Discussion
The website, beliefnet, hosts a wide variety of religious information as a "resource". They also host Jim Wallis' blog (which, thankfully, uses Haloscan for its comments section). I had a discussion with them recently in regards to their policies. Kind of interesting. It's long, so you can read it here (comment on this blog entry, not the link).
posted by Chris Hill @ 10/18/2006 04:11:00 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
It should be noted that they haven't responded to my last email (although they may - if they do, I'll post it), and since email conversations are bottom up, the "below" reference I made is to the previous email, which in this case is above. I hope I sent no one into a confused rage.
So what kind of discussions take place on this website? It sounds like a website for a bunch of wishy-washy relativists who's life goal is to avoid offending people at all costs. It really isn't a resource for discussion if it cannot be done openly and tactfully. I hope they write back. I am interested to hear what they say this time.
Well, Jim Wallis' blog has a few of those, except they love to offend conservative Christians. His entire "ministry" is, effectively, to oppose the Christian Right. He stands on very little except that.
Chris, you raise some good points. I would be interested in their answer.
I am sure that you never wish to incite violence; however, I believe this because I know you. Often times your comments may be interpreted as 'combative' in nature by readers. This may be enough to read into your comments (easily or not) violent undertones.
As you are aware, communication is a 'two way street' so to speak. You possess a more objective perspective on what it is that you are attempting to communicate while the receivers of your communication have a more subjective perception of what it is that you are trying to communicate. 'Community Managers' such as those at beliefnet can only manage how communication might be interpreted by others. As you are finding in your dialogue with them, this is a rather subjective process.
Considering the nature of your task (and your very polite questions) in conversation with beliefnet you will likely have to argue for how comments are subjectively received by others (tact) and not for the validity of what you intended to say. As unfair as this seems, it is the nature of the beast when conversation is being regulated by a 3rd party.
This is not to say that you have to be ‘nice’ to everyone; it is to say however, that beliefnet is the final ‘subjective’ authority on how a comment is perceived by others.
Brett,
That is good advice in regards to convincing one to change their policies/minds and I've been trying to argue my point along the lines you have drawn.
Certainly communication is a 2 way street. The receiver and sender must be clear. Due to the nature of written correspondence (specifically on blogs), this can be sometimes hard. The sender is always responsible to attempt clarity. However, the receiver also has a responsibility to seek clarity. For them to think that the post they deleted was violent, or that my ideas have violent undertones, is their fault (I'm sorry to say). You don’t need to know me to know no violence was incited. Besides, their reasons for deleting the post they cited was that it compared homosexuality to other sins and proselytized.
I as the sender am responsible to be as clear as possible. However, I can do nothing when one takes a subjective reading of my comments and reads things that were never written or intended. I have had many discussions with people like this (that read into what I am saying - I think everyone does this to a point - you kind of have to - it's the extreme that I’m talking about), and my comments end up becoming longer and longer and longer (in order to be clear and prevent any ideas that could be read into my words from forming).
There is a point where it becomes futile, however, since one can always "find" hatred or whatever vice they're looking for if they look hard enough. As Jordan has pointed out, people want to be offended (this is a different discussion and would take time to explore) and look for it (myself included). Besides, most of the time, when I write something that long (as I'm starting to do right now), people skim over it and understand even less. Thus, I have concluded that there is a balance. Oftentimes it is better to err on the short side of explanation, since the idea is what is offensive>, not the way in which it is shared.
Regardless, I appreciate your advice. I’ll keep it in mind if they respond. I understand how Beliefnet has to determine subjective readings of others (I kind of got away with myself above). My main disagreement is with their underlying principle that people can’t be offended, and they shroud this with the idea of inciting violence.
Chris,
I would comment here but the fatigue is about to make me collapse...so please just take this as a token of my esteem, understanding that I want to write but can't help the gentle temptation of falling asleep now.
Jordan
Jordan,
I'm so proud of you. Going to bed at such an early hour is a sign of maturity.
Post a Comment
<< Home