:: walterindenver ::

:: Thursday, November 28, 2002 ::

Debate? ...II

I've been mulling this post at Shadow of the Hegemon for a few days now.

Glenn says that weblogs solve the "problem" posed by Republic.com, the book: that the Internet creates conversation only among people who agree with each other.
Weblogs point joyously to those with whom they disagree.
You have got to be kidding, Glenn. They aren't the refutation or the solution of the problem posed by Republic.com...
they're the embodiment of it.

As I wrote below, one of the prime benefits of a blog is the ability to debate, to engage the opposition in verbal combat. Some are more willing to do this than others.

Now comes this. One blog delinks a second blog, and takes the further step of banning him from commenting, because he belongs to the wrong political party.
The word 'censorship' gets thrown about a lot in some of the comments floating around the blogosphere relating to this little tiff. But censorship is not the problem here. It's the way debate is avoided. There's not much sense in having political discourse if there's no chance of changing anyone's mind, and that won't happen if there's no interaction between people of differing political views.
I'm not trying to say that all views have equal weight. On the contrary, in a debate one side is usually wrong, and sometimes both sides are wrong. The best way to point out wrongness, or falsehood, is to tackle it head on. Debate, compare, contrast. As I said, "By refusing to engage one gives off the impression of either arrogance or inability to refute his opponent."
The banning blog in this case, is Jennie Taliaferro's Greatest Jeneration. She's a rightie, the banned Wilde is a leftie, the opposite dynamic of the Rittenhouse vs Little Green Footballs incident last week. Seems this problem doesn't have much to do with ideology.

:: Walter 1:44 PM [+] ::
...