On Chat Rooms and Civility

This paper exists to insist on the rights of man; on possessions that are of much more political importance that the principle of one man one vote. I am in favor of one man one house, one man one field; nay I have even advanced the paradox of one man one wife. But I am almost tempted to add the more ideal fancy of one man one magazine... -G.K.'s Weekly, April 4, 1925

I think a lot about public discourse. Evidently, some other people do, too. Recent articles on discourse have appeared in The Wall Street Journal and our own Worcester Telegram.

I'm a regular poster on the Worcester Telegram's comment section. I find the discussion spirited, and refreshingly open - although ironically most comments are made anonymously. I find it a strange yet attractive dichotomy. The conversation is robust, but secretive. I post under a pseudonym on the site, for better or worse. To be honest, I don't want a potential future employer Googling my name and discovering that I'm involved with (gasp!) public discourse.

Chesterton once said something to the effect of the following: "Polite men in our modern society are encouraged never to argue about religion and politics, but these are the only things that are truly worthy of argument." Chesterton's view is rife with optimism about the possibilities of dialogue, and the opposite view is rife with pessimism about the same.

My experience in the comments section of the Telegram have given me reason to hope. It is almost like a digital Speaker's Corner, forcing a debater to hone his arguments and rhetorical skill. It may be just my imagination, but I also get the feeling that there are a lot of eyes watching - many more eyes than fingers reaching for keyboards to respond. There are few places today where many people are coming together to 'converse' about politics and/or religion. By converse, I mean also those who are merely listening to the reporter speak about the issue, whether on television or in the news, or online. The news media is not hesitant to jump into political and religious discussions, and the media is rarely impartial.

G.K. was no stranger to controversy, and he used his weekly publication to weigh in on the issues of the day. Reading some of his discourses in Masie Ward's biography, one is reminded of the dialogue seen every day on the T&G comment pages. If I had the time, I'd even find an example. But I will say that I think Chesterton would be entirely at home in the blogosphere, or on the Comments pages of his local news organ.

But there is the confounded anonymity - so many modern commentators lament the lack of accountability on blogs and web chats, an anonymity that, in theory, leads to all sorts of viciousness and backbiting. I'm reminded of Chesterton's story The Ball and the Cross, which ends with an atheist and a Catholic locked up in an insane asylum. Their crime was that the Catholic had challenged the atheist to a duel for desecrating an image of Our Lady and the atheist had accepted. The world could only imagine that they were insane to take such a thing so seriously. The modern world has long had a low opinion of those who dare to argue about politics, and an even lower opinion of those who dare to argue about religion. Is it more admirable to take up these debates openly? Absolutely. Does the anonymity of the participants detract from the ideas they are discussing? I'm not sure.