A long reflection on gentlemanliness

I'm still reflecting on the aftermath of last week's major blogosphere debate about feminism, civility,and commenting rules.  No, I'm not going to revisit that issue specifically.

Rather, I'm thinking about the number of folks who've taken me to task for my attachment to notions of courtesy and civility.  Last week, over in this thread at Feministe, I wrote:

To me, civility is not about ideology. It’s about tactics. I judge people less by what they believe, and more by the tools they employ to convey those beliefs. Or, to put it another way, I care less about the “ends” and more about the “means”.

And a whole bunch of folks took issue with that.  Not surprisingly, I was initially very defensive -- which was a mistake.  I eventually bowed out of the entire thread.  But in reading the challenges to my position, especially from DarkDaughta (NWS), I've been forced to ask myself a basic question to which I already know the answer:

To what extent does my passionate attachment to being "nice" really reflect my faith, and to what extent is it a reflection of my privilege as a middle-class white man with tenure?

Years ago, my theological wanderings led me to the Mennonites.  I became an enthusiastic Anabaptist (heck, I'm always an enthusiastic something).  I loved the Anabaptist/Mennonite commitment to social justice and to non-violence.  In the aftermath of September 11, I found the radical witness of the peace churches to be particularly compelling.  But I found, later rather than sooner, that I was making a serious error:

I tend to confuse Jesus' call to be a peacemaker with my family's admonition to always be "nice". 

I was raised to be what my family called a "gentleman".  In my family, it meant a "gentle man", with gentle in the modern sense of polite and kind, not in the older sense of aristocratic birth.  (Though some folks in my family did, in my childhood, have some attachment to the idea that gentlemen were also listed in the Social Register and belonged to the Right Clubs.  I'm not in either the Social Register or the Bohemian Club, though both were important to me when I was much younger).  My grandmother always said "A gentleman makes everyone around him feel comfortable."  And for years and years, I've worked so hard to live up to that ideal!  And when I became a Christian, I thought that one of the things I had found in my relationship with Jesus was a new power to become even nicer, and make my family even prouder.

But as better Christians than I tend to discover early on, Jesus is not "nice."  As C.S. Lewis says of Aslan, his Christ-figure in the Narnia books, "He's not a tame lion!"  Jesus was non-violent, it's true -- and peacemaking was at the center of His mission on earth.  But Jesus never compromises the truth in order to save people's feelings.  He may have said "turn the other cheek", but he also overturns the money-changer's tables in the temple.  That was very, very, impolite of Him.

Jesus models a new way of relating to the powers and principalities that be.  Unlike the Zealots, He will not endorse violence against other human beings.  But His non-violence is not passive, and it isn't "nice".  He makes people uncomfortable over and over again; He is not a proper gentleman. A proper gentleman of the sort I aspired to be would have had lunch with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Romans and the Zealots, and told them all that they were awfully nice people and that God loved them just the way they were, and couldn't they all be just a bit more civil to each other? Pretty please?

I've realized something this week that I don't like about myself.  I call myself a pro-feminist and a Christian.  But too often, when my ideology and my faith come into conflict with my desire to be a charming people-pleaser who "makes everyone feel comfortable", my childhood aspirations of gentlemanliness trump my political and spiritual convictions.  So I end up more attached to my blog as a place where everyone can get along than as a place where the intersection of faith, feminism, and sexual mores can be thoughtfully -- and honestly -- explored. 

If I'm serious about my Christian faith, I will, to paraphrase Desmond Tutu, genuflect before the image of Christ that I see in all living things.  I will love God's creatures as I love myself.  But I must find a way to be a bit more Christ-like, and that means I must be better about confronting evil rather than trying to accommodate it.  My pacifist principles mean that I must never hit those whose views are hateful.  But pacifism does not ask me to charm them, particularly when my own motives for being charming are less about changing the hearts and minds of those with whom I am in debate and more about cultivating a satisfying image of myself as perennially pleasant, irenic, and gentlemanly.

