Point and Purpose

The purpose of this blog is to foster civil discussions between liberals and conservatives. I am appalled at the inability of liberals and conservatives to communicate with each other. I want to do something about that.

Me? I myself am much more anti-conservative than anti-liberal. I refuse to accept the liberal label, and I think that many liberals would find me a traitor to their cause, because on some important issues, I'm not at all liberal. However, I find myself more often in disagreement with conservatives than with liberals. Let's not get too far into labels just now. Over the course of time, as I post essays exploring issues, my stance will become more clear. If I had to reduce my political philosophy to a slogan, it would be "Rationalism and the Rule of Law". Not very snappy, huh?

I will rigorously enforce absolute civility at all times in this blog. Here's the General Principle:

Everybody will be nice at all times.

And here's The Legal Rule:

No entry may contain any direct or indirect reference to any participant.

It's a clear and simple rule, and while it may seem a bit silly on first sight, it's actually a very good way of insuring that the discussion is confined to the issues, not the personalities. It does impose a somewhat stilted style upon the discussion, but it also guarantees that there will be no ugliness, nastiness, snideness, or any of the other sins that universally stain blogs. Here are some examples of the wrong way to make a statement and the right way to make a statement:

Wrong: "That's an idiotic statement."

Right: "That statement is wrong."

Why: the first statement indirectly calls somebody an idiot. After all, the only person who can make an idiotic statement is an idiot. Many years ago I learned this lesson when I referred to another person's statement as a 'fogeyism'. I hurt the fellow's feelings, and I still regret that comment. I'll not tolerate this kind of behavior here. 

Wrong: "Sorry to puncture your balloon, but..."

Right: "I disagree."

Why: The giveaway is the use of a second person pronoun. This also violates the Nice Principle because it is patronizing. 

Wrong: "Yeah, right, and I've got a bridge to sell."

Right: "This idea fails to take into account the fact that..."

Why: the first statement implies that somebody is naive.

Wrong: An Arabic salutation offered in opposition to a statement about Islam that the writer finds unacceptably charitable.

Right: Counter the idea, not the person.

Why: the Arab salutation is an underhanded way of insinuating that the first writer is a terrorist. The same thing would apply to using such phrases as "Sieg Heil" or "comrade" in reference to another person, because these suggest that he is a Nazi or a Communist.

I realize that this takes all the blood out of your writing -- that's my intention! I don't want a bloody discussion. I don't want people tossing clever insults back and forth. I want insightful discussion. Here's my problem: all my experience suggests that there aren't any conservatives capable of expressing themselves within these constraints. In five years of searching the web, I have yet to find a single conservative website that honors any reasonable code of civility. I have searched through -- I do not exaggerate -- at least a hundred conservative blogs. So I issue a challenge to conservatives: can you come here and make your points in a gentlemanly fashion? If so, I really want to see you. If not, get lost.

I will take other measures to protect the integrity of the discussion. I will throttle back on "ganging up", the tendency for lots of people of one persuasion inundate a single advocate with a mountain of objections. That's not fair -- the underdog needs to have the time to respond to everybody in turn. Whichever side you're on, I will not permit people to gang up on you.

I'm sure I'll be adding to my list of forbidden styles as I get more experience. Just remember the Basic Principle: BE NICE! And if you ever catch me violating the Basic Principle, by all means, call me on it. I'm not above my own laws. 

And I'll be pretty easy on people until we establish our community culture. Don't be afraid of hellfire and damnation descending upon you if you violate The Rule. It has taken me years to develop a truly civil style, and I don't expect anybody to come up to speed on it quickly. The feel of this blog will be more like Pygmalion than Devil's Island. The blogosphere too often seems like a cage full of chimpanzees hurling feces at each other; I expect that I'll have to be gentle in reminding people to put the feces down.

So I'm going to start the discussion with a nicely controversial post in the hope that it will get the discussion started with a bang. I'll have it up in a day or two. In the meantime, I ask anybody who happens to wander into these echoing halls to at least say "Hello" so that it doesn't seem quite so empty here.