Civility has been something of a watchword at Troppo for some time. It’s not my intention to comment on recent controversies on those pages, but rather to provide some meta-reflection on how civility works politically in blogosphere debates, and in political discourse more broadly. First, it’s obviously important to define the terms. There’s an everyday sense to the word – where really all it means is disagreeing politely, and showing respect for the person and the views of your interlocutor. We tend to think that civility is becoming less and less prevalent in a fast pased, individualised society, but actually sociological research places a question mark over the degree to which that’s so. Many debates in the blogosphere rightly revolve around the degree to which disagreement becomes personalised. It’s certainly desirable that blog debates be civilised, and equally desirable that participants test and challenge each other’s ideas and arguments. That, after all, is the beauty of the blogosphere.
So is political civility something different from everyday civility? Yes, but it clearly encompasses the latter. Ken Parish, in a thoughtful post on values, manners and ethics defined “deep civility” as:
Deep civility: the duty of tolerance and respect of others’ behaviour, opinions and being
Importantly for the argument I’m about to make briefly, Ken immediately followed this definition with another value he considers should be fundamental in a liberal society:
Democratic participation: the duty of democratic citizenship, which minimally involves exercising one’s vote in a reasonably informed manner, and preferably involves rather more than that (participation in opinion-forming civic dialogue – like the blogosphere).
Although Ken focussed on questions of ethics, this articulation of the two values of deep civility and democratic participation is very close to the heart of the matter. Liberal societies fundamentally rest on the idea that rationality and debate are central to allowing citizens to differ over competing visions of the good life, but at the same time adjudicate on policy and political questions through a search for truth through discussion. At the time of the Enlightenment, this was definitely a Left position. Conservatives (in the true sense of the word) have usually preferred deference to authority and tradition to rational argument, and more recently, deference to charismatic leadership. (This typology is analogous to Weber’s theory of legitimate authority). So, at the beginnings of liberal civilisation, in the Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution, and throughout the Nineteenth Century as liberalism battled the ancien regime, political civility had to be fought for.
Is this just of historical interest? Not at all. One mark of postmodernity is that respect for rationality is on the decline – and this has flow on effects in political debate (as well as in attacks on science as “just a theory” in the case of evolution or on social science as “advocacy research”). The “right-wing postmodern relativism” of the Neo-cons and much of the mainstream media and the ubiquitous spin machines where “faith-based reality” rules is both a symptom and an effect of the decline in the acceptance of rationality. Neo-conservatives, worried as well about the increased heterogeneity of both peoples and values as well as of styles of life, try to unify society politically through rallying to those conservative perennials, the nation and the flag (and increasingly in the last few years, God as well.) Discussion is shut down rhetorically through invocation of these sacred symbols – if you are against the War in Iraq, you are in favour of terror: “Those who are not with us are against us” and argument and rational evidence doesn’t and isn’t allowed to enter into the picture.
What are the implications of all this for political debate in the blogosphere? The blogosphere is often claimed to be the last space where Left and Right actually talk to each other, and there’s truth in that, but it’s also (perhaps increasingly true as the medium matures) one where people talk past each other. I think that the Left and centrists, and also libertarians who value dialogue and rationality often concede too much ground to opponents who refuse to engage rationally and strategically pick minor holes in arguments while themselves indulging more in pronouncement than argument. Civility is deeply important, but I think that we need also to defend and articulate our positions on the grounds of values and emotion.
Hmm. What I have been wondering is to what extent the blog format is conducive to general civility. Probably not very. In some cases it may be that one has the time to sit and argue something long and thoughtful on a blog. If so, great. But in other cases, it’s all too easy and tempting to post/comment something short and more provocative than you would in any other medium, and then move on with looking at other blogs or doing something else.
Increasing time pressures (particularly given the limitless forums on the Internet one can participate in) probably induce people to communicate in a shorter, sharper manner.
