On Silencing and Dogmatism and Blogging

As an ex-evangelical and blogger, I am sometimes accused of having exchanged one form of fundamentalism for another. There are other arguments I run into that are similarly problematic. There have been some incidents in the past week where commenters have accused myself or other commenters of retaining fundamentalist thinking or of silencing disagreement, and these accusations are always frustrating.

So let’s clear some things up, shall we?

Being told you are wrong is not the same thing as being “silenced.” Sometimes an individual will come on my blog and take a position against something I have written or said only to have my regular commenters tell them they are wrong, offering explanations from personal experience or statistical evidence. This individual then argues that they are being “silenced.”

Look, you have a right to speak your opinions (though not necessarily on my blog). But guess what? So do other people. While you have a right to speak your opinion, you do not have the right to speak your opinion without pushback from people who disagree with you. This brings us to point number two.

My blog is not a public forum. My blog is my blog. The constitution guarantees our freedom to assemble, but not our freedom to assemble in a random person’s house. The same is true of freedom of speech and my blog. I have a commenting policy for my blog. This commenting policy does not violate your freedom of speech.

When I have to ban someone from my blog, it is usually for making personal attacks or for arguing in bad faith. I rarely ban someone for simple disagreement, though I do reserve the right to do so—namely, sexism, racism, ageism, childism, homophobia, and so forth, are not permitted on my blog. And that brings us to point three!

Holding a position very strongly does not make one a fundamentalist. I believe very strongly in racial and gender equality—and that hitting children is unethical. Having strong convictions—and being passionate in the defense of those who are vulnerable—does not make a person a fundamentalist.

I’m uncomfortable with how often I see the word “fundamentalist” thrown around given its actually narrow meaning. A fundamentalist is a member of a religious sect that rejects modernity, among other things. When someone accuses a person of being a “fundamentalist” they usually mean that they are being dogmatic or narrow minded. I think a lot of confusion could be avoided by simply stating this.

And this brings us to point four.

Not being willing to counter every commenter on the internet does not make one a dogmatist. Have you ever been in a situation where you tell someone they’re wrong on an issue, but don’t have the time or energy to refute them point by point, and then they accuse you of dogmatism? I know I have, and it sucks.

Look, dogmatism is holding a position that has not been arrived at via evidence and consideration and being unwilling to consider contrary evidence or arguments. If you have formed your opinion based on evidence and would reconsider it if presented with sound evidence to the contrary, you are not a dogmatist. But being unwilling to argue with every person on the internet? That is not dogmatism. In many cases, it’s time management. Which brings us to point five!

If I appear not to consider a counter argument, it may be because I already have. When someone comes to my blog explaining that “gentle spanking” can be a healthy parenting tool, or that there are no morals without God, or that the Coconino sandstone formation was actually laid down in watery conditions, or that public schools stifle creativity and I should rethink sending my daughter to one, or that abortion hurts women, too, they need to understand that these things I have heard, and thought through, and considered at length already.

I very rarely involve myself in the comment threads on my blog posts. As I see it, I say my piece in my post, and then give people space in the comments to respond. If merited, I may write a followup post. But for those of you who are active in the comments, please understand that a dismissal of a point may signal closed mindedness, or it may be that the person doing the dismissing has already heard and considered that point at length, and has found it lacking.

I want to finish by requesting that everyone—regular commenters and newcomers alike—abide by my comment policy. Newcomers need to understand that they are walking into a community, and that they are not in a position to make demands of other commenters. At the same time, some of my regular commenters have been a bit snippy with newcomers on occasion, and while I understand the annoyance, they need to abide by my comment policy too.

While I won’t tolerate blatant sexism or homophobia or the like, I do want my blog to be a place where people on the fence can ask questions and get answers. I know this can be a fine line to walk, but I do try.

And most especially, I want to give a hearty thank you to all of the commenters who have made my blog into the community it is today. You guys are awesome!