One spiritual advisor of mine always says, "Hugo, if you're not pissing somebody off you're not doing your work."  I hate it when he says that.  But I know he's right.  If I'm going to walk with Jesus as I claim to want to do, if I'm going to be an effective advocate for pro-feminist principles, I have to be willing to let go of my childlike desire to be likable and inoffensive. I need to see that my very ability to remain aloof from the struggle is a consequence of my privilege rather than my commitment to Christ. 

And while I don't need to start bopping people on the head (or even wielding a whip like my Lord in the temple), I could be of a hell of a lot more service if I let go of my incredibly strong infatuation with civility, courtliness, and being thought a "heckuva nice guy."

Comments

[NancyP]

It is possible to tell someone that they are flat-out WRONG in a civil fashion. Civility is the recognition that an opponent may be capable of listening and changing. If you don't start in a civil fashion, it is likely that your opponent, being put on the defensive, will just ignore you. Of course, when you have tried the civil approach and nothing happens, then you agree to disagree, ignore them, call them on bad faith, whatever seems appropriate in the given situation.

[Uzzah]

And while I don't need to start bopping people on the head (or even wielding a whip like my Lord in the temple), I could be of a hell of a lot more service if I let go of my incredibly strong infatuation with civility, courtliness, and being thought a "heckuva nice guy."

Depends on what kind of service you are trying to perform. Are you trying to set an example for the men (and women) in your life? Are you showing them a better way to live and treat others? Do you want to set an example for the kids in your youth group? Do you want to be something that you are proud of and not ashamed of?

I fail to see how being less civil will accomplish this.

Or are you just wanting to please a different constituency, ie your Feminists buddies? Well you might be on to something there. They seem to like Ginmar a lot. She is about as uncivil as they come. Will it appease them? I doubt it. They are up to about 350 messages over at Feministe and they are still talking trash. I think trying to appease them has been pretty unsuccessful strategy for you so far. Maybe talking to them like dogs as Ginmar does will be more successful.

Carrying your Christ analogy further. When Christ went into the desert, the devil sorely tempted him. Satan tried to get Jesus to sin before God so as to take him down a notch. Jesus resisted because it was wrong. His resistance was pleasing in Gods eyes.

Don't let that bunch of hypocrites talk you into being something you are not.

[Hugo]

Uzzah, the phrase "talking trash" is a bit excessive. I'm not talking about less civil -- this post is NOT about my commenting policy, which is staying largely the same. (No insults, no thread drift).

My post is about my own particular reasons for wanting to be civil, and about perhaps taking more risks. It's not rehashing the old issue, though it was inspired by it.

[evil_fizz]

Are you trying to set an example for the men (and women) in your life? Are you showing them a better way to live and treat others? Do you want to set an example for the kids in your youth group? Do you want to be something that you are proud of and not ashamed of?

I fail to see how being less civil will accomplish this.

It depends on what you mean by "less civil", because there's a line between accepting that others have different points of view and listening to others spew racist or sexist bile (which has been known to happen here). There are comments which don't deserve civility or even our attention!

Carrying your Christ analogy further. When Christ went into the desert, the devil sorely tempted him. Satan tried to get Jesus to sin before God so as to take him down a notch. Jesus resisted because it was wrong. His resistance was pleasing in Gods eyes.

Don't let that bunch of hypocrites talk you into being something you are not.

You are aware that you've managed to compare the posters at Feministe to Satan? The civil response here is to tell you that such a comparison is deeply flawed at best.

[darkdaughta]

Hi Hugo,
Darkdaughta, here.

I've posted something and I'm hoping you'll come by and comment on it/critique it/engage with it...

[elizabeth]

Most of my Christian life has been one suffocating under civility; where good manners indicate that I a) get back into the kitchen to help make coffee, b) shut up about _______ and c) leave the congregation. I, and many Christian gays have been asked to leave churches, not because the pastors or others questioned our conversion or sincerity, but because "The church isn't ready to go there yet" or "I have to be a shephard to where the greatest flock is" or "If you are here, then people are going to be upset by that."

To me, true civility is standing up for equality of all people, making sure that all have the space, place and voice to be full participants - particularly within the Chrisitian journey/community.

[ricia_pd]

I think what is missing, for some folks, is the distinction between use of this word "civil" and the word "respect".

