True respect
Lots of people seem to like my idea of a democracy of mutual respect, but they’re not sure that such a thing can ever exist. On the internet perhaps, or specifically here in blogland?
But first we need to agree about the meaning of respect.
One commenter has got shirty with me because I pointed out that, as far as I could see, he had made a logical mistake. (He thought that being able to change your mind was the same as being unable not to change your mind – as if being able to fall asleep were the same as not being able to stay awake.) He took offence, and now he alleges that I have failed to practice the kind of respect that I preach.
Respect involves taking people seriously, listening to what they have to say, and being willing to learn from it. But that in turn means holding them to certain standards of relevance and truth. Exempting your interlocutors from criticism means indulging them like pets or little children: not being respectful, but smothering them in patronising indifference.
Is there room for respectful exchanges of ideas on the internet and in blogland? Or is this simply a place where cyber-Crusoes can post their arbitrary ideas in the confidence that no one will subject them to rigorous scrutiny? A bit of both I suppose; but I increasingly think that it’s more one than the other.
Hello,
I'm the producer and Host for the Free Thinking blogs.
I need to remind all commenters that, as is stated in the House Rules over on the 大象传媒 messageboards, we have an over-riding Golden Rule that applies to all 大象传媒 community sites and that is 'Treat others with respect'.
I've removed a couple of comments to this blog entry. It's timely to quote from the Radio 3 help page about message board etiquette that applies here on the blogs too:
"One of the main reasons people have their posts removed by moderators on the Radio 3 message boards is when someone has taken offence and decides to 'take on' the poster of the offending contribution.
"The response to the offending post usually includes a presumption, implicit or explicit, about the offending poster's motivation. Such presumptions, be they well-judged or not, are never generous; inevitably they are seized upon as cause for reciprocal offence, real or feigned, and all at once we have a slanging match in full swing.
"Message boards, even with emoticons or smileys, mostly eliminate the vital intentional cues of verbal communication such as tone of voice and facial expression. Consider, before taking offence in a message board discussion, that you may have completely misunderstood one another."
Southendian
Let's analyze the process here. We have a well intentioned website called free thinking as part of radio three.
Viewers are invited to join in and subscribe to the comments of four selected commentators for the community, city, nation and world. great idea - yes?
Now after some time what do we have at present?
the world section has dropped out of the picture at the moment and we are not really sure why.
The rest of the sections have at the most 10 - no more regular posters - out of a possible population of millions in England alone - home of radio 3 and of course the site is open to the world - even more millions.
Esther herself has bemoaned the lack of posters as do I and others.
So here we have a little website going with 10 regular members around UK and the world and we are into fighting and disagreeing already and insults and accusations, and as the moderator as rightly pointed out unecessary and not required.
Surely such a small body of interested intellects, philosophers and humans can at least agree to "respect" each other enough to accept each others comments as they stand and for what they are worth without interpreting them as an "attack"
Let's just discuss for goodness sake, disagree for sure but not assume that we are always right and the other wrong.
why not just post your comments - read responses and keep on posting without the need to get 'hot under the collar' and defend or attack or views?
I'm for bland postings myself!
Why is it a fault to be "going with 10 regular members"? Isn't it better than paralysed with 10,000?
We're continually being told that the internet's a public place and that we'd better not offend the meekest young sensibility or else the wrath of middle England will descend on us. Personally I'm more concerned that if we don't deal with certain issues then the lot of us, including your children (since I don't have any) will be swept away. It's the capacity of "moralists" to create emnity, far more than crime, which is the world's problem.
Too many people wanting to be chiefs rather than co-operative indians (and the co-operative Indians will win through as a result, most likely, Rana!).
I'm just really confused. Can someone please give me a definition of 'free thinking' - in this context, please?
Well perhaps if we have to define free thinking then it no longer IS free thinking - but I guess Southendian must have an idea about it.
I personally think if you are free thinking you are free to think what ever you wish and say so (within the bounds of sensibility)
It seems we always want to put limits and rules on free thinking - surely that wasn't what the site was meant to be at all?
Eman, I never said is was a fault of this site that there were only 10 regularly posters, it just seemed amazing to me that there weren't more out of such a large population of internet users, but I can live with 10 even though they can never be representative of the majority and their views on life in general will be skewed as the researchers say!