Do people tend to explain their arguments and perspectives in much depth in blog comments, in particular? As a general rule, I don’t believe they do. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions, of course…
Hmm. What I have been wondering is to what extent the blog format is conducive to general civility. Probably not very. In some cases it may be that one has the time to sit and argue something long and thoughtful on a blog. If so, great. But in other cases, it’s all too easy and tempting to post/comment something short and more provocative than you would in any other medium, and then move on with looking at other blogs or doing something else.
Increasing time pressures (particularly given the limitless forums on the Internet one can participate in) probably induce people to communicate in a shorter, sharper manner.
Do people tend to explain their arguments and perspectives in much depth in blog comments, in particular? As a general rule, I don’t believe they do. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions, of course…
It’s hard to be civil when I consider the views of so many right-wingers to be utterly hateful and abhorrent…
It’s hard to be civil when I consider the views of so many right-wingers to be utterly hateful and abhorrent…
…and yet for some, Alex, they drop as the gentle rain from heaven. What on earth are we to do?
Avoid the Tim Blair paradigm for a start. Then:
1) Don’t assume an automatic authority that will not necesssarily be accepted by others
Never lose your sense of humour – at least not completely. If you do, remember that your principal adversary may be commenting with no clothes on, and is not a pretty sight (though some, of course, may be).
2) Be prepared to accept that you may be wrong – and not just in the eyes of people you disagree with
3) Be prepared to apologise in public with a smile even if you privately nurse hate and bile and spite in your heart
4) Accept that people of comparable intellectual reach can validly reach a conclusion diametrically opposite to your own
5) Accept that if you say something particularly stupid people will come down on you like a ton of bricks – in fact I’m waiting for that to happen right now
6) Recognise the difference between fair criticism and malice, and reject, crtiicise and lampoon the latter
7) Understand that it’s not generally not worth losing any sleep over anyway
I don’t think that adds up to civility in the sense Mark intended, but maybe it’s civility with the fun left in.
(The preview pane is showing 1 to 7 in bold for reasons I don’t understand and am powerless to corect.)
…and yet for some, Alex, they drop as the gentle rain from heaven. What on earth are we to do?
Avoid the Tim Blair paradigm for a start. Then:
1) Don’t assume an automatic authority that will not necesssarily be accepted by others
Never lose your sense of humour – at least not completely. If you do, remember that your principal adversary may be commenting with no clothes on, and is not a pretty sight (though some, of course, may be).
2) Be prepared to accept that you may be wrong – and not just in the eyes of people you disagree with
3) Be prepared to apologise in public with a smile even if you privately nurse hate and bile and spite in your heart
4) Accept that people of comparable intellectual reach can validly reach a conclusion diametrically opposite to your own
5) Accept that if you say something particularly stupid people will come down on you like a ton of bricks – in fact I’m waiting for that to happen right now
6) Recognise the difference between fair criticism and malice, and reject, crtiicise and lampoon the latter
7) Understand that it’s not generally not worth losing any sleep over anyway
I don’t think that adds up to civility in the sense Mark intended, but maybe it’s civility with the fun left in.
(The preview pane is showing 1 to 7 in bold for reasons I don’t understand and am powerless to corect.)
Good rules, Rob.
On point 8, I have every confidence that Kim at least is a pretty sight with no clothes on.
Good rules, Rob.
On point 8, I have every confidence that Kim at least is a pretty sight with no clothes on.
I cannot remember right now but didn’t orwell have something to say on the ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ rhetoric?
I cannot remember right now but didn’t orwell have something to say on the ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ rhetoric?
Vee, you’re probably thinking of Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” which is online here.
Vee, you’re probably thinking of Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” which is online here.
Thoughtful post.
I don’t see the lack of civility and rationality is as characteristic of just left/right internet-based political arguments. It is a common feature of all internet discourse not just the blogosphere. Flaming has been around since since the 1970s when a war erupted on a mail list concerning standardisation of email headers. A music mailing list of which I am no longer a member regulary erupted in savage flame wars that would characterise most blogosphere stoushes as polite disagreements.
