{"id":3580,"date":"2005-01-31T20:46:24","date_gmt":"2005-02-01T00:46:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/01\/31\/open-web-closed-minds\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:01","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:01","slug":"open-web-closed-minds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/01\/31\/open-web-closed-minds\/","title":{"rendered":"open web, closed minds"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

This evening, U. Wisconsin law Prof. Ann Althouse reveals her “sad experience” in weblogging (“Right and left: my sad experience<\/A>,” Jan. 31, 2005): <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you’re evil\/stupid\/crazy, and don’t even seem to notice all the times you’ve written posts that take their side.”  <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"closed  Ann asks “Why is this happening?” and confesses “I find it terribly, terribly sad.”  My experience has been similar in many ways, and I share Ann’s feeling that this is all very distressing.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Disclaimer<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>:  The following are broad generalities used to try to explain a perceived general phenomenon — they do not<\/EM> apply to every<\/EM> editor of a weblog who identifies himself or herself as being on the Left or on the Right.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Although they wage nasty internecine battles, I believe that many webloggers on the Right ignore disagreements from people they see as outside their ideology, because their conclusions are “faith-based” (including ideological “faiths”).  Therefore, while they are pleased to point out when outsiders agree on a point, disagreement from the Center or Left can be safely ignored, as neither facts nor reason are relevant to their conclusions.  They have a creed that supplies all answers.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                                     <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Because I have always considered myself to be liberal (modifed the past couple decades with the adjective “practical”), I am much more distressed by the attitude of those on the Left towards anyone who disagrees with either their ends or means on a particular issue.  From my campus days in the Vietnam antiwar movement, and right through the Clinton Administration, to the present day, I have seen the Left instantly demonize and dehumanize their oponents, while demanding complete adherence to their orthodox tenets.   As I have said before at this weblog, this Leftist intolerance — often in the name of tolerance — seems to be based on a premise of moral and intellectual superiority, and a refusal to concede that those with opposing views are acting in good faith (as opposed to acting with a hidden agenda of increasing personal wealth or power).  Thus, once you have strayed from their litany of mandated positions, you are ostracized — your support is unwanted and your disagreements are worthy only of ridicule and contempt.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"fragile  Webloggers on both political extremes often have more than enough IQ, but their EQ<\/A> needs a lot of work.  Thinking that there is only one catechism worth reading, and that you<\/EM> possess it — whether it’s based on religion, ideology, philosophy, or political science — makes the world a lot uglier and solutions a lot harder to achieve.  Like, Prof. Althouse, I hope to see more open-mindedness and civility in weblog discourse, and hope that I can always live up to that goal.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n