Bwog commenting and the silencing of good debate

A Bwog post last week linking to the latest issue of The Current brought out a strange and interesting thread of arguments. The interest of this “Swiftcurrent” was the issue’s focus on Zionism. Scrolling down to the posting’s comments, I noticed the expected argument about the pros and cons of Zionism—a dispute in which people on all sides rarely agree, or compromise, or even so much as lend an open ear for a minute. But catching my eye was a particular string of phrases woven through the exchange:

“Fuck Zionists... If you care so fucking much... It is utter bullshit...” “Fuck you, asshole... you’re full of shit...” “It is fucked up... is totally fucked...” “I don’t give a flying fuck...” “Jewish girls are hot.”

Is this really how we engage with one another?

Now, I’m generally as ready as anybody to use swear words. I think they are important components of every day discourse, and believe that condemning their use is a waste of time and actually hinders free speech. Sometimes there is no better way to express a feeling other than using such words. But that is the point: curses are emotional responses. And no matter how common they are, cursing somebody out is a perfect way to upset them without saying anything of substance.

The above string of comments to the “Swiftcurrent” post is no more than a series of knee-jerk emotional reactions. Although most of us would acknowledge that Zionism is an issue that requires good thinking and measured responses, several members of our community took advantage of the anonymity of blog commenting to simply shoot out their reactions. These shallow, reactionary comments are attacks on the people involved in the debate, not criticisms of actual legitimate positions. They only bring hurt feelings and defensiveness, inviting equally shallow comebacks. I do not see any productivity in that. At Columbia, where people are gathered primarily as members of a diverse intellectual community, how is it possible that debate over one of the most important issues of our time is reduced to trading outbursts of “Fuck you,” “No, fuck you,” “No, fuck you”?

As I have maintained in earlier columns, religion is a particularly sensitive point of discussion, and is often deferred or cut off in discourse because people can so easily be offended. For this reason, it is essential that in debates about religion and its politics, participants stick to the issues and rationally engage. The insertion or evocation of extreme emotions, easy in such discussions, must be avoided if anybody is to learn something or even (gasp!) change their views, and if the integrity of our intellectual community is to be maintained. But like most blogs, the Bwog comment section becomes a space where social rules do not apply. Because they allow anonymity, comment boxes are often used as an outlet for the “infantile desire” to feel better by hurting another’s feelings, as Philip Petrov noted in an earlier column. These comments are still public, however. And because of that neurotic but common need to temporarily resolve insecurity by insulting others, many Bwog readers in our community stay away from making earnest contributions to important debates out of fear of being personally attacked.

That fear is justified. One does not just observe curse words and good old kindergarten-style name-calling. Since its inception in 2006, the Bwog’s comment spaces have been home to racism, homophobia, sexual prejudice, and religious hatred. I have often looked at a comment thread and wondered, “Where am I?” I have read a comment thread thinking that its statements would be grounds for serious administrative inquiry if made or written in any other public forum. At this University such hatred is not tolerated—and even leads to student unrest—when it comes in the form of graffiti on bathroom walls or is suspected in a controversial professor’s lectures.

Religion is one particularly sensitive issue that would benefit significantly from measured responses, an avoidance of immature insults, and appropriate conduct. Of course, it is not and should not be Bwog’s place or the place of the University to regulate mean personal attacks unless they are extremely bad. But within the student body, we as a group to some extent do have the power to set the terms by which we conduct ourselves. Religion’s taboo status in lay circles can and will be dissolved if those of us who have earnest things to say are not eaten up by the lawless release of pent-up rage, which effectively closes up all rational discussion and eliminates our freedom of speech in a key place where discussion should be happening. Maybe then we will be able to have a discussion about Zionism that doesn’t degenerate into vulgar insults, F-you’s, and an argument about the attractiveness of Jewish girls.