And if you disagree with what I wrote then that is only to be expected from a bunch of croquet-playing mint munchers.
Thoughtful post.
I don’t see the lack of civility and rationality is as characteristic of just left/right internet-based political arguments. It is a common feature of all internet discourse not just the blogosphere. Flaming has been around since since the 1970s when a war erupted on a mail list concerning standardisation of email headers. A music mailing list of which I am no longer a member regulary erupted in savage flame wars that would characterise most blogosphere stoushes as polite disagreements.
And if you disagree with what I wrote then that is only to be expected from a bunch of croquet-playing mint munchers.
Hey, learned gorilla, I’m thinking of taking up croquet!
Hey, learned gorilla, I’m thinking of taking up croquet!
Croquet is best played with flamingoes.
But seriously any sport you can play with a drink in yr hand can’t be a bad thing.
Nice post, Mark. You are spot on about rationality vs. authoritarian pronouncement.
On another note, do you realise everyone is going to click on the link in yr comment in response to Rob and think that they will find naked piccies of moi? I spose anyone interested in same could always email me and I’ll send some if I think they have a sufficiently disinterested aesthetic reason for such a request.
Croquet is best played with flamingoes.
But seriously any sport you can play with a drink in yr hand can’t be a bad thing.
Nice post, Mark. You are spot on about rationality vs. authoritarian pronouncement.
On another note, do you realise everyone is going to click on the link in yr comment in response to Rob and think that they will find naked piccies of moi? I spose anyone interested in same could always email me and I’ll send some if I think they have a sufficiently disinterested aesthetic reason for such a request.
Gosh, Kim, Rafe’s touting his amazon.com review rating here at LP and now you’re soliciting email flirting! Truly LP is a place of civility indeed!
Gosh, Kim, Rafe’s touting his amazon.com review rating here at LP and now you’re soliciting email flirting! Truly LP is a place of civility indeed!
More seriously, it’s implicit in the bit at the end of the post that this is another issue on which Lefties and libertarians probably converge.
More seriously, it’s implicit in the bit at the end of the post that this is another issue on which Lefties and libertarians probably converge.
Agree with Irant. Indeed, try being part of a group deciding programming standards. You wouldn’t believe the bile that can be generated over the positioning of the { character.
I’ve participated in different internet fora, mostly technical usenet and mailing lists, rather than blog commenting. It’s so easy to misread and misinterpret otheres’ intentions in text that even with good will it’s easy for flame wars to break out, and of course in open fora you can’t guarantee that everyone has good intentions. Generally, I think that having an obvious and active moderation policy seems to be the best way to keep these things in check.
The blogs that I’ve been reading recently (Quiggin, Troppo, here) all have a clear tone, set by the blogger(s) which generally seems to flow through to the commenters. Sure things occasionally get heated, but that’s life and there’s certainly more genuine discussion on those blogs than you’ll ever find at Tim Blair’s.
Agree with Irant. Indeed, try being part of a group deciding programming standards. You wouldn’t believe the bile that can be generated over the positioning of the { character.
I’ve participated in different internet fora, mostly technical usenet and mailing lists, rather than blog commenting. It’s so easy to misread and misinterpret otheres’ intentions in text that even with good will it’s easy for flame wars to break out, and of course in open fora you can’t guarantee that everyone has good intentions. Generally, I think that having an obvious and active moderation policy seems to be the best way to keep these things in check.
The blogs that I’ve been reading recently (Quiggin, Troppo, here) all have a clear tone, set by the blogger(s) which generally seems to flow through to the commenters. Sure things occasionally get heated, but that’s life and there’s certainly more genuine discussion on those blogs than you’ll ever find at Tim Blair’s.
There is nothing—nothing!—democratic about blogs run by individuals. Should we expect Mark to open up the authorship of larvatus prodeo to periodic, regular, free elections? Should he be bound by the mandates of the majority of his readers? Weblogging is a highly unequal form of communication, and discussion is always about power.