I was commenting really on an internet phenomenan, and suggesting that if 10 people can't live for a short time in harmony exchanging view what hope is there. After all look at the thousands around the world that can't live in harmony either. The middle East comes to mind for one!
I once was a member of a messageboard in the north of England with a membership of over a 1000, and we still only ever on a regular basis got that magical 10-12 posters.
It seems to be a feature of those who like to use messageboards daily, their peculiar!
I suppose many feel more comfortable being told, from the cradle, what they should think. But whether you mean "freethinking" in a religious sense, or against all authority, all previously accepted ideas, I believe the idea here is just to have a look, from scratch, everyone admitted, at what might be going to happen (or what we think SHOULD happen) in the near future.
This seems to have gone off at a bit of a tangent, so, to continue a little down that byway: if free thinking involves rejecting accepted views, how does it differ from dissent? I would say that it's a more fruitful and speculative exercise; not just saying 'I disagree with that because ...' but questioning and investigating in a rational way, moving forward, putting the debate on a different basis which hopefully may be seen as a more valid one.
I don't find Jonathan's description of 'respect' ("Respect involves taking people seriously, listening to what they have to say, and being willing to learn from it") quite satisfactory. I think respect is more fundamental. All human beings have the same rights, they have their own existential place on earth which should not be violated. They may or may not, in any particular context, have something to say which others can learn from; not rubbishing what they've said is more a matter of good manners.
Is it patronising or hypocritical NOT to say that someone is talking rubbish? Or is it respectful? Is it disrespectful to ignore what they've said, or tactful? Are we, individually, either naturally respectful or unable to understand the concept of respect? Do we have to be psychologists to work out how another person will react to our comments?
May I humbly remind the blogger that many places of debate have a 'speaker' type person, to moderate things, as often,some folk, get out of hand.
If the right honourable blogger has been shown a lack of 'respect' it shows badly on the person attacking, and not upon himself.
I believe that it is possible to hold a constructive online debate, difficult, but possible.
I have just returned from an annual camping trip with my closest friends -this event consists mainly of us arguing for four days a year. Luckily we've never managed to come to blows during these self imposed intellectual wars -perhaps this is a plus for cyberspace. We spent this year in a political and philosophical maelstrom.
What struck me as interesting was that the arguments were so abstract, or were reasoned purely from principle, that we spent more time trying to find out what we agreed on rather than what we didn't. After all of this agreeing with each other, we were still left with differences, except that now they were clearer, or maybe just more entrenched.
Thats the way it goes though isn't it, we don't always want to, and we certainly never have to agree with each other. Respect is an issue of accepting differences, and to not assume that different equals wrong. If you are equipped with a large vocabulary or a creative flare for words then of course you can blast away with pejoratives and high order reasoning, but as entertaining as these things can be they remain unconstructive.
I suspect that it is natural for there to be more readers than writers, and that this is merely a ratio and not a reflection.
the writers provide dialogue and discussion and evidence that a site has been visited - the readers are abstract, invisible, non-existant as far as we know at least on this site.
(other sites do count number of 'hits' and so have more evidence of ghost like visits)
We cannot assume therefore that there have been any readers at all but we do know that there are writers.
We have no proof of readers and therefore do they, if they exist at all, provide any meaning here.
If they in fact do exist then they simple carry away with them, some readings and thoughts and again we have no evidence that there will be any contribution to our world by these nebulous persons.
We are still left therefore with a site accessible to the nation and the world with hard evidence and contribution from 10-12 souls.
This is in fact a ratio and a reflection of life too! We can in fact experience both together rather than always going for the dualistic view only!
I'm not certain that its worth this level of analysis. The only evidence you have of either writer or reader is your own experience of reading or writing. All the writers except you could be adaptive Turing machines.
Thoughts are never simple and when you manage to send one round the world -even to imaginary readers- it is clearly anything but. I'm not aware of many studies that compare the views of lay people; the views about this 'I' thingy, with those of the scientific community, I think the break down is still Monism or Dualism?
The vast sea of information that is the internet provides for all tastes, and we should not expect everyone to be as concerned with the universe as ourselves.
Respect should begin with the individual.