Rules for My Online Speech
As I and a few trusted companions venture forth on a collaborative blog, I find myself in need of setting up a few ground-rules for my online speech. It seems that the Internet can easily lead one down the path of misunderstanding. The scariest part is that many people go down that path willingly. Here are a few rules I am cooking up to prevent you from misunderstanding me, but also these rules will prevent me from forgetting what I am doing here in the first place.
1) No questions can asked of a reader with an answer already in mind. Hypothetical questions notwithstanding, to ask a question merely in order to correct the response of the answerer is highly inappropriate.
2) Posing a question as a pretext for a soapbox is all wrong.
3) Unnecessary technical jargon will be avoided unless the term is thoroughly explained. Assuming that the audience knows what I am referring to is not allowed.
4) "You got your hair cut today" Statements of fact intended to avoid the conversation that needs to take place are unacceptable.
5) Red herrings smell very poor. Off-topic pronouncements are not allowed.
6) Triangulation in a debate is in poor taste. Making questionable associations between the opposed party and a distasteful third party in order to short-cut the actual debate is sick and wrong. Just because politicians do it does not make it right.
7) The "rhetoric of excess" is not an acceptable tactic. Taking a valid point and over-extending it in order to short-circuit actual conversation is a poor move. Ex: "The Church needs to engage society in order to transform it." "Yes, because society is so sick and messed up" Nothing good can come of this.
8) Ad hominen (which I must now explain, see #3). Responding to an argument with a personal attack is rude and counter-productive.
9) Attributing an unecessary label in order to undermine an otherwise positive statement.
Ex: "The female pilot who landed the plane did a good job." What, should we be surprised?
10) No point is too small to be appreciated, nor is any point too large to be undermined.
11) Playing the devil's advocate in secret, adopting a contrary position just to argue a point and feel vindicated by the attention, is to be avoided.
12) Nobody wins when someone just gives up trying to be understood. Conceding an argument verbally without being entirely convinced destroys community rather than preserves it.
Some of these rules will be more helpful, some were just for fun. I do, however, pledge to honor these rules. You can hold me to it (please).
This is a very rough draft in need of both editing and suggestions. To be continued...
1) No questions can asked of a reader with an answer already in mind. Hypothetical questions notwithstanding, to ask a question merely in order to correct the response of the answerer is highly inappropriate.
2) Posing a question as a pretext for a soapbox is all wrong.
3) Unnecessary technical jargon will be avoided unless the term is thoroughly explained. Assuming that the audience knows what I am referring to is not allowed.
4) "You got your hair cut today"
5) Red herrings smell very poor. Off-topic pronouncements are not allowed.
6) Triangulation in a debate is in poor taste. Making questionable associations between the opposed party and a distasteful third party in order to short-cut the actual debate is sick and wrong. Just because politicians do it does not make it right.
7) The "rhetoric of excess" is not an acceptable tactic. Taking a valid point and over-extending it in order to short-circuit actual conversation is a poor move. Ex: "The Church needs to engage society in order to transform it." "Yes, because society is so sick and messed up" Nothing good can come of this.
8) Ad hominen (which I must now explain, see #3). Responding to an argument with a personal attack is rude and counter-productive.
9) Attributing an unecessary label in order to undermine an otherwise positive statement.
Ex: "The female pilot who landed the plane did a good job." What, should we be surprised?
10) No point is too small to be appreciated, nor is any point too large to be undermined.
11) Playing the devil's advocate in secret, adopting a contrary position just to argue a point and feel vindicated by the attention, is to be avoided.
12) Nobody wins when someone just gives up trying to be understood. Conceding an argument verbally without being entirely convinced destroys community rather than preserves it.
Some of these rules will be more helpful, some were just for fun. I do, however, pledge to honor these rules. You can hold me to it (please).
This is a very rough draft in need of both editing and suggestions. To be continued...
posted by matt at 7:03 PM
4 Comments:
It's all true. I failed to cite my most primary of sources. Make this rule #13
"Always give credit where it is due, especially when it is due to your own household."
What's this about a female pilot?
I say that anyone who can grease a landing is a great pilot...my landings tend to look (and feel) like they belong on an aircraft carrier!
Anyway, the rules for discourse are great...why don't you post them on "Reinventing the Blog?"
Re: the female pilot.
If the gender of the pilot is incidental to the story, then the only reason it would be noted is to point out at least mild surprise that a woman would be competent at such things. Unspoken bias is always the most egregious.
Re: posting these rules on "Reinventing"
These may be an article for discussion, but I would not want to impose these rules on anyone else. I would, however, beg anyone engaged in discussion on "Reinventing" to address the audience according to these guidelines. I think we are doing so now.
Post a Comment
<< Home