Civil discussions are ones in which power is exercised thoughtfully. Since there’s only a very limited amount of power and influence to be had writing and reading weblogs, in my opinion it’s quite difficult to post uncivilly. There’s a big difference between the civil discussion you have on a message board or blog, and the civil discussion you have with your relatives, when one of them brings up the issue of mandatory detention over Christmas dinner?
Intelligent posts should yield intelligent responses and intelligent questions. Virtual turds left by stooges should be treated accordingly.
There is nothing—nothing!—democratic about blogs run by individuals. Should we expect Mark to open up the authorship of larvatus prodeo to periodic, regular, free elections? Should he be bound by the mandates of the majority of his readers? Weblogging is a highly unequal form of communication, and discussion is always about power.
Civil discussions are ones in which power is exercised thoughtfully. Since there’s only a very limited amount of power and influence to be had writing and reading weblogs, in my opinion it’s quite difficult to post uncivilly. There’s a big difference between the civil discussion you have on a message board or blog, and the civil discussion you have with your relatives, when one of them brings up the issue of mandatory detention over Christmas dinner?
Intelligent posts should yield intelligent responses and intelligent questions. Virtual turds left by stooges should be treated accordingly.
I posted a link to this on my blog a while ago. It outlines the interconnectivity of the top 20 political blogs on either side during US pres election 2004. I know you are talking about comments, but it does offer at least an indication of how much of a (non)relation there is between right and left:
http://www.blogpulse.com/archives/000156.html
The only flaw in the ‘civility approach’ is that even though we may all share a similar conception of ‘civility’, the practice of being ‘civil’ — of performing civility — means many different things across different social milieus. I can get away with calling some of my mates sick cunts or dumb cunts as terms of endearment or tell them to get fucked if they say something silly and we are joking around. It is part of our everyday language. However, if I was to use that language with someone who doesn’t know me, especially if they can’t read my body language, then it could lead to trouble. The problem with blogs is that you talk with many people who don’t really know you. I don’t really change my language much, unless I am talking about some technical thing or another, which is often the case on the blogs I comment.
If this isn’t seen as a problem — different conceptions of ‘performed civility’ — then how heterogeneous is the blogosphere? I think the first task is an act of understanding or translation. The problem is not one of meaning, but of the realisation of sense.
I posted a link to this on my blog a while ago. It outlines the interconnectivity of the top 20 political blogs on either side during US pres election 2004. I know you are talking about comments, but it does offer at least an indication of how much of a (non)relation there is between right and left:
http://www.blogpulse.com/archives/000156.html
The only flaw in the ‘civility approach’ is that even though we may all share a similar conception of ‘civility’, the practice of being ‘civil’ — of performing civility — means many different things across different social milieus. I can get away with calling some of my mates sick cunts or dumb cunts as terms of endearment or tell them to get fucked if they say something silly and we are joking around. It is part of our everyday language. However, if I was to use that language with someone who doesn’t know me, especially if they can’t read my body language, then it could lead to trouble. The problem with blogs is that you talk with many people who don’t really know you. I don’t really change my language much, unless I am talking about some technical thing or another, which is often the case on the blogs I comment.
If this isn’t seen as a problem — different conceptions of ‘performed civility’ — then how heterogeneous is the blogosphere? I think the first task is an act of understanding or translation. The problem is not one of meaning, but of the realisation of sense.
“…I think that we need also to defend and articulate our positions on the grounds of values and emotion.”
On the surface that’s a strange way to end a passage that argues for dialogue, rationality, tolerance and respect. Care to elaborate?
I hasten to say I agree.
On rationality, some little time ago I read John Ralston Saul’s book On Equilibrium. In large part he is arguing against an over-reliance on reason, which he argues convincingly can lead to horrors and disasters. It needs to be balanced, he says, by recourse to common sense, ethics, imagination, intuition and memory (in alphabetic order).
