Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Speak Up

It's not surprising when a liberal web site, like Slate, has mostly liberal commenters in its threads. I'd like to see more of a conservative presence there, but the dominance of liberals isn't surprising. However, you wouldn't expect most commenters to be liberal at a conservative site, like National Review. And I don't think most commenters there are liberal. But liberals do have a disproportionately high presence at many such sites. Some of the threads I've recently seen at National Review are what prompted me to write this post.

In one thread, a conservative there commented on how liberals had been bused in to post comments. Another poster said something to the effect that liberals on welfare have more time on their hands to do something like post in online forums. It's true that people often are bused in to online forums and other contexts. And it's true that welfare recipients and other people who are home a lot tend to be liberal. But I doubt that either explanation, or a combination of such explanations, even comes close to entirely explaining what's going on.

For example, there will often be a thread with, say, ten people commenting. Four of them are liberal. Even if those four were bused in, are welfare recipients, etc., it's not as though outnumbering four people by a large margin should be difficult for conservatives to do in a context like the National Review web site. Yet, it frequently doesn't happen. Often, to make the situation even worse, the conservatives who do post aren't posting as often, aren't making as much of an effort to argue for their position, and so forth. In the thread with ten participants, the four liberals will say more than the six conservatives and will make more of an effort to argue for their position. Or one conservative will make a significant effort to support his side of the argument, but the other five won't. Or something like that. It isn't just a matter of liberals being so active at a site like National Review. It's also a matter of conservatives being so inactive relative to their potential.

I've seen a lot of explanations offered for the sort of tendency I've described above, and there's some merit to those explanations. I've already mentioned some of them (busing in efforts, liberals tend to be home more). Another explanation often put forward is that liberals are more concerned about politics. They tend to be less religious, so politics is some sort of equivalent to religion for them. Liberals put the sort of effort into politics that conservatives put into other aspects of life, like religion. Though explanations like these do have some merit, they're insufficient.

Take the last explanation I mentioned. Yes, liberals are less religious, and that does explain the tendencies I'm describing to some extent. But why do the same tendencies show up in so many other contexts? For example, I often see threads at Christian apologetic web sites that are an equivalent of what I've described above regarding National Review. Five people are posting in a thread, and two of them are atheists. Or, worse yet, four of the five are atheists. The fact that only five people are posting is part of the problem. And, apparently, all of the Christians who aren't posting think it's not a problem for them to be uninvolved while they let a small handful of other Christians do all of the work. I frequently see threads at apologetic and other religious web sites, not just at political sites and in other less religious contexts, where Christian participation is absurdly low and highly disproportionate to the level of participation by non-Christians. Why?

The problem isn't just that liberals, atheists, and others who are wrong are so active. There's also a problem with conservatives, Christians, etc. being so inactive.

Apparently, one of the reasons why the Democrats did so well in the 2012 election was that they were so active online (contacting people on Facebook, sending out emails, buying ads at popular web sites, etc.). The Republicans didn't make as much of an effort, even though many of the potential voters were so open to being influenced. It's even more appalling when Christians allow themselves to be outperformed. More is at stake.

Part of the problem is that conservatives, including conservative Christians, have tended to overestimate their position in society. They've been complacent with their majority status, or they've thought of themselves as a majority when they haven't actually been one. Minorities often fight harder. Being cornered sometimes has that effect on people. Even as liberals become a majority on some issues, like homosexual marriage, they retain some elements of the minority mindset. And their conservative opponents keep thinking like a majority in some ways, a majority that's largely presumptuous, apathetic, complacent, and lazy.

Then there's the problem of being too slow to adapt to changing technology and social expectations. A Christian web site will give itself a facelift, perhaps improving its appearance and starting to have a Twitter account, for example. But the behavior of the site's owners doesn't change much. They're still too slow to notice societal trends, too shallow in how they address issues, too unwilling to interact with opposing positions in depth, etc. Their web site's facelift doesn't amount to much.

Part of what we need to do to adapt to the changes occurring in the world around us is to get more active online. That's where the technology is headed, and that's where people are. Complaining about it doesn't make it go away. If you'd prefer to spend more time offline, then too bad. God placed you in the twenty-first-century world, with its technological advances and unprecedented access to information. I suspect that the large majority of you live in a wealthy nation with a lot of technology, political freedom, and other advantages. You have opportunities that people living in other times and places haven't had. To whom much is given, much is required. Our responsibilities are largely of an intellectual nature. We have such easy access to information through books, web sites, etc. In addition to being involved in praying, reading the Bible, and other common Christian disciplines, you should be participating in online forums frequently (discussion boards, blogs, Twitter, and whatever else). Do you regularly make an effort to participate in such things? When you see a thread at a political web site about homosexual marriage, and the liberal participants have a disproportionately high presence in the discussion, do you just remain silent? Or do you speak up? When you see a Christian at an apologetics web site carrying on a discussion with an atheist (or two, three, or four atheists at once, as often happens), do you just sit back and watch? Or do you get involved? Do you help your fellow Christians carry the burden, or do you just let them do all of the heavy lifting? Why don't you give up some of the time you spend on sports, movies, housework, etc. in order to do more important things, including spending more time in online discussions about issues that are significant? Since so many of the most important issues in life are discussed online more than they are offline, and people are spending more time online than they used to, shouldn't your behavior change accordingly?