There is a history to words that gives them meaning. Just think about what it means to be "uncivil" or "uncivilized" and what it means instead to be "disrespectful"... In fact, the word "uncivilized" is most often used in an extremely disrespectful manner.

Think about what the difference in use and meaning of those words are....One relates to a prescribed template of "civilized" and "civilization" - insisting upon some common definition of those 'states of being' (a homogenized vision) the other word, "respect" hinges upon individual dynamics, participation, behavior, tonalities, suggestiveness, assumptions and presumptions. One can address what is disrespectful and why, on an individual level and another will only be further equiped to comprehend that person and what they are responding to. Whereas insisting that others be "civil" is refering to a hegemonious (sp?) and ideological (and largely delusional) truism of righteousness - that cannot and will not be shared by everyone. The latter word refuses to acknowledge diversity or personal will and validity and expects all to be subject to one historically-loaded definition of what is "civil", regardless of circumstance.

think about the term "civil disobedience".. civil isn't meant to define manners or politeness. the word has a history of use.

I could go on... but, enough already...

Hugo: YAY!

ps: go read DD's most recent post... see what u think...?

[aldahlia]

I'm Satan now?

Wow.

How very civil. What a way to foster open dabate, Uzzah. Gosh I'm so glad that there's a place where I can be likened to Satan in the spirit of politenes.

I just can't imagine what we all had to complain about.

[Hugo]

I did read DD's post, and recommend it to everyone -- I commented there.

Uzzah has been warned to be careful.

[aldahlia]

No, Hugo. You warned him not to use the word "trash talking." It's more than apparent that Uzzah and his Comrade's in Ideology look to you, and only you, as the final say on behavior on this blog. So what you have told him is, "Do not use the phrase 'trash talking.'" You didn't say, "Do not compare feminists to Satan." Evil Fizz had to come up behind you and adress the REAL problem with the comment--but Fizzy doesn't run the blog.

[aldahlia]

(I hate to feel like I'm harping... but come on.. Satan? For real? Pointedly playing on your religion to get you to turn from criticism from women? That doesn't rile you up even a little?)

[Hugo]

Sorry, I thought I the reference to trash talking would take care of it. I did say "no insults" as a blanket statement.

No comparing feminists or MRAs to Satan. And at the risk of creating thread drift of my own, let me also say this. Ginmar's tone is not mine. It's not a tone I would use. But hers is a valuable voice in the blogosphere, and what she says about me elsewhere isn't going to rattle me, even if I wouldn't permit it on my blog under my "new" rules.

It's my hope that Uzzah and Mr. Bad and Gonz and Stanton will continue to comment here, engaging in dialogue that avoids name calling and allusions to the forces of darkness. I hope everyone joins them. The experiment continues...

Besides, the real point of the post wasn't the commenting policy. It was a candid admission that my own commitment to courtliness is partially rooted in something rather less noble than some might believe.

[NancyP]

(...background of Rolling Stones music here...)

"Ms. Satan" speaking. AKA a feminist. Have to say those cloven hooves don't fit too well into the birkenstocks, and the tail makes an obnoxious line on the stretch jeans, way worse than panty lines. Also, red's just not my color, why couldn't the uniform have been purple?

"Civility" is often taken to mean "sweeping shit under the rug because it's too hard/ uncomfortable to talk about it, or you just don't think it is worth talking about". That's the sense Elizabeth had used on her, and it may be what Hugo is concerned about.

"Civility" should mean adhering to rules of engagement which respect the intelligence and basic human dignity of the opponent in the argument. As such, this approach can have serious limitations: opponent does not respect in a reciprocal fashion, but spends time showboating with ad hominems; opponent robotically repeats talking points without addressing points raised by questioner (ie, no interaction, just advertisement); opponent refuses to interact even once. Sound familiar? - classic political campaign strategy! Of course, there is no point being civil with robotic nutcases such as Fred Phelps - at some point, one has every right to refuse to enable a gloryhound to get attention at your expense. Just ignore the nutcase (don't feed the trolls!). If there isn't a chance to change someone's mind, there isn't much point in engaging in conversation.