Overall his argument is impressive, but he presents as an essayist rather than as a philosopher or sociologist. Values creap in through ethics, but there is no sign of emotion anywhere. I looked and couldn’t find it.
Neville Symington in his book “A Pattern of Madness” asserts rather than argues that emotion is at the base, the determining factor, in all decisions and actions. We follow logic and reasoning if it suits us. The easiest example is the dilemma posed once at Quiggin’s place. He posed the problem of the burning building with your Mum and a scientist who is about to discover a cure for cancer. If you can only rescue one, who would it be?
I tend to agree with Symington. I do believe, however, as does he, that we can use our reason to coach our emotions and even change our emotional reactions over time. I’ve done this in driving, when my reactions were in danger of becoming counter-productive. Now I’m a picture of calm. OTOH my 50 year battle with a temper is only now just about done!
Values are pretty fundamental, again subject to modification through choice. They have an added function of providing a prism through which we perceive the world.
Values usually get a guernsey, but there seems to be a notion that emotion should be excluded from dialogue and debate. Impossible and dumb, IMO.
“…I think that we need also to defend and articulate our positions on the grounds of values and emotion.”
On the surface that’s a strange way to end a passage that argues for dialogue, rationality, tolerance and respect. Care to elaborate?
I hasten to say I agree.
On rationality, some little time ago I read John Ralston Saul’s book On Equilibrium. In large part he is arguing against an over-reliance on reason, which he argues convincingly can lead to horrors and disasters. It needs to be balanced, he says, by recourse to common sense, ethics, imagination, intuition and memory (in alphabetic order).
Overall his argument is impressive, but he presents as an essayist rather than as a philosopher or sociologist. Values creap in through ethics, but there is no sign of emotion anywhere. I looked and couldn’t find it.
Neville Symington in his book “A Pattern of Madness” asserts rather than argues that emotion is at the base, the determining factor, in all decisions and actions. We follow logic and reasoning if it suits us. The easiest example is the dilemma posed once at Quiggin’s place. He posed the problem of the burning building with your Mum and a scientist who is about to discover a cure for cancer. If you can only rescue one, who would it be?
I tend to agree with Symington. I do believe, however, as does he, that we can use our reason to coach our emotions and even change our emotional reactions over time. I’ve done this in driving, when my reactions were in danger of becoming counter-productive. Now I’m a picture of calm. OTOH my 50 year battle with a temper is only now just about done!
Values are pretty fundamental, again subject to modification through choice. They have an added function of providing a prism through which we perceive the world.
Values usually get a guernsey, but there seems to be a notion that emotion should be excluded from dialogue and debate. Impossible and dumb, IMO.
Brian, to elaborate – partly I mean what you’re also getting at and partly I’m concerned that articulating a position as if it were the only rational one and not examining its emotional underpinnings is both counterproductive at times and wrong.
Brian, to elaborate – partly I mean what you’re also getting at and partly I’m concerned that articulating a position as if it were the only rational one and not examining its emotional underpinnings is both counterproductive at times and wrong.
“..but there seems to be a notion that emotion should be excluded from dialogue and debate. Impossible and dumb, IMO.”
Glad to be able to agree, Brian. Personally, I get quite emotional on blogs when someone gets put on the rack for the temerity of coming to conclusions that conflict with those of the howling horde.
That passes rule 6, but fails rule 8, I think.
[Whatever you do, don't mention the (Troppo) war(s)]
“..but there seems to be a notion that emotion should be excluded from dialogue and debate. Impossible and dumb, IMO.”
Glad to be able to agree, Brian. Personally, I get quite emotional on blogs when someone gets put on the rack for the temerity of coming to conclusions that conflict with those of the howling horde.
That passes rule 6, but fails rule 8, I think.
