When Discourse Gets Too Serious

Jan
10
2008

When Discourse Gets Too Serious

Lots of heated Twitter chats (and some posts) these days have me questioning the severity of recent commenting (Vince’s original comment had cursing, since deleted) and criticism. Some regularly cross the line into blatant attacks.

As one who enters into debate frequently enough, the impassioned discourse of ideas can be thrilling and exciting. This is the benefit of conversational media: Vigorous discourse leading to evolution of thought. And hopefully progress (Image credit: boqueron1052).

At the same time, I respect my opponents’ (like Chip Griffin) right to their opinion. Sometimes I cross the line (yes, the limitations of humanity), but try to own it and clean up my side of the street. It brings to mind an old cliche, “Would you rather be right or would you rather be happy?”

Why do we take ourselves so seriously? Are we that important? I think not. Somehow, marketing and PR banter just doesn’t have the weight or a possible Iran-U.S. stand-off or the election or…

Cries against idealism and hypocrisy seem so forceful. The voices demand righteousness based on the most granular of semantics. Should we be punished for believing in a possible greater good? For optimism that we can progress as a society? And for doing our part to make those dreams come true? I won’t apologize for this, nor will I dilute my approach to pander to critics.

Further, is hypocrisy a natural human condition? We are not black and white creatures. Nor are we computers that recite data points on demand. We change, evolve and in the process sometimes contradict ourselves. Some of modern history’s greatest moments came when men changed their minds and pursued a different course. Another cliche, this one biblical, comes to mind: Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.

Discourse and viewpoints are great. Critics have a right to stop reading or critique me. But angry, violent attacks designed for self-inflating ego shots are not.

Some people are not ready for a particular conversation. Which is fine. Instead of yelling, they should unsubscribe. Increasingly, when there’s only personal attacks and no conversation, I block offenders from social network updates. Let the person in question rant at someone else. Or just take a hike.

Energy has better use. That would be towards the many good apples who want to have a meaningful conversation. Even if we do end up with a little food on our face (Image Credit: sfphotocraft).

by Geoff Livingston | Blogging |

8 Responses to “When Discourse Gets Too Serious”

Trula Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 9:29 am

‘Should we be punished for believing in a possible greater good? For optimism that we can progress as a society? And for doing our part to make those dreams come true?’

WELL said. I agree with this post, wholeheartedly!
Chip Griffin Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am

Geoff, I think we actually agree on more than we disagree about, so I personally don’t consider you an opponent. Most of our recent discussions have centered simply on the “requirements” of social media activities, and I think it would be fair to say that we do disagree about that. Ultimately, though, I embrace most of the tactics that you say are necessary for social media participants to adopt, I just think they should be guidance rather than requirements.

But at least from my perspective, no harm, no foul. Vigorous debate is valuable.
Jen Zingsheim Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am

An insightful post–I agree. I’ve never understood how people can get so downright nasty about some things, including politics. I’ve lived by the adage that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

I also remember someone in my past–I can’t remember if it was a college professor or a boss–say that resorting to expletives and harsh language demonstrates a limited vocabulary. People who head for the quick, nasty kill in many cases are going for a defensive reaction instead of thinking.

Cooler heads prevail. :-)
Ike Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Hey Chip, be careful using that “No harm, no foul” analogy. Sarah might call it “twee.”

;)
Chip Griffin Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Ike, Sarah is welcome to call it “twee.” And it may even be. But I’m stubborn enough that it won’t stop me from doing it again! :)
Geoff Livingston Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

@trula Thank you.

@Chip Agreed, I think we get pretty granular in our discussions. But I admire your willingness to saty on point in the heat of the moment, and that’s what makes for great discourse. I have great respect for you!

Jen: Very insightful on the defensive reaction. Well said.
Lewis Green Says:

January 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Geoff,

Wonderful commentary and right on with the messaging. What has happened to civil discourse? If we always agreed with each other that could only mean that we are mind dead. Disagreements lead to growth; throwing mud leads to stupidity.

Trackbacks

POSM #2: Give me another viewpoint please | Engage in PR Says:

October 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am

[...] put it this way; Geoff often says what I’m thinking and is not afraid to call bullshit on ’social media experts’ that are creating [...]

Blog

Musings and analysis on marketing, buzz, PR and Washington, DC ...