17 comments:

  1. If I weren't typing in a room full of sleeping people I'd have clapped my hands at this post. Thanks, Jason Engwer! I'm linking to this one for sure. I'm not at home much nowadays. I try to make use of my time when I am at home, but yeah, Christians ARE apathetic and slow to get themselves involved in new social mediums. You're right- they need to quit complaining and just get with the times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Prince Asbel... Ha, you sound like you want conservatives to speak up, but then you block them from your site if they're truly conservative and not riding the fence!!! Are you serious???

      Delete
    2. You're not a conservative team-mate, Bob. You're a troll with legalistic, unbiblical tendencies, and you're just as bad as a liberal participant.

      Delete
    3. There's that Loving Christianity coming out again. Not a troll, I actually don't think it's worth debating with you because you don't think you can learn a thing. A troll would follow you around, which I don't need to bother with.
      From the example of first century Christianity, you are closer to liberal than you'd like to think. The liberals are those who cry free speech in this country than block those who exercise it, when they don't agree. They also try very hard to silence the truth.
      Not a troll, just honest!!!

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Prince Asbel. Your post reminded me of a recent call to Greg Koukl's radio program. A caller said that he objects to social media like Twitter, even to the point where he wanted Koukl to denounce such things and not let his staff use them. He said that face-to-face communication is important, citing 3 John 13-14. Ironically, the caller was using a telephone to call into a radio program and podcast, all of which are recent inventions, and none of them involve face-to-face communication. Koukl also noted that the Bible is a form of written communication, not face-to-face speech.

      There are strengths and weaknesses to different types of communication. There are tradeoffs involved. Twitter, for example, has some significant weaknesses, but it's good in other ways. Anybody who would argue that a form of communication shouldn't be used if it has any sort of shortcoming is going to have to reject every form of communication that falls short of the ideal. If 3 John 14 is going to be taken as the ideal, then we'll have to reject telephones, the Bible, etc.

      Delete
  2. Wow, great post and great insights. I've noticed the same thing. Occasionally I like to jump into the lions den and try my patience against the odds. But the truth is that this scenario can be so frustrating and time consuming that I usually am silent for that reason alone. Maybe this is a factor for others too. It's a ripple effect where people are silent because they don't want to be the only one arguing against 5 other people. And then sometimes if I see someone doing a great job against 5 other people I figure they don't need my help. I'm sure that goes through people's minds too.

    But I have to say that a big part of the liberal case is rhetorically grounded. They are great at framing their side of the debate in short rhetorically charged quips that have an emotional punch. Most Christians and/or conservatives I know are really bad at being able to spot that and deconstruct it. Maybe they don't know what's wrong with the liberal's "argument" even if they are sure it is wrong. Or they don't want to offend anyone. So they either remain silent or speak out at an ineffective level by just asserting their conviction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "a big part of the liberal case is rhetorically grounded. They are great at framing their side of the debate in short rhetorically charged quips that have an emotional punch."

      When a biblical conservative does it, the civility police aka the PC police are all over it. Sometimes the biblical conservative gets banned.

      Delete
  3. Yes, this is frustrating. However, some of the difference may be connected with the fact that conservatives are busy raising families. See Eric Kaufmann's new-ish book on Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? It may be that we're all busy, just doing different things, and perhaps demography will have another story to say in a few decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't make a significant difference if we're having kids, so long as we're handing them over to the state and secular culture to be educated and molded.

      Delete
    2. Phil,

      I agree that the factor you've mentioned is significant, but I would add the qualifier janitorialmusings mentioned, as well as some others. We have a lot of data on people's time management (how much television they watch, etc.). We also have a lot of data on their level of knowledge of particular subjects, which tells you something about what their interests are. Judging by that sort of evidence, I don't think that raising families is even close to a sufficient explanation for what's going on. I frequently meet people who are raising families, yet find a lot of time for sports, movies, television, romance novels, unnecessary housework, unnecessary yardwork, video games, etc. And many conservatives, Christians, and other people who fall into the category I'm addressing don't have a family or have children who are now living on their own. The problem isn't just how conservatives compare to liberals, but also how poor the level of conservative effort in this context is when considered in itself (without regard to how liberals compare). I think that the time people spend with their family is part of the explanation of what's happening, but falls well short of justifying what's going on.

      Delete
  4. Sorry but what exactly do you mean by "busing people in" when it comes to an internet forum? I've never heard that expression before when it comes to a discussion forum.

    That said, I don't agree with the idea that liberals are posting more because they are on welfare. I would think that your typical welfare recipient is unlikely be posting on internet discussion forums. That doesn't make much sense to me.