[Whatever you do, don't mention the (Troppo) war(s)]
‘Howling horde’ was a bit strong so I retract tha in accordance with rule 3
‘Howling horde’ was a bit strong so I retract tha in accordance with rule 3
Whatever you do, don?Äôt mention the (Troppo) war(s)
That must be rule 9, I think, Rob
Whatever you do, don?Äôt mention the (Troppo) war(s)
That must be rule 9, I think, Rob
Thanks Mark, that’s good.
Rob I’ve just answered your comment at Troppo wars and I almost completely agree.
I’m tired and must go to bed now.
Cheers
Thanks Mark, that’s good.
Rob I’ve just answered your comment at Troppo wars and I almost completely agree.
I’m tired and must go to bed now.
Cheers
to me civility is all about presuming that one of the sides in the debate you’re on is in intellectual error rather than evil/retarded/mad. that’s the bare minimum but i think as long as you accept this, then anything else you do (e.g. Nabokov’s stylish name-calling and sarcasm) is perfectly alright because you will at least be constrained by assuming that intellectual error is what drives the debate.
to me civility is all about presuming that one of the sides in the debate you’re on is in intellectual error rather than evil/retarded/mad. that’s the bare minimum but i think as long as you accept this, then anything else you do (e.g. Nabokov’s stylish name-calling and sarcasm) is perfectly alright because you will at least be constrained by assuming that intellectual error is what drives the debate.
And you admirably cleave to rule 8, Mark, which I did not. Felicitations.
And you admirably cleave to rule 8, Mark, which I did not. Felicitations.
Thanks, Rob – I had the impression you were following rule 8 throughout your comments!
Thanks, Rob – I had the impression you were following rule 8 throughout your comments!
Surface civility for me is not turning nasty. Deep civility is the ability to read carefully what is actuallly written and respond to what is on the screen.
That’s respeck’.
Insult works in this context if it actually relates to what is said.
And the rule stops the straw man problem which is one of the worst features of the blogosphere – because it is ultimately boring and predictable.
Surface civility for me is not turning nasty. Deep civility is the ability to read carefully what is actuallly written and respond to what is on the screen.
That’s respeck’.
Insult works in this context if it actually relates to what is said.
And the rule stops the straw man problem which is one of the worst features of the blogosphere – because it is ultimately boring and predictable.
“…stylish name-calling and sarcasm”
Oh yeah, and screw you too Jason. (This is another issue with civility online as Glen pointed out above. Misinterpreting the tone of others?Äô remarks. Especially in Australia where our version of friendly badinage and cheerful mockery often sounds scarifying to those from less robust cultures.) And I’m not really sure that those bloody little emoticons help either {:/
Overall I?Äôd agree with Jason about trying to make a minimum assumption that your interlocutor is at least arguing their point on what they think is its merits and is not evil, crazy or out to destroy civilisation. Beyond that, a little cattiness can help spice things up, always provided it doesn?Äôt degenerate into clawing at someone for the sake of it.
And as Andrew points out far worse things happen elsewhere on the net. I?Äôve seen discussions of the apparently driest topics on Usenet and the old BBSs morph into exchanges that would send marines and the Russian mafia off blushing to press wildflowers together.
“…stylish name-calling and sarcasm”
Oh yeah, and screw you too Jason. (This is another issue with civility online as Glen pointed out above. Misinterpreting the tone of others?Äô remarks. Especially in Australia where our version of friendly badinage and cheerful mockery often sounds scarifying to those from less robust cultures.) And I’m not really sure that those bloody little emoticons help either {:/
Overall I?Äôd agree with Jason about trying to make a minimum assumption that your interlocutor is at least arguing their point on what they think is its merits and is not evil, crazy or out to destroy civilisation. Beyond that, a little cattiness can help spice things up, always provided it doesn?Äôt degenerate into clawing at someone for the sake of it.
And as Andrew points out far worse things happen elsewhere on the net. I?Äôve seen discussions of the apparently driest topics on Usenet and the old BBSs morph into exchanges that would send marines and the Russian mafia off blushing to press wildflowers together.
Equipping computers with breathalyzers would also help. Not so much to stop people using them when blotto but to stamp comments with a blood-alcohol reading so they can be interpreted accordingly.
