Can We Blog Our Way to a Better Discourse?

Can We Blog Our Way to a Better Discourse? November 22, 2018

Joshua Sortino, Unsplash.com, CC0 Licensing

Let’s begin with a story. One magical day in 1985, Marty McFly, freshly returned from an adventure in 1955, gets whisked off to the future to help his kids. 2015 proves a wondrous world of flash-growing pizza pies and hoverboards… as well as a famous pair of self-lacing sneakers. When Back to the Future II came out in 1989, there was still time to imagine the creation of such items in reality, but as 2015 neared, grumbling started to emerge among we disaffected Yutes–with our iPods and our GPS and our smartwatches and our 3D printers and our artificial hearts and our day-surgeries–about the ongoing disconnect between fantasy and reality.

Yeah, sure, we have all this cool stuff, but…

Where are our hoverboards?

Where are our self-lacing sneakers?

And sure enough, companies were inspired by this filmic reality to make tremendous advances. We do have hoverboards–they’re just not widely and cheaply available. We also have flying cars… for the right price point! And in a video that surely melted hearts among those of the right generation, Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox, living with Parkinson’s) finally got his sneakers, care of the Self-Lacing Nike MAG.

But… at the same time, we in the “future” also discovered much easier workarounds for the problems these earlier ideas imagined. Flying cars were supposed to make travel easier, right? Except, they’re based on a private-car-ownership economy that we now realize has tremendous downsides for personal health, as well as the environment and urban design. As such, we now have electric scooters and self-driving cars entering the marketplace, as well as online delivery options that reduce the time we have to spend in traffic for secondary errands and even crisis scenarios.

Likewise, we’ve found a far simpler solution for self-lacing shoes: a no-tie shoelace that makes even a sneaker feel like a slip-on.

Simply put, speculative writers dream, but always within the confines of their immediate reality. (Except maybe William Gibson, the damned genuis of future-speak that he is–but even he kindly agrees that all scifi is a reflection of the present.) Policy wonks, scientists, philosophers–we can all be visionaries, inspiring each other with dreams of a better world to come. However, we still remain intrinsically tethered to the language and perspectives of our present moment. And this means that we need to expect that the future might offer different solutions entirely to the problems of today.

So where does this leave we bloggers on Patheos, and on the internet in general? We who tend to hash out our world’s problems in medias res by responding with essays to specific news items? Folks like us, who offer quick takes on our blogs, and then offer suggestions for what needs to happen next?

Personal Criticism Time!

I addressed part of this issue in another post, “The Commentary Game: Speaking Truth in a World of Spin“, where I essentially advocated for what is known in writing circles as “evergreen” content. I didn’t use this term exactly, but I encouraged bloggers to write pieces that are not so utterly news-item-specific that one’s audience needs your next hot take on a crisis to know where you stand in general as a humanist.

But even as I advocate for others to change their perspectives on the blog, I’m undergoing quite the learning curve myself here. And that’s great! There’s a lot to be learned, say, from trying something new (like rewriting a Grimm’s fairy tale to advance one’s own philosophy) and having it land with a thud. Or on Monday, when I posted an essay trying to talk more broadly about how to combat dishonest behaviour in popular discourse, and suggested that atheists today have an edge even over Socrates in terms of readiness for real-world discourse.

I thought that last part in particular would be rather flattering: a way of emphasizing that many of us are well-trained rhetoricians who simply need to engage other discursive spheres on their own terms. Instead, I was so focussed on that larger, figurative realm that I was caught by surprise when readers regarded the value of a particular debate in my opening anecdote as a hill to die on re: the value of formal debate unto itself.

Hadn’t predicted that! And I still wonder if the addition of a couple mitigating words would have assuaged the concerns of most. But I also have to laugh at my obliviousness, because the issue here is no different here than with fiction. When I publish a story, it’s not mine anymore: it belongs to the readers, who will impose whatever the heck they want on a tale. Think you’re writing a piece about the toxic nature of infotainment in relation to a crew of astronauts in transit to a doomed Martian colony? TOO BAD! Online critics are as likely to fixate on one Canadian history reference, and suggest it’s really just a story about space whores! (Not a hypothetical scenario–but hilarious.)

I’d also kept away from online-forum comment threads for years due to their addictive “Somebody’s wrong on the internet!” energy.  As such, now that I’m getting back into the rhythm of response, I notice I have trouble discerning when someone’s actively responding to something I’d said, or simply using the post as a springboard to talk about their own thoughts in relation to other, hopefully related arguments. This personal response amuses me, because my entire argument is generally for a shift away from antagonist debate. However,  in practice I still tend to read more confrontation into comments than either necessary or present. I am tethered to the past in my present conduct, even as I try to imagine a different discursive future.

