Freedom.
It is like 7-Up for the soul.
Yeah... its lemon-lime (cannot say lymon, because that is Sprite, after all) effervesence that makes your nose tickle when you take that first drink? That is the feeling of freedom.
I am talking about all kinds of freedom.
The freedom to stand up on a soapbox in a park and proudly proclaim your beliefs without worrying about being arrested (so long as you are not inciting violence).
The freedom to carry your Beretta where- and whenever (nearly) you want to do so.
(Aside: For the record, that is "Beretta" not "Baretta": it is difficult to carry a private investigator wherever you go, let alone his cockatoo 'Fred.').
The freedom to vote for whomever you wish without fear of reprisal or intimidation.
The freedom to read, or write, the books you want without oppression or censorship.
The freedom to be able to worship how, where, and when you desire.
Except in the so-called Bloggernacle, apparently.
Unfortunately, it is an all-too-common practice among supposedly observant Latter-day Saint blog-hosts/-moderators to moderate, censor, and yes, even stifle debate. That is to say, debate against the ideas they believe and support. They willingly moderate and hold posts, preparing and scripting their responses. And then, when they feel they are losing or have lost the argument, shut down the comments altogether. Who knows why they do it: fear? hatred? shame? I do not claim to know. All I know is that, when faced with a little opposition, they inevitably suddenly up and walk away home, taking their baseball with them, bragging to everybody how they won the game.... Of course, it was their ball, and when they leave, how can you argue with them that they won the game?
That is one reason I am proud to be a member of this blog. The Spirit of The Law, regardless of how vitriolic some of us moderators become, it is in defense of our beliefs, beliefs that are under common and vile attacks elsewhere in the supposedly observant and routinely hypocritical LDS Bloggernacle. A place where the Brethren of the Church have urged members to bear our testimonies of the Living Christ and of the truthfulness of His Gospel, and the Restoration of the Gospel in the Latter-days. A place where, all too often, those testimonies are belittled and challenged by those who think that those Brethren--Brethren they supposedly sustain, by the way--are out-dated in their thinking, that they "just don't understand," or even worse, bigots and/or deranged.
Yes, this is the state of a large portion of the "Bloggernacle." It is a hostile place out there. Heck, sometimes it is a hostile place here, too. None of us is perfect, after all.
But for those of you who disagree with the moderators of this site, remember this: at least here, you -- a dissenter -- you get a hearing. I am not sure that I can remember an instance of any of the moderators shutting down argument or locking up a thread. Here, we understand Agency; we may not agree with your choice, or your perspective, or your comments, but you are free to make your argument.
For this, I say 'thank you' to my fellow moderators. I can feel my nose tickling.
And that is Freedom.
Iggy,
ReplyDeleteI used to believe just like you did. That is why I joined Mormon Matters where 'anything goes'.
But in time I came to realize that their approach tended to favor Rejectionists over Believers. The problem was that Believers had all their beliefs 'out there.' Any Rejectionist could walk down to Deseret Book and buy books that explained LDS Beliefs, often from 'authoritative' sources. They could then complain and complain about those beliefs. Paint them as evil. Paint them as the cause of evils. They could quote and attack the brethren. And they could argue 'this is ridiculous' 'this is disproven' this is inconsistent with science' etc. etc.
But what could the Believers do back? They were only allowed to defense their beliefs. That's it. Never would you see Believers given a chance to take the beliefs of the Rejectionists and point out that their beliefs all have same or more sever problems. And why not? Because Rejectionists don't talk about their beliefs (which often they don't even have) but only about other people's beliefs.
This is a recipe for an unfair platform, I'm afraid. It's 'open and free' yet not at all.
But how do you fix it? I couldn't see a way.
Do we require Rejectionists to explain their beliefs if they wish to comment? That would certainly level the playing field. I have no doubt whatsoever that those that complained the loudest had the fewest beliefs and thus were actually the most irrational. They literally defined themselves only by what they disbelieved.
But let's face it -- it's an unrealistic dream. You can't force people to come free and admit 'well, actually, I have all these complaints but absolutely no alternative suggests for you to counter criticize. In fact, I'm just an idiot with no beliefs at all outside of trying to make life miserable for members of my former religion.'
Epistemologically, they are being non-rational. Irrational, actually. In science you don't get to criticize the prevailing paradigm unless you are ready to back it up with an alternative theory that can be tested. But in Bloggernacle discussion, we do exactly that. But what alternative is there?
You're welcome Iggy, and thanks for being a part of the blog here. I also see both sides to the arguments for and against moderation. As the main moderator of this site I can say with surety that we have only blocked three comments on this site since post number 1. All three of those have been spam links to porn sites.
ReplyDeleteI am not afraid of my religion, or my beliefs. I seek to make those two things the same. The more I live my religion, the more I am sure those two will become one. Until then, I don't find value in moderating our learning experience. Disagreements are natural, and sometimes those disagreements get out of hand. But for the most part, we do try and remember that we have been blessed with the freedom of expression. And the way we are choosing to honor that blessing is to use it and not restrict it as much as is prudent.