[0.013]
Equipping computers with breathalyzers would also help. Not so much to stop people using them when blotto but to stamp comments with a blood-alcohol reading so they can be interpreted accordingly.
[0.013]
Couldn’t agree more, Nabs.
Couldn’t agree more, Nabs.
Nabs is being disingenuous with that remark. It sounds as though he doesn’t mind people who blog in the presence of a few drinkies.
He lives round the corner from me and I can tell you from grim experience he is a militant teetotaller.
He turned so savage when he found me at the Dogs Bar with my laptop and a nice bottle of a spicey Clare Valley red that the management won’t let me back in.
Nabs is being disingenuous with that remark. It sounds as though he doesn’t mind people who blog in the presence of a few drinkies.
He lives round the corner from me and I can tell you from grim experience he is a militant teetotaller.
He turned so savage when he found me at the Dogs Bar with my laptop and a nice bottle of a spicey Clare Valley red that the management won’t let me back in.
Actually its not the drunken blog that is the problem – that is usually good for a laugh. Its the “braindead with fatigue but still typing” post that comes out like a big fat furry ball of nothing much that is the big blow to morning self respect. LIke this, probably.
Actually its not the drunken blog that is the problem – that is usually good for a laugh. Its the “braindead with fatigue but still typing” post that comes out like a big fat furry ball of nothing much that is the big blow to morning self respect. LIke this, probably.
A militant teetotaller? True, David?
A militant teetotaller? True, David?
Shocking Mark, really intolerant.
Shocking Mark, really intolerant.
What is this, the Cat Frackin’ Empire? I think some of you have been over-indulging on Nastassja Kinski.
This may be a little uncivil of me, Kim, but how disinterested must we be to qualify for votre aesthetic photos? Though I flatter myself to think I have an aesthetic eye, I fear I may not be sufficiently disinterested…
What is this, the Cat Frackin’ Empire? I think some of you have been over-indulging on Nastassja Kinski.
This may be a little uncivil of me, Kim, but how disinterested must we be to qualify for votre aesthetic photos? Though I flatter myself to think I have an aesthetic eye, I fear I may not be sufficiently disinterested…
Nabs is unique, magnificently different and the rules don’t necessarilly apply!
Nabs is unique, magnificently different and the rules don’t necessarilly apply!
Nabs and I both got our feline gravatars independent of each other! Great minds… etc.
Nabs and I both got our feline gravatars independent of each other! Great minds… etc.
Fyodor
yellowvinyl [at] ourbrisbane [dot] com
Fyodor
yellowvinyl [at] ourbrisbane [dot] com
My gravator can lick yours any day.
My gravator can lick yours any day.
…only after it’s done licking its own parts…
…only after it’s done licking its own parts…
“My gravator can lick yours any day.”
I’m not sure that I want to lick Mark’s pussy, but to each his own, Nabs.
“My gravator can lick yours any day.”
I’m not sure that I want to lick Mark’s pussy, but to each his own, Nabs.
I think all this started with the nude commenting discussion!
I think all this started with the nude commenting discussion!
It did start with the nude commenting discussion.
That is _exactly_ what the problem with blogs is these days and goes right to the heart of the matter.
If people are going to put unsupported bald-faced statements onto a thread without any form of supporting evidence then the whole system breaks down.
I serve the Truth.
(Although I am a bit worried that Mark is the one who’s being tantalising and flirtatious – and it wasn’t even his nudity!
Sigh. If only we had the bodies we truely want, eh?)
It did start with the nude commenting discussion.
That is _exactly_ what the problem with blogs is these days and goes right to the heart of the matter.
If people are going to put unsupported bald-faced statements onto a thread without any form of supporting evidence then the whole system breaks down.
I serve the Truth.
(Although I am a bit worried that Mark is the one who’s being tantalising and flirtatious – and it wasn’t even his nudity!
