In previous discussions contemplating evil and sin (the equality/inequality of) and “not-good-behaviour”, we explored to some degree the kinds of differences of opinion to be had on such matters. While further exploration of the diversity is possible, I thought I’d cut to the chase by directly asking the question with regards to this blog:
Is this blog evil?
I know there are differences of opinion on this question. Anyone, feel free to speak your mind (when staying on-topic) — I distinguish between the blog, its contents and role, and myself the author, so I will not take it personally. (If speaking your mind involves calling me evil too, I have no problem with that. I’m just mentioning I won’t make that connection unless you do it for me.)
The reason I ask this is because I’m interested in discussing the problem. I mean this blog to be as positive and good a contribution as it could possibly be, but I’m unable to accurately represent opinions-not-my-own in the debates I have with myself when trying to figure out how to make the blog as wholesome as possible. There will always be differences of opinion due to the nature of the subject matter this blog discusses, but I’m seeking a decent compromise, a fair way to discuss such subject matter.
Over the past 2.5 years of this blog’s existence, I learned a lot about how to handle and how not to handle certain issues. I will continue to learn, but I can learn faster with your direct input. Any method welcome, comments below, emails, waves, phone calls… (leave your address with a comment below then I’ll contact you for further arrangements).
I already have some ideas I will implement. The first idea will be the next blog post: a warning to newcomers with regards to what they will find here. Other ideas will take longer to implement, aiming to enable people to direct their own paths with regards to what they are interested in and what they would rather avoid.
I suppose I should point out: “completely stop blogging, delete the blog, and stop talking to people about anything world-view related” is not an option. Additionally, my “primary case-study” remains an integral part of this blog, unless I find better or more important case studies — feel free to contribute ideas! With those restraints, things that can be improved include the way in which I present the topics I tackle, the ways in which I organise, make accessible, encourage or present (or not present) any comments or feedback the posts receive.
For example, an old idea of mine is to conceptually separate two “regions” for conversations: a “pub” and a “dark back-alley”. The pub should always remain as friendly a place as possible, anyone seeking to engage in interactions based on what’s considered to be questionable morals, fist-fights for example, can be kicked out into the dark back-alley. The “please take it outside” option can then remain in order to support free speech. (Any thoughts on the limits of free speech? Discuss below!) This way we can avoid having any anti-social behaviour inside “my pub”. The pub’s dream is to encourage diversity in socialising: meet those that are different from you and engage in friendly mutually-horizon-broadening conversations.
Things to think about and/or discuss:
- Is this blog evil? In what ways could this blog be considered evil?
- At the same time, what is good about this blog? What is the flip-side of the coin?
- How can we encourage and emphasize the good in order to make it out-weigh any bad as much as is humanly possible?
- What are the limits of free speech? What should be the limits of free speech?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Michael // Dec 8, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Brave man…
I’ll attempt an answer from a Christian point of view (in which evil is opposed to good as defined by the revealed Word of God – Jesus Christ). If you don’t follow such a view, my comments will of course be complete bunk to you, so just smirk and move on to your answer to the question from your own worldview.
From a conservative (strongly biblical) Christian point of view, one might legitimately argue from scripture that this blog falls under the ‘food sacrificed to idols’ category of sin. Paul argued that because the idols were dead and the food was not unlawful in itself, the food sacrificed to idols could legitimately be eaten by a believing Christian without any issues in theory. In practice however, the socio-religious implications are massive. Eating the food might cause a ‘less mature’ Christian who saw you doing it to fall into sin, either by judging you, or by rebelliously trying it themselves against their own conscience. I have heard this argument used to manipulate people about everything from not getting tattoos to not joining a cell-church. The same argument might come up against this blog. A reader may worry that a ‘good christian boy’ might read your blog and spontaneously transform into an atheist! Oh my!
This is of course a massive stretch of the meaning of the text, but people tend to feel fine about stretching their holy texts when ‘necessary’.
On the other hand, from a more progressive, post-modern view, one might argue that faith requires the possibility of doubt. In other words, ignorance is not faith. Neither is faith positive confession. The true believer is not intimidated by Darwin or Dawkins, or even Fred May,
not because they are necessarily wrong, but because even if they are right, so what? Thus, one might argue that reading this kind of blog is good for a Christian’s faith.
2 Kenneth Oberlander // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:33 pm
So this is where you’ve been heading the last weeks…interesting!
The Panda’s Thumb has a similar system…anything out of hand is not banned, simply moved off blog. Seems to work quite well.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think this blog is evil…for any given value of evil…
@Michael
This seems a bit defeatist. Your beliefs are clearly of value to you. Why not defend them?