Haven’t We Always Been Bad Predictors of Good Forums for Discourse, Though?

At times like this I am reminded of one of my favourite xkcd comics, which pokes fun at a vision of the internet in Ender’s Game–a critical part of the story’s worldbuilding!–that absolutely has not aged well. For the visually impaired and also those who are disinclined to click on links while reading essays, here’s the gist of the comic:

PANEL ONE:

Ender’s hyperintelligent, conniving siblings are idling away an afternoon, Locke playing with a squirrel while Demosthenes wonders, “Ender’s up there saving the world, but down here it’s falling apart politically. What can we do?”

PANEL TWO:

To which Locke replies, “I know–we get on the nets and anonymously post political opinions. People reading our articles will see our intelligence, recognize how clear and logical our arguments are, and insist that we be put in charge so we can fix everything!”

“Brilliant!” says Demosthenes (the squirrel otherwise occupied with nuts).

PANEL THREE:

An image of a blog, titled “LOCKE: Powered by WordPress”, is followed by a latest blog essay titled “Which is why we must reach out to the Russian leadership” posted at 3:15am with zero comments. And another, below it, is titled “The Problem with China”. In the sidebar of recent posts, titles include “A few thoughts on…” “Russian aggression…” “Trade policy and the…” “And one more thing…” “Everyone’s wrong about…”, all of which have either zero or one comments. Below them is a blogroll including DEMOSTHENES and, amusingly, fivethirtyeight.

For me, this comic perfectly represents our overconfidence in reason as a sufficient path to changing the world, and in digital technology as a surefire path to meritocratic outcomes in the marketplace of ideas. It’s an endearing fantasy, too–the idea that if we simply say the right thing clearly and logically enough, everyone will cede the point. Wars will end the world over! Predatory religious institutions will shutter their own doors! Nation-states will rally to face humanity’s problems head-on, together! Legs will spread in adoring gratitude!

*cough*

…I mean, there’s got to be New Atheist costumes in your local sex shop, right? Because what could be more of a turn-on than erudite witticisms and attendant kernels of well-sourced argumentation?

…Anyone?

…Bueller?

The Blog as Discursive Pitstop, not Destination

One other aspect of blogging I still chafe at is the angry red icon telling me my sentences are too long, my average syllable count is too high, I’m not seeding my post’s SEO focus keyword (blog!) as often as I should, and I really need to keep my section lengths under a punchy 300 words. All of this does not feel conducive to real discourse: where ideas should be nuanced and exploratory rather than simplistic and definitive, and where the aim is less to “sell” a given idea than to create a platform for related theory and praxis, in which we can then tease out the underlying preconceptions and motivations that position fellow thinkers all across its spectrum of possible response.

Oof. Did I break the Flesch Reading Ease test with that last sentence alone?

But when I get grumpy about this new education–in blog formatting, in the multifaceted use of comment threads, and in the lack of full control over reader interpretations of one’s content–I remember those damned self-lacing shoes from Back to the Future II. 

I am trying to write the future I want into existence… as is, I’m sure, every other blogger on this site, and every other hub of contemporary dialogue. Every online journalist. Every policy wonk carefully crafting a new government action plan or mandate. Every major philosopher, and every dear Facebook “friend” (okay, this is me, too) who occasionally posts whole treatises about their thoughts on a given cultural artifact or social philosophy.

But just as Back to the Future II could only offer possible futures, the world it inspired was invariably going to differ. Okay, maybe not enough when it came to a certain hotel mogul actually running the damned joint (thanks Biff). But certainly the future of discourse could offer workarounds even better than the ones we currently think we need.

So can we blog our way to a better discourse? Sure–we’re doing it already, right now: this post just one more wee pitstop in the winding, cacophonous road of human dialogue through the centuries.

The form of that “better discourse” in our digital future, though, will probably differ–wildly–from all our loftiest expectations.

So we can either lament that we didn’t get exactly the “shoes” we wanted, all while sitting amid the luxury of a thousand other completely unanticipated contemporary treasures…

Or we can embrace what’s emerged instead (the good and the bad of it alike), and focus on dreaming our way toward all the unexpected turns ahead.

"Can't we honor people for their accomplishments while also acknowledging their failings.Eg: honor Jefferson for ..."

Letting Go of Our “Heroes”: Ongoing ..."
"Your advice here reminds me of the epiphany I had after finally watching the original ..."

