Thanks!!
-Jess

Imagine my surprise at seeing a typographical error — or was it merely proof of my point? — when I saw these words:

….some of whom were citizens of the United States.

That was supposed to say, “of Germany.”

But, as I noted, the similarities are great. While writing, I confused the two!

As the person who exerts the effort to make this blog happen, I’d say it would be fair for you to allow or disallow as pleases you.

I know you’re a respectful person with an interest in principles and shared benefit, so when you give Mr. Essman a fair shake it’s unsurprising. I know you’re generous, too, so the graciousness you’ve displayed so far with giving him repeated opportunity to fix his behavior is unsurprising. Well, you’ve actually given him a lot of slack.

I don’t dispute that you’ve the right (in the name of fairness) to squelch Mr. Essman. For everyone involved you probably should. I’m just pointing out that you can’t expect him to be reasonable. I wanted to tell you what the mechanisms were that caused him to be unreasonable.

It’s difficult to navigate the emotions of other people (and ourselves, really), and rather than do that we set ground rules for behavior. Those ground rules feel pretty justified — requiring people to be reasonable and respectful — and they ultimately have good practical effect. I say employ them when you need to and when you can. Bear in mind that requiring reason and respect, or whichever Terms Of Use you choose, is only one way to facilitate discourse.

We should note that there are situations in which we are not the power that has the ability to dictate the rules. I would caution against adopting a Terms Of Use mindset as a universal perspective on communication. “No, honey, we went out to dinner at least once this year and I refuse to discuss the matter until you refrain from hyperbolics.” “I’m sorry, sir, but if you cannot address me in a more respectful tone I will not even consider your demand for my wallet.” Terms Of Use help in certain scenarios, and hurt in others.

Ban Mr. Essman if you so feel. He’s disrespectful, he persistently misunderstands you though you’ve made yourself clear, and he is not contributing positively to the discussion such that it benefits anyone except himself. He’s primarily driven by need to vent his feelings, and reason is only being dragged in to serve that end. When the driving force is feelings rather than an urge to uncover truth and logic, you don’t get rationality, you get rationalization. Banning Mr. Essman would help your blog’s quality, with benefit to you and your readership at large. It will not, however, help your relationship with Mr. Essman.

If you want to help your relationship with Mr. Essman, validate his feelings. Positively acknowledge whatever degree of truth there is to the things he says about a) how the police are valuable, b) how his gratitude makes sense. He wants to be reasonable, but he can’t if you contradict these things.

I won’t allow it if someone does it to him; I won’t allow it if someone does it to you; I will no longer allow it if it’s done to me.

As I’ve said, disagreement is one thing. You and I, for example, have not infrequently disagreed with one another when we talk about philosophical or social issues. We don’t attack one another as part of the debate.

In the old days, people were expected to argue passionately, but reasonably and, if not exactly politely, honestly and without rudeness. Today, apparently, this can only be accomplished by posting “Terms of Use” to remind people about ordinary social courtesy and give them a heads up as to what will not be approved for posting, then simply enforcing it.

It would appear I’m going to have to go the way of many other blogs and billboards online and put up a “Terms of Use” document.

It’s impossible for him emotionally to accept devaluation of the police.

It’s critical for him emotionally that others validate his deeply-carved gratitude.

Run afoul of either of these things and he’ll stumble out of bounds into irrationality, misperception, and mischaracterization.

Lest your blood pressure and health be affected, I recommend you grasp these mechanisms before you push for him to behave.

Frustration caused by people not playing by the rules (being irrational, twisting words)… is the same thing as the frustration caused by attachment to the idea that people must play by the rules.

We’ve all got our biases. It’s a shame we fight one another about them. It only entrenches us.