[aldahlia]

Nancy, maybe we should go for the walking-lizard satan in Genesis. At least he was in cahoots to corrupt Eve, and make it so that women went and fucked up a good thing for all men, everywhere, forever and ever amen, or at least until the Crucifixion. More apt, particularly given Uzzah's other posts, than the big red guy, I think.

[belledame222]

Agree with NancyP here.

Something else which is being danced around here but not quite tapped--how do you (Hugo and others) feel about anger? I mean, what do you think one should do with one's anger? Do you think it's okay to get angry?

[Uzzah]

I'm Satan now?

Wow.

How very civil. What a way to foster open dabate, Uzzah. Gosh I'm so glad that there's a place where I can be likened to Satan in the spirit of politenes.

Heh... No I am not comparing Fizz, you, Feminism or anyone else to Satan. Jeez, I was only implying that you can't let forces outside of yourself determine what you have to be or what you are.

I am not implying you or Feminism is in anyway tied to Satanism, Wicca, Branch Davidians, Scientology or Kinky Freidman. So gimme a break.

Not sure why the term "trash talking" is so bad, but I have promised not to use the term to describe hostile yet pointless argument amungst people anymore. In the future, I'll just call it hostile yet pointless arguing.

So is that how its going to work here? Everytime I post, Fizz is waiting in the wings to pick apart my posts for something that you can take out of context and you chime in to beat me over the head with it?

I think I get it now about how trolls hijack the thread. Point taken.

[Uzzah]

"Civility" should mean adhering to rules of engagement which respect the intelligence and basic human dignity of the opponent in the argument. As such, this approach can have serious limitations:

So what happens in the case of gender or racial discussions where the very questioning of people's premises can be construed as "disrespect"? Assuming good faith, how can honest discussion or the questioning of those ideas ever take place?

[evil_fizz]

I am not implying you or Feminism is in anyway tied to Satanism, Wicca, Branch Davidians, Scientology or Kinky Freidman. So gimme a break.

Okay, I will take it in good faith that you weren't trying to equate the commenters at Feministe with Satan, but the fact of the matter remains, that's what you did in your post. (And it was pretty clear you weren't trying to say anything flattering about them, even if you weren't comparing them to Satan).

But even if we leave aside the issue of civility, it's sloppy writing. When trying to argue in good faith with people whom you know disagree with you, it's critical that everyone be as precise as possible and avoid overblown rhetorical techniques. It helps keep things calmer and more civil.

[Hugo]

"it's critical that everyone be as precise as possible and avoid overblown rhetorical techniques."

Yes.

[Arwen]

I have also experienced a similar conflict in myself. I grew up in a very peacemaking role in my family: although my philosophy is also one of bridging and listening, I can slip easily into a psychological role which is on the surface similar but philosophically actually at odds. I've realized that being the "nice" one worked very well at keeping me safe: it was emotional armour, of a sort, because it kept me from speaking about my own vulnerabilities and priorities.
In my situation, I realized that opening up - being less "nice" - was actually more respectful: I was actually treating the other people in my life to actually be intelligent, emotional adults.

I'm reading your post from this perspective, and doubt you'd ever deciding to start cussing us all out. But, if our processes are at all similar, I think that you should give yourself credit: your posts are passionate. I've always thought you were putting yourself out there. Policing comments is a different skill than writing essays. I don't think of you as a push over, abandoning your values for the sake of getting along, at all: more aggressive policing of comments is work & is a bunch of no fun, especially when you're trying to allow for debate. I imagine you have a life to live outside of your blog.

[fMhLisa]

This is a topic that is always fascinating and germane for me.

I grew up with a mother who is often called "blunt" but in a culture (Mormon) in which nice quiet (submissive) women are extolled. My mother is painfully orthodox, and yet, she is loud and strong and blunt (and kindhearted to the core). And she does not admire her strength, she admires the "nice" quiet women. She wants to be submissive, but her nature does not allow it.

In many ways I take after my mother. (I don't want to be submissive, but I do want to be nice.) I think my heart is usually in the right place, but my words are often harsh, blunt, forceful. I too, often view this forthrightness as a flaw in myself.

