Constructive Dialogue: Just Business, Not Personal
I have been an online denizen for some time, and have engaged in countless online debates both on this blog and elsewhere. At time those debates get pretty heated, as reasonable but opinionated people can disagree but do so with passion and intensity. Sometimes language can become snarky and sarcastic, as emotion and reason mix in an interesting and often entertaining brew. But when these dialogues devolve into personal attacks, where assumptions are made about people’s motives and character, the value of the entire discussion thread drops precipitously. And this is a shame, because often a lot of excellent thought is missed in the wake of judgment and hostility. And the online age has sharply increased the incidence of this kind of messaging, as the depersonalized nature of sending a comment into the ether has made it perilously easy to communicate things you’d never bring yourself to say to someone’s face. Yet this should be the check for whether something should be written as well.
While the catalyst for my message are the blog entries and tweets of Chris Dixon and Jim Robinson, this is an issue I’ve been thinking about for a long time. It’s just that Chris and Jim’s interaction, given the fact that I know them both and many of the others who have taken a stance in the carried interest taxation debate (e.g., @fredwilson, @bussgang, @pkedrosky), has made it much more real and personal. Chris and Jim are two exceptionally smart guys with strongly-held views. As it relates to the carried interest debate, they happen to be on opposite sides of the issue. Big deal; the often-snarky Mr. Kedrosky has more than a few times roasted me on issues where he and I disagree. And I have tossed it right back at him. But those exchanges are focused on the issues, not on either of our characters, motivations or integrity. Based upon Chris’s tweets in response to Jim’s strong but reasoned blog post, it is clear that he doesn’t know the Jim Robinson I know. No matter, the criterion for engaging in spirited but respectful debate should not be whether or not someone knows the commenter.
It should be that basic respect is afforded anyone who enters the debate in a respectful manner. Jim’s language is strong but not personal. It addresses Chris’s views and others who have staked out a similar position. But Chris’s response to Jim’s post was highly personal, not to mention uninformed. In my opinion it crossed the line and, in fact, much of the thread of “good versus evil” that has been taken up in this debate is neither intelligent nor helpful towards getting to a better perspective on the issues. Believe me, I understand the technique of “shock value” and taking a bold, hard-line stance. But to paint everyone who happens not to specifically agree with you as somehow morally bankrupt is absurd.
In other words, I am not arguing for a world where debates become some form of sanitized drivel. I am arguing for an approach where people can use colorful language to express their views with passion and intensity but with respect and in a de-personalized manner. I think people entering the fray need to take a deep breath, pause and consider their words before launching them onto Twitter, blogs or other forms of social media. Would you say these words to the person’s face? Would you want to be dealt with in this manner? If the answer is yes, then let it rip. If not, then resist the urge and re-cast the message. There are so many smart people with so much good stuff to say. It is shameful when so much good content is lost to poor form.
