Gaming the Table.

I believe that, in addressing those who comment at their blogs for the supposed sake of civility, both Rod Dreher and Mark Shea are creating the opportunity to change the rules of the debate so as to discount the most credible criticisms against them.

Rod supports "disagreeing agreeably," by which he means, in part, preventing in the comments threads an atmosphere "polluted by personal vitriol or dragging old disputes constantly into new threads, and in an inflammatory way."

But those who cannot disagree agreeably -- those who cannot limit their critical remarks to a person's ideas, and not that person -- are not welcome here to spoil things for those who can. And they will have their posts deleted.

Notice that criticism of Rod's hypocrisy could now plausibly be censored out of existence. If Rod mentions that Ted Kennedy's foreign policy positions aren't good for the country, bringing up the fact that he supported the Democrats in Congress this past November could constitute an "old dispute" and criticism about Rod as a person rather than his ideas -- or rather, the idea du jour.

This same week, it appears that Mark Shea has left open the possibility of banning from his comment threads those who dare to accuse him of dishonesty.

I try to run fairly loose comboxes where people can speak their minds. My basic request is civility. I also try to be honest. That is, I think lying is a sin and I try to tell the truth as best I can. That means that errors I may emit on this blog are due to a) intellectual mistakes on my part (i.e., I got my facts wrong) or b) miscommunication (among other things, my informal tone and tendency to make jokes or hyperbolize are being misread). In point of fact, I think lying a sin and think the charge of lying a very serious one. I do not make it against others unless I think there is serious reason to do so. I tend to assume that it is better to attribute falsehoods to stupidity than malice unless the likelihood of stupidity is so grossly improbably that it becomes preposterous to do so. (Hence my reluctant conclusion that the Prez is lying when he tells us he has never authorized torture: I don't think him so stupid as to not know that cold cells, strappado and waterboarding are not torture.)

Why do I mention this? Because I find that some of my guests have this nasty habit of accusing me lying or dishonesty, often at the drop of a hat. There are few things that will more quickly convince me of *your* malice than that, and thereby persuade me to ban you as a Person I Can Do Without Who Never Will Be Missed. [emphasis mine]

Will Mark ban people who accuse him of lying "at the drop of a hat" or any such accusation? Will he even admit that he -- like everyone else, myself included -- sometimes lies? He only attributes errors that he "may" make are due to intellectual mistakes and miscommunication.

I even asked the question myself, but was accused of creating a Catch 22.

"Let me put it to you this way: If you appoint yourself as one of my Combox Star Chamber judges whose task shall henceforth be to catch me in my words and prove me a liar, I shall appoint myself somebody who finds you to be a Person I Can Do Without Who Never Will be Missed."

Will any criticism about Shea's honesty count as acting as a "Combox Star Chamber judge"? He never says.


I hope I'm wrong in both cases, that the opportunities Rod and Mark are creating were unintended and will not be seized. That remains to be seen; but what can be seen right now is that, if they did want to create a plausible mechanism by which to justify their crushing of dissent to create a coccoon of sycophantic ego-stroking, they're doing the right things to accomplish it.


And as a final note, they're also doing the right things to extend that bubble beyond their own domains: it's not enough to delete dissenters from your own blog, you have to discredit as "obsessostalkers" those who create arenas, however modest, to offer their opposing views.


EDIT: On the other hand, Mark just recently displayed a tremendous amount of class in criticizing a brazen attempt to threaten our Diane.

I was overly harsh to Mark in the original version of this blog entry, and I've deleted the most egregious comment.

It may be that my worst fears for Rod and Mark with the recent announcements will prove to be unfounded.

I sincerely hope so.