(I am also at least sorta aware, in theory, that much of what I say that is taken as unpleasantly "blunt" would be recieved much more positively from a man.)

And as a product of my culture. I want to be "nice" charming and well-liked. I want to fit in with other Mormon women and be sweet and gentle and ideal. But I don't, and I don't really even know how. I guess I lack some social awareness about how my words affect people.

But at the same time I want to admire my strength, and I want my mother to love her strength, and to thumb our noses at the cultural expectations.

Ironically, I married a very Nice Gentle man. A man who often cares too much about being charming, and with the skill to charm your socks off. And the ability to ignore all kinds of ick for the sake of promoting peace. This is a powerful and useful skill.

As luck would have it, after a decade with the man, I think I've learned some of his "nice" skillz and he's learned some of my "blunt" skillz and we've both managed to build a more healthy balance.

I don't know where or how to draw the proper balance in my life, but it is something I think about a lot. I do think that being nice, being civil, being kind, being gentle is very important, and not just because I've been programed to believe it (although that's true too). I also believe that there is great value in being forthright and honest and even blunt at times. And that I should stive to love my natural skills in this area.

Basicially I'm an enormous vat of ignorance and ambivalence.

[Uzzah]

Okay, I will take it in good faith that you weren't trying to equate the commenters at Feministe with Satan, but the fact of the matter remains, that's what you did in your post. (And it was pretty clear you weren't trying to say anything flattering about them, even if you weren't comparing them to Satan).

No. That is what you read into my post. That is not what I said. Directly or implied. I can write what I mean, but I can’t control how you want to interpret it. But you are correct, that after finding my own name scattered amongst the comments, I was not impressed with the accuracy of their comments about my posts. Frankly, I was getting fed up with the calls for civility being used as a cover up for telling others to STFU.

But even if we leave aside the issue of civility, it's sloppy writing. When trying to argue in good faith with people whom you know disagree with you, it's critical that everyone be as precise as possible and avoid overblown rhetorical techniques. It helps keep things calmer and more civil.

Well, true. And I need to learn that when I am angry about something I read here or elsewhere, that I need to take a step back and let that anger subside before I post something, especially in haste. I will indeed make greater effort in that regard.

So again I ask,

What happens in the case of gender or racial discussions where the very questioning of people's premises can be construed as "disrespect"? Assuming good faith, how can honest discussion or the questioning of those ideas ever take place?

[belledame222]

I cut my virtual teeth on a BBS that's been around since the virtual Pleistocene age. It has a vast number of conferences, which are roughly equivalent to individual blogs in that the standards of discourse are up to the conf host(s); they range from "be polite and considerate of peoples' feelings, please" to "you can do anything but bore me, and sometimes I might just (temporarily) ban you for the hell of it anyway, because it amuses me to do so."

In the more "mainstream" political conferences which attempt to not devolve into flamepits, though, the general rule is:

"For fuck's sake. That argument is a load of steaming bullshit. (Here's why)"=okay.

"You stupid fuck, why don't you learn to read?"=not okay.

Or even "you are a liar"=not okay.

In other words: forceful, blunt, salty language is just fine (as is not using such, of course); just don't make it about the other person's self, as opposed to the argument. Sometimes it's not always so clearcut, of course; but in general it's a fairly easy one for people who are by and large *not* trolls, of widely varying conversation styles, to agree to, and to understand why when the host breaks in with a warning (nobody's perfect).