3 Hugo // Dec 9, 2009 at 4:34 am
Michael, great comment! And I know what you mean, an old friend of mine, and his family, do not drink at all, not because drinking is a sin, but because of what drinking means to those from the communities in which they work. (And I’ve heard a historian talk about that “food offered to the idols” bit from Paul’s letters, so it’s fresh enough in my mind.)
So… we agree from a progressive perspective this blog could be considered a good contribution, and a worthwhile exercise for progressives to read. A more conservative perspective is a more tricky consideration, so we can talk about that.
First there’s the question of me sharing my ideas and views. If my ideas and views are wrong, or evil even, sharing them might be considered the “spreading of evil”. However, my views are what they are, and honesty is a good thing, so I will be sharing them if I want to. There could be some good ideas with regards to improving how I share my views and what I comment on and how I do it, and I will continue to strive to improve in that regard, but that’s probably something best discussed based on specific examples. So, moving on to what’s really the concerns here:
Taking my blogging as a given for this paragraph, the next consideration would be for those reading. Some reading it could shake their head, maybe marvel at how far lost I am
, and maybe learn a useful thing or two about “the other”, and move on. No evil there, just honesty in interactions between diverse people. Others, however, could feel they’re actively experiencing harm with regards to their spiritual lives as a result of reading certain things on this blog. Let’s suppose in such instances we could consider it a case of “evil has been served”. What could I do to help reduce that?
My primary focus is to try to have everyone as informed as possible with regards to what they’re letting themselves into. Thus the idea: if a newcomer comes to this blog, I can try to present them with a warning with regards to what they can expect here. That would leave it up to them to decide whether it’s something they are prepared to read or not.
Similarly, there’s the interesting psychological phenomenon of someone leaving a comment experiencing themselves dragged into a conversation no matter who responds — versus if they didn’t comment in the first place, they would more easily ignore discussions or topics they really don’t want to read or think about. Thus my idea to implement some features that would help people define (for themselves and for others) what conversations they are interested in, what they want to read, who they want to talk to, where they draw the line, etc. It will be there to help out, a psychological aid, even if functionally everyone could still comment on everything. Pipe dream? This part will require a bunch more work on my part, so it will take time.
Now the interesting dynamic tension I have here: my concern is largely about “totalitarian ideologies”. This blog exists largely to challenge totalitarian ideologies, as I consider them “evil” (to some degree, i.e. for a certain understanding of the word “evil”). Most of the examples of people refusing to read ideas conflicting with their own comes, in my opinion, from something of a totalitarian ideology. (Over-simplification? Nevermind, bear with me.) Thus, helping such people to *not* read this blog would kinda be me working against myself then?
The reason I’m prepared to do this: I would like to encourage conversations with people that specifically *are* interested in learning more of the other side, of people that differ from themselves. (Those that don’t want to seek, cannot be forced to find.) Thus, helping people that want to “not read” is meant to help find and focus on those that are more open to understanding humanity’s diversity. In addition, enabling people to read and interact only with as much as they feel comfortable with, instead of having the “all or nothing” kind of involvement that seems typical (to some, e.g. to me), is *supposed* to encourage participation from those that are interested in only limited participation, and would otherwise just steer clear.
I’ve digressed a bit, dumping my general thoughts around this matter. Getting back to the “how to limit any evil possibly caused by this blog” question, let me know if there are more ideas. The warning seems to me to be the most useful first step, a good low-hanging fruit. I will invite others to contribute to the warning, those with conservative views that consider this blog particularly dangerous, they can write a short piece that I will then include in the warnings. I’ll write a warning blog post when I next have time (I’m hoping tomorrow, as this weekend could be quite busy for me) which can then serve as context for further discussions as to how it could be improved or what words of warning could be added. And of course, it will surely remain something of a compromise in both directions, as I would consider myself bending over backwards to the point of breaking my back as
“allowing evil”.
And thanks Kenneth! I hear ya.
4 Hugo // Dec 9, 2009 at 4:37 am
(That was longer than the post itself…)
Also, forgot to mention: “the others”, “us others”, (or just “me” if I should be speaking for myself), could do well to learn how to present our ideas in ways that would have people interested in reading and understanding them, instead of following the approach of forcefully whacking everyone coming within range with a meme-bat.
5 Hugo // Dec 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I realise I’m over-analysing to some degree. Most posts present no problems no matter where you’re coming from. The warning won’t be made into an eye-sore, rather, will just have a link to the effect of “are you new here? Please click here” which will then present a page with things newcomers should consider or be aware of. It remains, of course, everyone’s responsibility as to what they choose to read or not.
I will continue pursuing conversations to help me understand what the biggest concerns are and consider what could be done about them.
6 Don’t Read This Blog // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:42 am
[...] Blog | Comments ← Is This Blog Evil? [...]
Leave a Comment