember that there are more important things than convincing other people that I'm right all the time. (Because I am, and deep down inside, you all know it.)
So, time for you to comment about commenting on friends blogs when you disagree with them. By all means, go ahead and disagree with me. :)
16 comments:
President Obama watched a college football game on Saturday and they nominated him for the Heisman Trophy.
Whew, tricky problem. I think you have to know your audience. Being a person who opines frequently on our blog, my preference is to hear the comment, argumentative or not. I am all for learning something new, or seeing something in a different light, even if it points out that I am stupid. Because it is the Internet, maybe I'll be annoyed or offended for a moment, but then I can just get over it in the privacy of my own home. I am not likely to hold any ill will. However, I am sure that is not everyone's preference. So, if you don't know your audience well, I'd probably refrain from pointing out the silly / wrong things they say, not know how they will take it. However, consider this permission to comment however you'd like on my blog posts.
You have asked the viewing people to advise you on commenting. Now if I offer my advise then I am assuming that is is of worth to you and that it is something that you might not know or have not considered. Then I continued to read, I will take you for your word that you are always right and that deep down I somehow know it. So I will not tell you what you already know because that would be a waste of time. Since you are always right, you know how to comment on peoples' blogs.
(I hope that the internet did not force this to be too argumentative)
K, so here's the problem. You said all sorts of interesting things I could mostly agree with and then you had to mix in that canard of illogic about Obama not being dumb. Now I don't know whether he's really dumb or not (in fact I've long thought the problem was malice not incompetence), but the theory that he couldn't get college degrees while being dumb flies in the face of all reason and historical fact.
Now, as to the meta-topic, I'm with Sabrina. The audience is the key. If you're commenting on something I wrote be honest and it won't bother me. (See 1 Ne 16:2 ;-) ). If it's someone spouting how we should eat drink and be merry, well correct at your own risk.
Personally, I will have a much lower opinion of the people who can't read comments meant civilly as civil than those who engage in constructive dialog to make all better off.
I agree with Sabrina, I think it depends on the audience. I know that if you disagreed with something I wrote on my blog, I'd probably feel bad if you left a comment telling me so. I'd feel under attack. But if you emailed me, or talked to me in person, I wouldn't feel so bad. Of course, I rarely blog about controversial topics, so it's kind of a moot point for me.
Another option is to *gasp* ignore the thing you disagree with, and comment on the meat of the post. To go with your example, you could simply say you agree with the Nobel Peace Prize being ridiculous, and not comment on Obama being stupid. Sometimes it is ok to let little things go.
That's what your "keep the peace at all costs" wife thinks :)
:0 I believe I know to whom you are referring...and I must disagree. Just because you went to Harvard does not make you intelligent. I fully believe that he has made unwise decisions and thus can be labeled "stupid". :)
I must also say that you can comment on my blog because I'll forgive you if you offend me. I am fully aware of the fact that I do not know everything and that there are numerous people much more intelligent than I who have valuable things to say. Maybe you'll help me learn something?
1: I'm impressed at the response here.
2: I really did work hard to not refer to anyone specifically, or copy anyone's post. I realize that several of you have probably blogged that Obama's prize is a bit ridiculous, but then ago, so have about 10 million other people, and about 200 million more of us thought about it.
3: Until now, I hadn't thought too much about the possibility that people are intentionally using hyperbole in their blogs, and I'm not picking up on it. Maybe you could all start putting in warnings for me? ("Clark: This is HYPERBOLE! Don't get all worked up over this!")
4: I really don't want to get into this, but Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I know "stupid" is pretty hard to define, but I think it's pretty safe to say Obama is in the top 75% of intelligence in the country. You can argue that he's a liar, misguided, naive, socialist, ideological, or many other things, but I don't see how stupid could be on that list. And, before anyone takes the route of saying "he supports X, therefore he's stupid" I'll point out that I know some very intelligent people that support those same things. For the most part, they don't support those things because they're stupid, they support them because they have different beliefs or priorities. Or, it might be possible that the majority of the US had below median intelligence last election.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that he is stupid (and was hoping my parenthetical would make that claer). I was merely pointing out that since people do manage to graduate from top tier universities who are stupid (due to for example personal skills at manipulating professors) that your argument was insufficient.
Is this about my fire station post?
I think--if you want to be polite, anyway--that you just have to tease out what the blogger intends as the purpose of their blog, and try to respect that purpose. Case in point: there is a lot of malarky streaming across the pulpit in any typical fast & testimony meeting, but everyone in attendance understands that purpose of the venue is more support and acceptance, not rigorous theological debate.
Because the internet renders us all a little autistic (your call for hyperbole warnings reminds me of something Sheldon might request) this is more difficult to do online than in real life, but I think we can manage.
I think (I hope) that it is pretty clear on my blog that when I venture into politics and such that I welcome opposing views. I get the same vibe from your blog. Even if we have no intention of actually learning from our feeble-minded commenters, what's the point of being right if you can't defend the truth from error? (I'm kidding, of course. Learning from those with opposing views is often the point.)
But I don't get the same vibe from some others' blogs, and that's fine. There are other things to talk about besides political arguments. I hear this accounts for much of what is known as "being social," something I have little knowledge of.
But the type of opinion you identified is a different animal. It's a bad opinion, and as is often true of such bad opinions, was probably formed in an echo chamber. The person expressing it may be unaware ff just how bad their opinion is. They may think that their opinion will be met with universal agreement. What to do?
Again, this is a concept Sheldon would have trouble with, but it depends on your relationship with the person. When you see someone with their zipper down, sometimes the best thing to do is ignore it, and sometimes the best thing you can do is tell them. Your existing relationship with that person will determine whether your pointing out their error will be received with gratitude or embarrassment.
It's always a little more interesting when somebody does point out the error though, right?
Post a Comment