Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, we announced that we were going to have far less tolerance for, and to give far less oxygen to, trolls. We continue to welcome disagreement, including strong disagreement, as long as it takes the form of respectful discussion. But we've had enough of personal attacks, rants and raves, etc.
There was quite a lot of response to that announcement, and we thought we would share a few of those:
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: First, I have to say I'm as shocked as everyone else that E.G. in The Villages is a woman. They are absolutely an angry, old white guy in my mind's eye. Someone Trump-like, in fact, even down to the golf cart.
Second, thanks so much for your decision on being more aggressive with the banhammer, and for exactly why you described. Respectful criticism is fine and should be welcomed. Much as it might be nice to live in a like-minded bubble, it's not a healthy diet for us. Thinking of your analogies to palate cleansers, we must have some vegetables, and not only desserts. But the pointless, angry vitriol is a waste of your time and effort, and ours as well.
Thank you both SO MUCH for the hours and hours you devote to this site. We appreciate you!
J.H. in El Segundo, CA, writes: Great idea on stopping negative comments the rest of the year and banning certain obnoxious commenters. You guys do a great job and are very fair and respectful to respectful views of all types. You don't need to hear that swill. It will be better for all of our mental health to not have to view that.
Thanks for all that you both do. I am very thankful to have your site to follow. I will be cutting out completely almost all of my news sources, even NPR, and your site might be my only source of news for a while.
A.N. in St. Joseph, MI, writes: I, for one, will not be saddened by the elimination of the complaints department section. I understand that constructive, substantive criticism or debate is always welcome and enjoy reading well-written arguments, even if I fundamentally disagree. Rants, however, can be left to the cesspool that is Twitter...
On a related note, I'm sure E.G. in the Villages will be SHOCKED (much like Inspector Renault in Casablanca) when TFG's goon squads round her up in one of their forthcoming raids and send her "somewhere" just because she "fits the profile"... her red hat is unlikely to save her.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: I imagine you will get some blowback about your decision regarding E.G. from The Villages, and that most of the rationale will be spurious arguments having to do with balance, free speech, discrimination, etc.
You may or may not remember, but in 1988 Oprah Winfrey invited a group of Nazi skinheads on her show, the rationale being she would expose their hate-mongering for what it was. Instead, things got out of hand and, in the end, she only succeeded in amplifying their message and arguably aided their recruitment. It was a pivotal moment for Winfrey, and she decided thenceforward that "ignorance should not be given a platform." She also let her producers and network types know that any attempt to attract more eyeballs by emulating, for instance, Jerry Springer, would not be welcome.
Donald Trump's ignorance—about economic issues, how government works, complex societal problems, etc.—was given a platform by the Republican Party and here we are now (heaven help us all). I can't help but applaud your decision regarding E.G.in The Villages, and hope for some future world where the Flat Earth Society is not given control of NASA just because someone wants to "hear them out" on their show.
G.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I'd like to express my... well, not gratitude exactly, but certainly approval, of your decision not to publish rants from E.G. and their ilk anymore.
The tragic lesson that we as a society have failed to learn over the past few decades is: The only prize for indulging dipsh**tery is more dipsh**tery.
I don't know precisely how to have a society where it's possible to have constructive discussions but some basic ground rules of decency are a good start.
Despite the prediction from G.K. in Blue Island, we didn't get any negative feedback about this (unless we missed a message). It was overwhelmingly positive. After all, we're not shutting down letters that express disagreement. We're only shutting down letters that express disagreement in a highly disagreeable fashion.
And we do think there was merit in showing readers what a truly out-of-bounds message looks like, but we also agree with the semi-implication that we made the same error as Oprah did. Feeding the trolls just encourages them.
On a somewhat related note, we are vaguely toying with a notion, though it's just concepts of a plan right now. We are nothing but disdainful of performative bothsidesism. We don't believe that, for example, when CNN hires a Scott Jennings, or The Washington Post hires a Marc Thiessen, they are really trying to enlighten their audience.
That said, we think there would be merit in finding someone who has a right-leaning perspective, and could contribute something to the site once a week (or maybe every other week). To be more precise, we're thinking someone who could pick one (or two) items that we wrote that week, and could say "Here's how this particular story/issue/etc. looks through my eyes." Sort of a conservative ombudsperson. But the candidate needs to have some kind of track record of being intellectually honest and capable of reasoned debate. Someone who pines for how The National Review was when William F. Buckley Jr. was in charge would be nice. Being one of J.D. Vance's Yale Law School classmates would be a plus, but is not a requirement. The person should also expect some of what electrical engineers call "negative feedback" from us and others.
Anyhow, if readers have thoughts on this—good idea, bad idea, the best way to execute the idea, etc.—then we would be glad to hear them at comments@electoral-vote.com. As K.H. in Maryville points out, a bubble is something to be watched for, and actively resisted, and this might be a good step in that direction. (Z)