As for the troll thing. Well, trolling is as trolling does. On that BBS, at least, like I said, there is a fairly wide range of conferences and styles. If conversation seems to be breaking down fairly consistently around one poster across a number of conferences (or even within a number of topics within one conference), the general unofficial consensus is that this poster is a troll. Even if the poster in question unfailingly uses nominally polite language, avoids ad homs, and so on. There are other ways of being extremely provocative than blatant, coarse insult, and honestly these are often more effective, because they're harder for people to spot--especially if the people in question generally want to believe the best of everybody and/or value "politeness," which the troll in question seems to at least superficially be adhering to. Nonetheless, they exist, and they're worth learning to suss out.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's point of view, it's very, very rare that even the most egregious troll is banned entirely from this BBS (it does happen occasionally). Partly this is because this is a pay-to-play operation (a token fee, pretty much, but even so; it's a business); more so, I think, because the current...uberhost? manager? has a style which is vastly at odds with that of a number of regular posters and individual hosts. While she rarely if ever comes right out and says things like "please don't swear; play nice; fighting distresses me" (that would be awfully direct), it seems that this is what she would like, if given her druthers. She also seems to be possessed of the belief that there's "a little bit of good in everyone," and that if only one reaches out enough times to any given person, they will eventually respond in kind. And, too, the good old fashioned lefty/democratic ideas of free speech. Everyone has the right to say their piece! As many times as they want to, and however they need to!

This drives many of the regular posters to distraction, for a number of reasons, some arguably fairer than others. For one thing, many regulars are blunt to the point of sledgehammer (think of a group of New Yorkers in a meeting being presided over by an American Southern woman of a certain "genteel" class/upbringing, and you'll get a general idea). For another, there is the usual business with peoples' authority issues, arguably not unrelated to gender (in this instance, the woman in authority may be bringing out unconscious hackles in the menfolk. or not. just a possible undercurrent. not really the bottom line, at least as far as I'm concerned, but interesting to consider).

The main complaint, though, has to do with the fact that people who are nearly universally viewed as trolls are permitted to linger on...and on...and on...and other, more interesting posters who have lost their appetite for dealing with the endless drama, quietly slip away.

So what then happens is a very familiar sort of pageant, in which people are first implored to ignore the offending poster and/or "use the filter" (dunno if this is ever available on blogs; allows people to make certain posters unreadable just to themselves). Meanwhile, some of the blunter regulars, fed up, have begun to turn on their flamethrowers. This will sometimes draw a rebuke from the "play nice" type hosts, particularly if the troll in question is of the superficially genteel sort, which makes people angrier than ever. Breakdown ensues.

Eventually, just about everyone will have turned on the troll, and (this is one of the clearest ways to spot a troll in my opinion), rather than allowing as how s/he might have played any part at all in the current mess, the troll now plays the "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" card. Sometimes the claimed reasons for the "oppression" dovetail with more commonly accepted views of more macro sociopolitical oppression (troll is a woman, gay, black, etc.) Sometimes, at least as often if not more so in my experience, it'll be the other way around (troll is a man, straight, Christian, of a certain political view, but feels, or claims to feel, as though s/he is an oppressed minority in that virtual space, at least, if not the entire world). Sometimes it'll be for something else altogether (it's all because I'm a Yankees fan, isn't it! it's because I'm too poetic and deep for you literal-minded churls! y'all hate cat owners!) Usually there will be just enough truth in the troll's claims (yes, the drama has had to do with the identity issues/style differences in question, and yes, there probably are underlying tensions/prejudices about such) to drag the thing out for another few millenia while people earnestly debate what is and isn't prejudicial. Which may have been the point of the whole conversation to begin with. In this case, though, somehow, it always seems to come back to what the troll did or didn't say, and/or what did or didn't offend the troll.

Eventually of course even the most militantly "play nice" folk recognize that the child ain't right, but by this time a lot of the damage has been done. And even still, the troll lingers, because the host (or whomever) still believes, as someone memorably once put it, "if we just reason with these unreasoning looncakes, they'll take off the tinfoil." Usually it only winds up when everyone including the troll finally gets bored of the whole thing. And some people, sadly, are so bored that they wander away for good.

As you can probably guess by now, I myself tend to be of the blunt/salty school. I do also believe that it's useful to be fluent in a variety of conversing styles, and that in any given blog/conference/whatever, it's not unreasonable for one to adapt to the predominant style, if it seems truly important to the host and/or regulars, and/or if one finds something valuable in remaining in that space despite the differences of style and/or opinion. ("When in Rome...") After all, the Internets are a big big place. If one decides one doesn't feel comfortable there, after all, one can always go elsewhere, and probably should.