Finding Better Forms for Secular Stories: ..."
"Had a similar occurrence in our family, but there were suicide notes so we know ..."

Letting Go of Our “Heroes”: Ongoing ..."
"Yes, "Lerk" is who I am online as a semi-closeted atheist. The name reflects my ..."

Finding Better Forms for Secular Stories: ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cozmo the Magician

    TL;DR. Does Biff tie his own shoelaces? Or does he outsource that job to China (;

  • I bet his fingers are too small for the task. 😀 Happy Thanksgiving, if that’s something you celebrate/honour in any way!

  • I once put on my Facebook profile the quote “I’m not random: My mind is massively cross-indexed — me” Reading a particular line in this post reminded me of a prediction of the future made by me and a friend in college. But to relate it would be to go off in my own tangent, as you describe some readers doing! So I won’t talk about that.

    Regarding the gist of the post, I have a blog over on Ex-Christian.net that I ended up renaming “Be Ready Always to Give an Answer,” and where I tend to start posts off like Bible studies, in the hope that some Christian will stumble upon it when Googling a subject they’re interested in, and that by reading what I’ve written I’ll wake someone up from their mythological beliefs.

    Unrealistic, I know. But I wish I’d have stumbled upon something like it 30 years earlier, when blogs were called zines.

  • Oh, that’s a fascinating approach, Lerk!. Have you received any responses suggesting such an audience?

    Please do go off on tangents! The last time I invested a great deal of time in comment threads, I was in my mid-twenties and met with enough aggressive challenges in seemingly innocuous posts to start bracing myself for debate everywhere. It’s a habit that I hope very much to break here, and I think I’m *already* breaking here. It’s difficult to have the same sort of relaxed, meditative give-and-take online as one might in, say, a coffee shop, but more than worth the effort, I think, to try to read one another’s contributions in that light.

    All best wishes to you! Thanks for reading!

  • I don’t really have a way to determine whether it’s had any impact. A reader would have to sign up for an account in order to comment, and I can’t imagine many Christians signing up on a ex-Christian website just to leave a blog comment.

    If you Google “the bible is not like any other book” the article I tried hardest to get to show up, doesn’t, at least not as far down as page 20. If you Google that in quotes, it comes up first, but unless someone knew they were searching for an article with that exact title, they wouldn’t do it that way. That post has had 299 views since July.

    If you Google “be ready always to give an answer” (the blog’s title) without quotes, it comes up on page 5. Perhaps over time it’ll move up. Or not. I suppose I could pay Google to promote it, but is that worth spending my own money on? Maybe I could use the funds I used to contribute to church!

  • Jemolk

    I am increasingly confident that what needs to change for humanity to have such a bright future is not technology, nor understanding, but rather humans. Most of all, the black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking that convinces all too many of us that happiness is zero-sum, that whenever one person or group gains, another loses. Quite a lot of harm, I think, can be laid at the feet of this failure to understand mutual benefit. For myself, I find such attitudes confusing and inexplicable. This may have to do with being an Aspie and having serious trouble figuring out how neurotypical people think. But I also suspect the view is largely culturally conditioned. Capitalism heavily, if indirectly, promotes such a mindset, if by no other method than assigning inordinate degrees of ownership and control to people and giving rise to artificial scarcity. Flying cars, hoverboards, self-lacing shoes, self-driving cars, electric scooters, no-tie shoelaces — none of these will meaningfully improve our lives. These things are nice conveniences, to be sure, but they do not address the foundational problems with modern society, which I view to be at their most basic the existence of fixed hierarchies, the idolization of law, and the idea that the world is just as it is, combining to form a sort of anti-sympathy ideology based around control and dominance.

  • John Gills

    I like it! Mankind, know thyself! ( Apologies to Socrates….)

  • Hi See Noevo! I only discovered your comments had been auto-blocked by Disqus this morning, and have released all of them. So bizarre.

    Disqus moderation has a separate forum from the WordPress backpage, and I have been relying on the WordPress backpage’s notifications from Disqus to inform me of when I need to go directly to the Disqus dashboard to fix an issue. I have NO idea why some people are auto-blocked and require me to release their comments–will look into that, because it happens so rarely!–but I didn’t receive any notification through WordPress that you were in queue there. Only another flag, for which Disqus DID send me notification, alerted me to the presence of your posts, too.

    Suffice it to say, there was zero intentional blocking on my part–and I’m sharing the underlying process in the hopes that this intel clarifies that sometimes it’s just an issue with software algorithms, as opposed to human ones. No less frustrating for you, though, I’m sure. All the best!