With all due respect, if you ever graduate to the point where your posts generate more comments than you can count on two hands, you will probably start to appreciate why it might sometimes be necessary to "lock up a thread". Even for reasons that don't constitute "censorship".
ReplyDeleteWhat difference does it make what the number is? Why shut it down? And why is it that you seem to judge value simply on the number of comments?
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect? When you graduate? Could you be more condescending? Did you think was some kind of attack on your blog (if you have one whomever you are)?
ReplyDeleteOne of my comments was posted and then deleted from the recent gay choice discussion. Did we ever figure out what happened there?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you are referring to. BUT! I just went back to comment moderation on the back end of our blog and Blogger auto installed some kind of spam blocker so there were a bunch of other comments that were stuck in a spam filter. I am really sorry to all those who were having problems with that.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wish we had started this whole thing on wordpress which is far superior to blogger in my opinion.
Your comment might be there now, I just went ahead and approved all of them blindly to make sure that I didn't miss anyone's comment.
Sorry for that... :(
"With all due respect"
ReplyDeleteI love how this phrase means "I mean this disrespectfully."
It's sort of like "bless his heart." You can say anything you want as long as you add "bless his heart" at the end.
e.g. "That guy is a total jerk and I can't stand to be around him! Bless his heart."
"What difference does it make what the number is?"
ReplyDeleteIt can make a difference if the number becomes so large that following the conversation becomes impracticable for readers, or unwieldy. I'm not saying this is always going to be the case. But at times it is. Also, in a very large (200+) comment thread, it is very likely that your comment tally is being partially driven by crazies. Trust me, years of experience bears this out.
"Why shut it down?"
The reason a blog moderator might moderate heavily, or even delete comments and/or shut a thread down, can vary. At times, a site's permabloggers may decide that the substantive portion of a conversation has run its course, so no further facilitation of discussion is likely to generate any more insight. At other times, an inordinate number of nutters may have derailed a conversation, so it seems best to just down and move on. It depends. And these decisions are, of course, judgment calls. I have often disagreed with the decisions made in this regard by my own blog. And sometimes I have agreed.
"And why is it that you seem to judge value simply on the number of comments?"
I've done no such thing.
"With all due respect"
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm being condescending. Here's why:
"I am not sure that I can remember an instance of any of the moderators shutting down argument or locking up a thread. Here, we understand Agency; we may not agree with your choice, or your perspective, or your comments, but you are free to make your argument."
This is laugh-out-loud funny! In part for the reasons I stated above, but in part because it's as if the author is wearing an "I Know Nothing About Mormon Blogging!" t-shirt, and shining a strobe light on it. If you had the slightest clue about the potential pitfalls of hosting and managing large-scale online conversations, you wouldn't be caught dead making a comment like this.
Look, I totally sympathize with the frustration of feeling like you're being silenced unjustly, and I understand the temptation to accuse your opponents of "censorship" motivated by weakness of argument, fear, shame, etc. But honestly, this is just melodramatic, self-serving blather, more often than not. Not always, I grant you. But often.
Aaron B - Your condescending tone does not do you well. We have had longer comment strings before. We welcome the discussion. If we did not want it, we wouldn't have a blog to begin with, or at least allow comments on the blog at all. So we welcome the discussion no matter the length.
ReplyDeleteAnd to respond to the idea of there being some huge burden for a blog with a lot of comments; that is also hyperbole. There is no difference in the system that is in place if you have no comments or multiple comments if you don't moderate them. The system is automatic. The only problem you MIGHT run into is if you do moderate every single comment. In which case, the article is appropriate and relevant.
Plus, if this was the first time that people on this blog or others that share similar feelings of defense towards the church were silenced by those claiming to be mormon, then I would see you side. We have been silenced multiple times and on multiple blogs. They are always by those who claim to be of the faith but who only seem to support a voice that is a dissenting voice. We are not being melodramatic. Even the precious Mormon Matters blog discussed this same issue. It is not irrelevant.
I don't fear a 1000 comments so long as they are discussing the topics at hand and are not spam links. The strength of the blog is the freedom of expression it affords anyone, as well as, the ability for discussion. Without it, the blog is just a website where people write like in a magazine. WIthout give and take, what is a blog?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAaron:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your opinion. I disagree heartily with it, but I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I am well-versed with Mormon blogging and your responses tell me that you are also well-versed with Mormon blogging, largely because it is the same type of response that too-many of what you likely call "Orthodox" or "True Believer" members receive when they attempt to voice an opinion.
That is, if what you call "Mormon blogging" is what you find on the vast majority of blogs calling themselves "Mormon" blogs--the places that ridicule those "Orthodox" members. I have seen far too many instances where a member voices a simple, powerful, testimony of the restored Gospel, only to be reviled, abused, and harassed for said beliefs by the majority of the readers and moderators on the blog. If any other reader comes to their aid they are also shouted down and labeled naive. If the support grows too large, well, no doubt "the substantive portion of the conversation has run its course."
