On Discussions

 Last week, Friend of this blog Old AF Sarge at Chant du Depart  posted what essentially was an "Open Mic" post on a particular subject (war, in this case).  The link is here if you are curious (again, not something we discuss generally), and the point of this post is not the subject of that post, but rather the content of the commentators.

This, in theory, was the sort of post where things can go horribly wrong:  a potentially contentious subject, a "Go discuss" imperative, and (from what I could see) minimal editorial intervention.  A total of 50 comments and responses.  

Not one angry or contentious response.

Part of me - that vaguely sarcastic, ironic part of me that sometimes feels like the funny things that are funny in my head should be said out loud, which never works out well for me - thought about posting something along the lines of "What is this?  Reasoned, rational debate among peers without anger or name calling? Heresy!  What sort of site are you running, Sir?"  (The better part of me restrained myself, of course).  But for not posting it, it was true.  Here, in essence, was actual discussion happening around a subject that can stir strong emotions (and language).

How, by the grace of God, did this happen?

We are in increasingly short supply of such things, in the electronic world and in the real world (Thankfully not at this site, of course.  Every one here is exemplary).  The ability to simply say "Here is a subject we may need to talk about" and have people actually talk about it from their point of views without everyone making ad hominem attacks or stating "You are a ______ (fill in the blank)" with no support is what, from all I can tell, passing for "debate" these days.

The whole thing is rather sad.

I am not the sort of person that reacts to this kind of environment well at all.  Long ago, a college professor told me that I did not really debate, I simply put facts out there and assumed everyone saw things the way I did based on the evidence (to be fair, he was correct).  And I certain cannot deal with the escalation in volume and body language when someone tries by verbal force to make the point they cannot make with logic.

If I had to picture us now, I almost see us as people that are rent by wounds not physical but verbal and instead of working to bind them up, continue to go on rending because at this point, there is nothing else we know how to do. 

There is another side of course, the side represented by the fine discussion at Sarge's site, the part where people can be rent by wounds but people are respectful of rending others and in some cases are actively working to bind up those rents.  They are not nearly as noticeable because (frankly) quiet is not as nearly as powerful as loud in the public arena.  

The unfortunate reality of rent wounds is, of course, that one will actively bleed out at some point while those that have been quietly binding up those wounds will continue on, working quietly and quite often in silence and the background.