Which brings us back to trolls, and clarity. Clarity is important, yes. Especially in this medium, where so many of the physical and vocal cues we rely on in "meatspace" are absent. The thing is: it's not just important to be clear about one's ideas--and for that matter, sometimes it's not always easy to do that, be clear about one's ideas, because a given idea/topic might be complicated and full of potential landmines. Slack, I feel, should be given in that regard, yes.

What *is* more important, to me, is that one be clear about what it is one wants in a given space, or discussion. As a host or as a poster. And I also feel that it is not inappropriate to ask. One of the clearest hallmarks of the professional troll, ime, is that they don't seem to ever have a clear answer to this question; or if they do, it seems grossly at odds with their demonstrated behavior. For instance: "you've been complaining about how awful it is in here for weeks now. Why are you still here? What do you *like* about it here?"

And finally, my own opinion, by me, brackets Ms. brackets, is that if a host comes to the conclusion that yep, person x is trolling, and that conversation is breaking down because of him/her, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better, then probably the best solution is to ban, without apologies or argument.

My 2 cents adjusted for inflation, and make of it what you will; I realize I'm a stranger here myself, pretty much. Note that I make no judgment about who is or isn't a troll here; I haven't been around long enough to judge and I doubt it'd be appropriate anyway.

[belledame222]

I cut my virtual teeth on a BBS that's been around since the virtual Pleistocene age. It has a vast number of conferences, which are roughly equivalent to individual blogs in that the standards of discourse are up to the conf host(s); they range from "be polite and considerate of peoples' feelings, please" to "you can do anything but bore me, and sometimes I might just (temporarily) ban you for the hell of it anyway, because it amuses me to do so."

In the more "mainstream" political conferences which attempt to not devolve into flamepits, though, the general rule is:

"For fuck's sake. That argument is a load of steaming bullshit. (Here's why)"=okay.

"You stupid fuck, why don't you learn to read?"=not okay.

Or even "you are a liar"=not okay.

In other words: forceful, blunt, salty language is just fine (as is not using such, of course); just don't make it about the other person's self, as opposed to the argument. Sometimes it's not always so clearcut, of course; but in general it's a fairly easy one for people who are by and large *not* trolls, of widely varying conversation styles, to agree to, and to understand why when the host breaks in with a warning (nobody's perfect).

As for the troll thing. Well, trolling is as trolling does. On that BBS, at least, like I said, there is a fairly wide range of conferences and styles. If conversation seems to be breaking down fairly consistently around one poster across a number of conferences (or even within a number of topics within one conference), the general unofficial consensus is that this poster is a troll. Even if the poster in question unfailingly uses nominally polite language, avoids ad homs, and so on. There are other ways of being extremely provocative than blatant, coarse insult, and honestly these are often more effective, because they're harder for people to spot--especially if the people in question generally want to believe the best of everybody and/or value "politeness," which the troll in question seems to at least superficially be adhering to. Nonetheless, they exist, and they're worth learning to suss out.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's point of view, it's very, very rare that even the most egregious troll is banned entirely from this BBS (it does happen occasionally). Partly this is because this is a pay-to-play operation (a token fee, pretty much, but even so; it's a business); more so, I think, because the current...uberhost? manager? has a style which is vastly at odds with that of a number of regular posters and individual hosts. While she rarely if ever comes right out and says things like "please don't swear; play nice; fighting distresses me" (that would be awfully direct), it seems that this is what she would like, if given her druthers. She also seems to be possessed of the belief that there's "a little bit of good in everyone," and that if only one reaches out enough times to any given person, they will eventually respond in kind. And, too, the good old fashioned lefty/democratic ideas of free speech. Everyone has the right to say their piece! As many times as they want to, and however they need to!

This drives many of the regular posters to distraction, for a number of reasons, some arguably fairer than others. For one thing, many regulars are blunt to the point of sledgehammer (think of a group of New Yorkers in a meeting being presided over by an American Southern woman of a certain "genteel" class/upbringing, and you'll get a general idea). For another, there is the usual business with peoples' authority issues, arguably not unrelated to gender (in this instance, the woman in authority may be bringing out unconscious hackles in the menfolk. or not. just a possible undercurrent. not really the bottom line, at least as far as I'm concerned, but interesting to consider).