    I think a better reason is demographics. The young and internet savy are more likely to be liberal, while the old are more likely to be conservative and not as internet savy. That makes more sense than attributing this phenomena to liberal welfare posters, LOL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grifman,

      I think the concept of busing people in is broad enough to be applied to a lot of circumstances. It's not something inherently bad, in my opinion. But the poster I was citing at National Review used the term "busing in", so I used it as well. I'll cite an example I recently saw. I came across a thread at an Evangelical blog in which a large number of Catholics arrived around the same time, often making comments of a similar nature. It's a blog that doesn't often have Catholic posters, from what I can tell. Yet, the blog suddenly got a large number of them around the same time, and they kept making comments of a suspiciously similar nature. I doubt that it was a coincidence. I suspect that somebody directed them to that Evangelical blog and encouraged them to go post there and make the sort of comment they were making.

      As far as welfare recipients are concerned, I think they'd only explain a small percentage of liberal activity online. That's why I expanded the category to include people who tend to be home more often. Since the poster I was citing at National Review mentioned welfare recipients, I mentioned them as well, but then expanded the category.

      Your point about younger people being more liberal and more active online is a good one. I agree.

      I think there are many factors that explain the tendencies I'm describing, and you're right about what some of those factors are. And regardless of what's causing the situation, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Conservatives have already lost the mainstream media, Hollywood, and other aspects of society. They should make more of an effort to avoid letting the web head in the same direction. (And they should keep working at regaining the mainstream media, Hollywood, etc.)

      Delete
  5. "Busing in" on internet forums or sites actually isn't that uncommon a practice. There is a very popular website among young adults that is virtually unknown to most older people. I won't post the name of it because it has a lots of pornography, but there are frequently threads where the people look for a website or youtube video to attack with accusations and discussions. It's also not uncommon for someone to point out a person's facebook account or site where someone says "I hate this &*% because of such and such, here is there facebook page" and then everyone floods that.

    I'm not defending the welfare remark, but then I'm curious why you think the typical welfare recipient is *unlikely* to be on internet forums?? What's your line of reasoning of evidence for that? Also, do you know how easy it is to get on welfare? I have a family member who has been on it for years and doesn't need it. This family member just doesn't want to work (and hasn't worked since they were 16) and is fully capable of working. This family member also has a computer and could easily get onto internet forums if they wanted (although I don't know if they do or don't).

    ReplyDelete
  6. It shouldn't matter how many people comment on each side. Truth is not determined by majority vote. Why can't a single conservative commenter defeat a whole crowd of liberals just with insightful and factual comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Missing the point.

      Delete
    2. John Moore,

      One of the problems is that so few conservatives are willing to take the time and effort to make "insightful and factual comments". After all, they might miss American Idol or Monday Night Football. Or they might only have three hours that day to spend doing trivial things with their family rather than four hours.

      You're right that truth isn't determined by majorities, but there are advantages to having larger numbers. Even where conservatives are in the majority, like at National Review, they often don't act like it, or they don't take advantage of that majority status nearly as much as they could.

      I've already discussed some of the factors involved here, and so have other posters. Something else to take into account is the fact that the liberal position on an issue, or the anti-Christian position in a context like a Christian apologetics web site, is often easier to adopt, articulate, and defend on a surface level. Even though it's a wrong position, it has the advantage of easiness. For example, moral permissiveness is easy. Wanting the government to take care of you is easy. Expressing skepticism, such as saying that you see no good reason to believe in God's existence or Jesus' resurrection, is easy. Even though affirming something like God's existence or Jesus' resurrection is correct, the correct position requires more time, more effort, and more of other resources to articulate and defend. In many contexts, articulating and defending what's right is more difficult. What we often have in online forums is a situation in which both the liberals and the conservatives are largely ignorant and lazy. But since the liberal position is easier to adopt, articulate, and defend in a shallow manner, the liberal side comes away looking better in some ways. A lazy liberal has advantages over a lazy conservative. Conservatives need to stop being so lazy (and cowardly, unwise, etc.). Just as living in an information age, like we live in today, requires more work in some contexts, being a conservative often requires more work than being a liberal. Conservatives need to realize that and do the additional work that's needed. That means sometimes losing sleep, spending more time doing research and writing than you'd like to, having a worse reputation with relatives and other people than you'd like to have, etc.

      Another factor is the large anti-intellectual strain that we've had in so many segments of Christianity over the years. I've addressed that subject in a lot of previous threads.

      Delete
  7. Heh, there's one other explanation for Conservative silence: weariness. Right now there's a perfect example of the phenomenon described in this post going on at christthetao.blogspot.com, in the combox for the lead post on Howard Zinn and the Boston bombing.

    A conservative site with an aggressive liberal commenter. He's a usual there. But his stuff there is so dishonest that it just makes my blood boil. I once responded, lost my temper and ended up deleting the post.

    So I refrain from posting since it just fills me with a great weariness and sense that it is futile to argue against such people. I also used to hope that people would be smart enough to see through all the sophistry and fallacies, and that such posters are actually undermining their cause. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. I guess the proverb is true: a man seemeth right until another examines him.

    ReplyDelete