Personally, this is what I feel: when you have a world of information at your finger-tips, it’s unforgiveable to be part of the machine that disseminates disinformation and bad science. The problem begins right there.

I think you may be missing my point, Yeesh. The way the moderators choose to run this site is absolutely and entirely their own business. And there’s nothing “wrong” with sites that promote straight political flaming as opposed to discussion. It’s just a different niche, it’s great for folks who like that sort of thing, and those who don’t can just stay away.

What I’m saying (and a couple of other people too) is that if you start a thread with a post whose theme is “all niggers must die”, “fuck the Jews”, or “Catch AIDS and rot, Gay Scum”, it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that one is simply attempting to initiate a civil discussion on the theme of multiculturalism or Contemporary Sexual Mores.

So you do agree that some posts here are designed to encourage uncivil replies.

The point’s been made already, but it bears repeating: You can’t have your cake and it too.

Sounds good in principle. BUT (and I’m not trying to start us off on the wrong foot here) I can think of a couple of posts here in the not-too-distant past whose objective seemed to be elicit strong reaction.

It’s a two-way street: you can’t initiate a discussion with a talk-radio style statement of attack, then expect a sober, rational discussion of an issue.

Frankly, some posts are so outrageous that nobody should be surprised that they inspire “pointed” comments. In fact, these posts seem to be designed to encourage uncivil replies.

Maybe, maybe not. But I’m always surprised when otherwise reasonable people transform into ranting and raving lunatics when a provocative post is posted.

And I don’t consider linking to an “outrageous” opinion/weblog grounds for using “pointed” comments.

It’s interesting that blogs all seem to develop their own cultures in terms of what level of civility is expected; despite occasional troll-induced collapses, they seem to eventually struggle back to their own natural level in a surprisingly short time.

Agreed – I’d like to raise the level of debate here a bit more. I’ve taken a very hands off approach here over the past few years; however, I’m going to be demanding we all take a more civil approach to both posting and commenting.

But as someone mentioned in a comment posted yesterday, it is a two-way street. I will be excepting civility from everyone, not just commentators.

The great thing about ThePolitic is that we’re not a echo-chamber for partisan positions. While most of the authors are ThePolitic could be described as conservative, most of the commentators are NOT.

I believe this provides a great balance and certainly adds to the overall quality of the weblog. Commentators are a vital part of any weblog and I want to make sure everyone gets a change to share their opinion in a environment that encourages intelligent debate, not hate filled propaganda.

Everyone agree?

Fair enough. However, posts by some contributors also lack any sense of civility.

Frankly, some posts are so outrageous that nobody should be surprised that they inspire “pointed” comments. In fact, these posts seem to be designed to encourage uncivil replies.

It’s interesting that blogs all seem to develop their own cultures in terms of what level of civility is expected; despite occasional troll-induced collapses, they seem to eventually struggle back to their own natural level in a surprisingly short time. And individual commenters seem instinctively to figure out the appropriate level (if they stick around long enough): I’ve noted that folks who are completely wild at Small Dead Animals or McLellands (to be scrupulously non partisan in my choice of examples) are capable of intelligence and civility in other settings.