The main complaint, though, has to do with the fact that people who are nearly universally viewed as trolls are permitted to linger on...and on...and on...and other, more interesting posters who have lost their appetite for dealing with the endless drama, quietly slip away.

So what then happens is a very familiar sort of pageant, in which people are first implored to ignore the offending poster and/or "use the filter" (dunno if this is ever available on blogs; allows people to make certain posters unreadable just to themselves). Meanwhile, some of the blunter regulars, fed up, have begun to turn on their flamethrowers. This will sometimes draw a rebuke from the "play nice" type hosts, particularly if the troll in question is of the superficially genteel sort, which makes people angrier than ever. Breakdown ensues.

Eventually, just about everyone will have turned on the troll, and (this is one of the clearest ways to spot a troll in my opinion), rather than allowing as how s/he might have played any part at all in the current mess, the troll now plays the "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" card. Sometimes the claimed reasons for the "oppression" dovetail with more commonly accepted views of more macro sociopolitical oppression (troll is a woman, gay, black, etc.) Sometimes, at least as often if not more so in my experience, it'll be the other way around (troll is a man, straight, Christian, of a certain political view, but feels, or claims to feel, as though s/he is an oppressed minority in that virtual space, at least, if not the entire world). Sometimes it'll be for something else altogether (it's all because I'm a Yankees fan, isn't it! it's because I'm too poetic and deep for you literal-minded churls! y'all hate cat owners!) Usually there will be just enough truth in the troll's claims (yes, the drama has had to do with the identity issues/style differences in question, and yes, there probably are underlying tensions/prejudices about such) to drag the thing out for another few millenia while people earnestly debate what is and isn't prejudicial. Which may have been the point of the whole conversation to begin with. In this case, though, somehow, it always seems to come back to what the troll did or didn't say, and/or what did or didn't offend the troll.

Eventually of course even the most militantly "play nice" folk recognize that the child ain't right, but by this time a lot of the damage has been done. And even still, the troll lingers, because the host (or whomever) still believes, as someone memorably once put it, "if we just reason with these unreasoning looncakes, they'll take off the tinfoil." Usually it only winds up when everyone including the troll finally gets bored of the whole thing. And some people, sadly, are so bored that they wander away for good.

As you can probably guess by now, I myself tend to be of the blunt/salty school. I do also believe that it's useful to be fluent in a variety of conversing styles, and that in any given blog/conference/whatever, it's not unreasonable for one to adapt to the predominant style, if it seems truly important to the host and/or regulars, and/or if one finds something valuable in remaining in that space despite the differences of style and/or opinion. ("When in Rome...") After all, the Internets are a big big place. If one decides one doesn't feel comfortable there, after all, one can always go elsewhere, and probably should.

Which brings us back to trolls, and clarity. Clarity is important, yes. Especially in this medium, where so many of the physical and vocal cues we rely on in "meatspace" are absent. The thing is: it's not just important to be clear about one's ideas--and for that matter, sometimes it's not always easy to do that, be clear about one's ideas, because a given idea/topic might be complicated and full of potential landmines. Slack, I feel, should be given in that regard, yes.

What *is* more important, to me, is that one be clear about what it is one wants in a given space, or discussion. As a host or as a poster. And I also feel that it is not inappropriate to ask. One of the clearest hallmarks of the professional troll, ime, is that they don't seem to ever have a clear answer to this question; or if they do, it seems grossly at odds with their demonstrated behavior. For instance: "you've been complaining about how awful it is in here for weeks now. Why are you still here? What do you *like* about it here?"

And finally, my own opinion, by me, brackets Ms. brackets, is that if a host comes to the conclusion that yep, person x is trolling, and that conversation is breaking down because of him/her, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better, then probably the best solution is to ban, without apologies or argument.

My 2 cents adjusted for inflation, and make of it what you will; I realize I'm a stranger here myself, pretty much. Note that I make no judgment about who is or isn't a troll here; I haven't been around long enough to judge and I doubt it'd be appropriate anyway.

[belledame222]

ack, sorry for the double (looong) post. dunno why that happened.