I bet these are the “nutters” and “the crazies" you credit with racking up the comment tallies.
They face derision and an onslaught of condescension. If they dare to complain, they are buried in vitriol. If anyone chimes in to give assistance, or voice an alternative opinion, they too are shut down, whether literally or effectively.
Your melodramatic candle sheds light in all directions. "Melodrama" occurs regularly on those same so-called "Mormon" sites, especially after (or even during) a session of General conference, particularly if Elder Boyd K. Packer has spoken. "Melodrama" is in the vitriol, hysteria, and cries of harassment and/or repression if someone bears an orthodox testimony on one of these sites, especially if there is no grey area raised amid their black and white beliefs. "Melodrama" is what is found in the hysteria of the seeming majority of the Bloggernacle over the observance or support for the General Authorities of the Church: Heaven help the person that supports the General Authorities in all things: THAT is where to see true melodrama.
I will not even bother addressing "self-serving blather" in regards to the majority of the Bloggernacle. That one is simply too easy.
At The Spirit of The Law, we also give our readers a bit more credibility. We believe that they are able to read and understand more than 12 comments to a single post. We believe that they are able to read more than 80 comments. Heck, we even believe that they are able to read more than 200 comments. We leave that decision up to the individual reader.
We also believe that if the readers lose interest in the thread, it will lose steam and die out of its own accord. Why prematurely stop a discussion, even if the subject has morphed? It is an area to discuss and reason. Salient, conherent, and reasoned conversation should not, and cannot, have a limitation of time set on it. Who is to say that someone, a week, month, or year from now, would not bring a new perspective to a discussion? Why should they not be able to revive a thread? Yes, they could start a new thread, but why should they (and future readers) be forced to go back and forth to reference multiple threads?
In your lunchtime conversations with friends and co-workers, when the topic shifts from the original, do you you commonly say, "I am so sorry. The substantive portion of our conversation has ended. Good day," and get up and walk away, leaving your lunch half-eaten?
We also do not throw around words like "censorship" lightly. When we do, it is out of experience not out of "weakness of argument, fear, [or] shame." Our beliefs and responses are never built on these things.
We leave those feelings to those in the majority of the Bloggernacle that cannot stand to have the Light of Truth shone on their beliefs.
As I said, Aaron, I want to personally thank you for your response. It does, indeed, shed a lot of light on things.
My apologies for the multiple posts. My browser keeps having issues when I tried to post, posting only a portion of the actual post.
ReplyDeleteYeah I've been having issues posting comments on here as well.... I think it might have something to do with an upgraded format. Anyways, thanks for the comment IM. I think what we're seeing is the prophesied sifting amongst the Latter Day Saints. People who want to profess themselves members of the restored gospel, but are unwilling to accept continuing revelation when it conflicts with their popular beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMillennial Star just closed comments on the feminism post. Are you going to rant about it? Or does this only apply to "liberal" bloggers?
ReplyDeleteA little late to the game there Stanley, rest assured, you were not missed.
ReplyDeleteThe position of this blog is that we do not moderate comments. We hope to create a space where individual can express their opinions no matter how dumb yours may be.
Please understand that we don't write liberal style blogs because we disagree with them and therefore do not wish to see their garbage propagated across the internet. I don't feel that liberalism has much in common with the doctrines of the gospel and in many ways espouses the principles of the adversary.
I disagree with the moderation of posts and comments. However, I don't hold it against someone who feels that leaving an open forum is simply asking for contention and anger. That is a risk we take, as do those who participate in a more open blog.To each his own in that respect. There is a place for both types in this world.
The problem is that liberal mormon blogs write information to inflame and agitate those with a testimony. They claim that they are seeking truth, but the truth is not ever going to come by bashing General Authorities who are offering their best efforts for the work of the Lord.
While I may not agree with moderation practices in general, I see Millennial Star only closing posts where personal attacks are made towards those who post. Liberal bloggers on the other hand moderate those who they don't agree with. In other words, "They can't handle the truth."
Hey Stanley,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you missed the fact that I already stood up for moderation back at comment number 1. But, hey, thanks for backing me up. :P
I am not against The Spirit of the Law having a no moderation policy any more than I'm against Mormon Matters or Wheat and Tares having such a policy. I think some of both is needed.
What I'm really in awe of is that The Spirit of the Law can survive without a moderation policy!
Gees, over at M* they once had a NOM/DAMU site intentionally collaborate to try to kill the site by agreeing to all be as offensive as they could until the site gave up. They moderated them until it wasn't fun any more and had to give up. (I say 'they' because this was before my time, but I completely agree with M*'s approach on this problem.)
I hate to say it, but the 'bloggernacle' has become a hostile place for the regular old Mormons. I am happy to see open forums like The Spirit of the Law and Moderated ones like M* work to change that even if we don't always agree on how to do it.
Stay classy, James.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bruce, for being a voice of reason.