Sigh. If only we had the bodies we truely want, eh?)
I think Kim’s being tantalising and flirtatious as well, Harry!
And more seriously, I agree with what you write.
I think Kim’s being tantalising and flirtatious as well, Harry!
And more seriously, I agree with what you write.
Mark, I maintain Kim is being civil and you are the big hussy!
She was initially uncivil by providing no evidence in her outrageous claim of posting in the newd.
After I had a lie down and a bovril, I found that you’d tracked-back and linked to her post on 723 blogs, ergo, hussiness.
Kim is now offering evidence as part of your civility drive. Coincidence? I think not. I am certain she is doing it in the interests of Truth and in maintaining at least some degree of integrity around here.
And now the man doth protest too much while once more trying to blacken the name of a fellow Truthseeker!
Now go and write some papers before I spank you.
Mark, I maintain Kim is being civil and you are the big hussy!
She was initially uncivil by providing no evidence in her outrageous claim of posting in the newd.
After I had a lie down and a bovril, I found that you’d tracked-back and linked to her post on 723 blogs, ergo, hussiness.
Kim is now offering evidence as part of your civility drive. Coincidence? I think not. I am certain she is doing it in the interests of Truth and in maintaining at least some degree of integrity around here.
And now the man doth protest too much while once more trying to blacken the name of a fellow Truthseeker!
Now go and write some papers before I spank you.
Thanks, Harry, that’s a very accurate characterisation of my disinterested and truth-seeking motives!
Thanks, Harry, that’s a very accurate characterisation of my disinterested and truth-seeking motives!
“Newd”? Must be a neologism.
“Newd”? Must be a neologism.
Nah, not a neologism, it’s just how you pronounce it.
Try and say “Newd” without raising your eyebrows and sounding like an academic.
You can say “nood” but not “newd” in a broad Aussie drawl.
In my head Kim was ‘Newd’ rather than ‘Nood’.
Nah, not a neologism, it’s just how you pronounce it.
Try and say “Newd” without raising your eyebrows and sounding like an academic.
You can say “nood” but not “newd” in a broad Aussie drawl.
In my head Kim was ‘Newd’ rather than ‘Nood’.
Harry,
Neo = new, from the Greek. Sorry – egghead humour.
I was hoping the devotee of the latin rite, Mark B., would bite. All this talk of pussy-licking, spanking and newd Kimberella is very distracting.
Sorry.
I should have got it.
I was trying to pussy foot around ye old hoary james bond style jokes about language experts who were mentally dextrous.
Being something of a deconstructionist, Harry, I think I can oscillate between newd and nood at the same time.
Fyodor, I thought Neo was a dilemma between a red pill and a blue pill.
Popper hasn’t been mentioned yet. To add to Rob’s rules a tenth:
Popper must be mentioned in every thread exceeding forty-nine comments.
I believe Karl Popper was very civil. Whether he commented nude, I don’t know.
Fyodor, don’t forget Kim’s American so that may influence the pronunciation of her nekkidness…
Californian, to be precise, Mark. Though I was born in Switzerland. Perhaps therefore I could be imagined as talking like our fine Governor?
Switzerland?
Exotic Switzerland!
Well Arnie claimed to be a “girly man” maybe you could be a “manly girl”
…or “grrl”
………..or even “grrrrrrrrrrrrrl”
Matron! The Bovril!
Well, Harry, I’m feminine but a grrl. Or a grrrrrrrrrrrrrl. So far, only one discerning commenter has taken my kind offer up. The truth is out there!
Mark, don’t you think it’s well and truly past time to leave this subject, and Troppo, alone?
Niall, that’s why I didn’t buy into the specifics. But I do think that the issue of rationality, civility and political discussion raises important broader issues. I have no animus whatever against Troppo, and in this post, those debates, and the very good post Ken wrote which I linked to, are really just a peg to hang the discussion on.
Nude – the undraped human form
Naked – someone not wearing clothes
Bare arse starkers – naked and up to no good.