Is moderation being censored?

Question

Over the past few months, the most visible political conversation in this country could be best described as hateful, childish, and- sometimes- violent.

Glancing at the 'Comments' sections on online blogs and newspapers is sufficient to see evidence of this. There are lots of general, non-specific attacks on members of other parties, and many of these attacks are- regardless of their ostensible political stance- interchangeable.

Yet, most of the people I know in my day-to-day life are fairly reasonable individuals who, despite their political affiliations, are moderate in them, and find good points about their so-called "political opponents". I am aware that a person's persona can change once they are online, and once they have the freedom of being anonymous.

Nevertheless, I am having a hard time reconciling the huge gap I see between what's being represented as "opinion" on various news channels, in print sources, and in blogs, with the courteous behavior that people- for the most part- are exhibiting in their daily lives. If we were really "a country divided", would we be so courteous to each other- say- in the grocery store, where many of us are carrying or wearing conspicuous political paraphernalia?

I have also noticed- increasingly- that when I try to post a fairly moderate or neutral comment, it is either not accepted by the moderator, or is later deleted. For full disclosure, I consider myself a conservative, but have a high regard for several liberals who are currently in office, and agree with them on many issues. I try not to write anything that could be interpreted as insulting a political group generally, because I know- for one- that there are always several exceptions in every so-called "group".

So my question is, has anyone else noticed this gap? And where do you think it is coming from? It seems to me almost as if there is a sort of collective impulse (not necessarily conscious or malign) to keep argument going once it has gotten started, and to shut out the voices that attempt to douse it with moderation?

Thanks for reading this long question, and in advance for thoughts.

Answer 1

don't think it's censored I think there may be several other explanations:



1. people exaggerate and amp up their dialogue, protected by the anonymity of the computer (I should confess that I've done that with my moniker. I started off with a boring, non-partisan avatar and moniker.)

2. the crazies are on Y/A



could be both, maybe a crazy or two start and the rest get excited and jump on board



How about in real life though. I am still waiting for a republican political figure to tamper down the inciteful rhetoric rather than fanning the flames. Boehner had the opportunity the other day and completely blew it, caving in to the right-wing loonies.

Answer 2

"Nevertheless, I am having a hard time reconciling the huge gap I see between what's being represented as "opinion" on various news channels, in print sources, and in blogs, with the courteous behavior that people- for the most part- are exhibiting in their daily lives."



I know exactly what you are talking about. It is similar to the "road rage" phenomenon in my opinion. Often, people act differently when they are behind the wheel or the keyboard than they do in person.



"I have also noticed- increasingly- that when I try to post a fairly moderate or neutral comment, it is either not accepted by the moderator, or is later deleted."



Angry rants are considered by some more entertaining than intelligent commentary. In an argument, it is far easier to rant, and remain intractable than to support a position with intelligent commentary. The later requires that the author actually has knowledge of what they are writing about. For the reader, it is far more entertaining for most people to read a rant from an author they agree with and say "exactly!!!", or to read a rant from somebody they disagree with and say "that person is a "whack job", than it is to read analysis with facts and reexamine their own position. Critical reading and writing is like work to most people, where reading and writing rants is more like leisure.

Answer 3

I appreciate your sincerity and your question appears to me to be one of the more honest ones on YA.



A couple of observations . . .



1) While I appreciate your effort to not paint w/ broad strokes any particular party or group since there are always exceptions, I do think it is misguided to suggest that generalizations cannot be made. Most people in our society do not understand the concept of a generalization. They view a generalization as being synonomous with an absolute statement. In fact, a generalization, by definition is a statement that is "generally" true and therefore has exceptions. How else can one debate issues and ideology if one cannot define an ideology in at least general terms?



2) Your question goes to the issue of truth. As much as some would like to purport, truth is not and cannot be relative. Something is true or it is not -- whether we know the answer. As such, truth is also not a "moderate" concept. By definition it is an absolute concept and, therefore, "extreme." To be moderate requires some kind of compromise from the truth which makes it not truth anymore.



So, if you believe in the relativity of truth (which I believe is irrational), then your observations seem valid. However, since "your truth" is no more valid than "anyone else's truth," who is to say who is moderate and who isn't since there are no standards?

Answer 4

I think several things are at work here.



1) As mentioned by you and the first poster, anonymity acts as a focussing lens.



2) I think the nature of these forums is that only folks who are heavily invested are going to show up here and on similar forums. I like policy debate alot which is why I came, but I certainly brought some strong opinions with me. Forums like this draw people with strong feelings. folks who don't care either won't show up, or the first time they see a question like "Given that we know [insert name] is Hitler/Satan/Stalin, why doesn't the American public stand up to him?", they'll turn and leave. Heck, I've been tempted to leave.



3) The sad truth is, some people are like this in real life. They restrain themselves out of politeness in person, but I think some of these angry folks actually feel this way. They get away with this by seldom interacting with the other side in real life. I've had people tell me how FANTASTICALLY stupid some policy is and anyone who believes in it is evil, stupid or both, when in fact I myself prefer the policy being denounced, and am aware of the gaping holes in their argument. Sometimes I call them on it politely, other times I evaluate it as not worth the effort, and I stay vague, or argue as Devil's Advocate to avoid an ugly confrontation that won't go anywhere. My decision on how confrontational to be reflects whether I think the person seems rational enough to be convinced, and other factors. The point here is that people do really feel this stuff, but in general population they put a lid on it out of politeness.



I haven't given up on Y/A yet, but I am *close*.