have the members of the community state their viewpoints on their own blogs and leave it at that. To me this conjures up a Dr. Seuss-like image of a bunch of blowhards each standing on their own soapbox

Max I agree with you that a blog without comments is at best an island, usually outside of the ocean of collective wisdom (and collective stupidity), that makes earth a fun planet. Ideally in my view everybody “playing” would have blogs and a pingback-like system would make it easier to surf back and forth and participate at several blogs at once.

As this blog grew in readership and I posted here a lot more I stopped being active at other blogs as a commenter. They lost my …um…wise comments and I lost those communities. I still surf around, but frankly I’m pissed that several of the “A list” folks who have benefitted very disproportionately from Google’s current ranking (which favors old content) primarily hype each other or their own projects. I’ve been helping their unjust consolidation of power by commenting actively, and I’m tired of the unilateral relationship. (Big exceptions to this are Scoble and Zawodny, both old bloggers who participate very actively regardless of commercial interests).
*
TechMeme is the best solution so far to the problem of having a debate that focuses on a key topic and then presents links to other views about it, but everybody playing at TechMeme needs to have their own blog and have some credibility in Tech, so it is a “small” system compared to the global blogosphere.
*
I think the ideal environment is still a few software generations away, but it will have these characteristics:

* Allow spirited discussions.
* Allow community moderation? Hmm – a slippppery slope.
* Spread the news around the web, so it’s easier to find relevance. Google blog search and technorati are great for this, neither are integrated well with core search.
* Elevate comments to higher status. In this thread Max and Horatiox have posted comments worthy of posts – it would be neat to be able to automatically spin off these good comments as their own posts, and then take it from there as you do in a real conversation.
* Monetize the blogs better. Max take a bow because your blog helps fuel Google’s $600+ share price by providing relevant content for them to index. People don’t search Google for Google content, they search it for OUR content.
Adsense? Yes, but it’s a pittance on blogs.

Yikes – this was a post, and I’ve relegated it to the comments where nobody will read it! If only I had…um…copy and paste!

Its important – as it helps to react..

It’s not quite true that I failed to moderate the blogstorm that followed. I did filter out several posts from the thread that seemed to be centered on an irrational hatred of the man I’d congratulated. When a poster did come along with politely stated reservations about Gore’s prize (the author of this very blog) his arguments were published and treated with growing respect. In the end, I felt that the flow of comments had presented an interesting and enlightening look at the variance of viewpoints on a contentious subject without dehumanizing the participants in the exchange.

More of your usual manipulation, Max. Note your own recent thread on Gore and the peace prize. What was the “cogent argument”? You started by more or less assuming that Gore’s GW claims are accurate and that he deserved the prize (or if not accurate, somehow still meaningful). That’s not even an argument, but an assertion, a declaration–nearly a statement of faith. You could have sort of fielded responses on what NW readers thought of the Peace prize: that would have been a bit more democratic (and intelligent) than simply assuming everyone wants to high-five AL Jr.

Then a poster merely suggested that there were skeptics (of various political viewpoints) who question some of the claims of Gore–or rather, of the IPCC, since Gore is not really qualified to offer statements on the science. The poster also questioned what Gore’s GW writing had to do with peace, and whether Gore’s own political history should have been considered. At that point, insinuations were made: anyone who questions Gore’s prize and/or GW or refers to like a Crichton is a rightist, a Foxnews fan, loves war, voted for Bush etc.

If you valued cogent argument, you would have protested the ID politics and ad homs on your own thread, moderated them (even if “PC”) and taken the time to show why a Crichton is mistaken (or other skeptics–Rancourt, Hug, Glassman, the Counterpunch writers, etc.). Of course that would take some legwork and a bit of scholarship, and letting the Gore pep rally continue was much easier.

Blogs can work, but the writing tends to go in two general directions, I believe: either formal, a bit dry and academic (and possibly obscure), or gonzo, conversational, non-academic and often rude or obscene. The gonzo sites might be phunn but are somewhat trivial. Mixing the two leads to confusion, usually.

I understand the rush to arms over what sounds like racist BS, but it also concerns me somewhat that an idea like that can not even be thought of in the scientific community.

But even as we remain guarded against the debate being twisted by those with an agenda of racial oppression, don’t we have to be open somewhat to the idea that just as evolution has produced a variety of external physical characteristics in different regions, it could have also produced a variety of different internal characteristics?

I think Izzy is obviously right that different kinds of humans are different inside- we’re not really created equal at all. Still, it’s very difficult to say this group is smarter than that group. Environmental factors are extremely important and influential. Watson’s comments sound to me like more elitism than racism in that he takes credit for whites’ superior environment as implicit evidence to claim simplistically that they are smarter. Still it was a dumb thing to say. If I make it to 79 I’ll try not to be such a butthead.

He says it makes more sense to have the members of the community state their viewpoints on their own blogs and leave it at that. To me this conjures up a Dr. Seuss-like image of a bunch of blowhards each standing on their own soapbox separated by miles of devastation shouting their brains out.

Comment threads are definitely a challenge. I would say they are more likely than not to end up being counterproductive to the earnest, cogent argument presented in the parent post. Still, it’s a great way for ideas to be tested and for feedback to be presented to the author in almost real-time. The challenge is to find a middle ground where opponents aren’t screaming at each other and it’s not just a happy, joyful echo chamber either. From my experience, it requires courage and the willingness to engage respectfully with those holding opposing viewpoints. When it works it can be enriching to our personalities and insightful for our understanding of the world around us.

As for me, I’m still counting the Polar Bear drownings and trying to make sense of it..

Alas, the sort of precise argumentation valued by Descartes is not shared by many in Blogland, on either right or left. In fact visits to New Worlds will demonstrate how bloggers who never read a word of Descartes operate: not about say logic, whether inductive or deductive, or even about non-emotional scientific writing: it’s all about deception, insults, logical fallacies, lightweight ID politics, kitsch. AS with the thread on Gore. Who cares what Dr. Crichton said? he’s a nazi (or at least the NW comrades repeat “Crichton is a nazi” enough times, and, poof, he is).

New Worlds: sort of like cyber-LDSchurch.com: Mormon stoners, in action! (and indeed Mr. Max allows Mormon-related material–OS Card one NW fave). When Byronia starts rallying for Mitt Romney, then we do somethin’.