Santorum, the Duggars, and Blogmanship – or, Why You Should Always Ignore Internet Comments

Comments on the blogosphere are a total joke. And by joke, I don’t mean funny. I mean “something not to be taken seriously.”

Case in point: When Santorum did well in Iowa on Jan. 3, 2012, many news sites wrote about the Duggers supporting him. The articles I saw were pretty evenhanded, but it was the comments I found most interesting.

You see, for many years I suspected that there was a covert strategy involved in blog comments, and this suspicion grew even stronger as I observed and participated on the Ruth Institute blog. It was clear that there was no debate among those commenters who disagreed with us; there was none of the give and take one might expect in a debate. They were uniformly one sided, as if they had a single intention behind them.

Unfortunately, I could never confirm my suspicions, except once, when I routed one longtime liar on the blog. It was a lot of fun and he never returned. If you’re curious to see what I did, go here and read the comments between Mark and JT (JT is me):

http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/08/release-baby-josephs-medical-records/

I can’t say for sure if there is any kind of explicit plan amongst gay bloggers; I’m inclined to doubt it, actually. I don’t think there is any Head Gay, who gives everyone their marching orders.  However, we, (Dr J, Betsy and I) have wondered whether they were all responding to the same set of cues, so to speak, or whether they were drawn independently, to a common strategy that seems to work well for them.

A few weeks ago I stumbled on a book called
Blogmanship – How to Win Arguments on the Internet Without Really Knowing What You are Talking About.

Blogmanship is the art of dominating an internet comment thread. The book contains tactics for winning blog debates, and these tactics have nothing to do with honesty, knowledge of the subject, listening to the other side, etc. The tactics center around “playing the man, not the ball” and “winning the stalemate.” The blogman wins arguments by making the opposition look foolish, not by discussing the actual facts at hand. According to the book, “the good blogman is a good gentleman” while simultaneously using condescension and flattery.

What does this have to do with Santorum and the Duggars? All of the internet news articles I saw had many comments made by blogmen. Some of the blogmen were more cordial than others. But the vast majority of the comments, those made by obvious blogmen or others, sought to tear down the character of both Santorum and the Duggars. Take a look at these:

Reality TV Stars Campaign for Rick Santorum in Iowa

Rick Santorum’s Secret Weapon the Duggars

Here are a few of the more colorful quotes from Yahoo’s article:

And a few from the HuffPo article:

(Editor’s note: notice the term, “breeders.” It’s an interesting term in light of the “marriage equality” debate. We’ve discussed it on other posts.)

These comments, besides being revolting, have no substance to them. None whatsoever.

Those who view sexual activity as a completely sterile event are offended by the Duggar’s fertility. They honestly have the nerve to harshly judge these people who have accepted their own children into their life without restriction on their sexual fertility. And somehow, in their world, because of this choice, the Duggar’s endorsement means Santorum is a terrible candidate. I suppose they’d be happier if Mrs. Duggar was on birth control and they divorced. Since people on the Left pride themselves on being tolerant, I find their comments to be highly hypocritical.

However, the larger point is this: these comments do not contain a single actual argument in favor or, or in opposition to, anything. Although I don’t know what all these commenters actually “intend,” all I can say is that the comments do not convey information. As a reader, you don’t sit there and scratch your head and say, “Gee, I never thought of that before. You have given me something to think about, Oh Wise Blogman.”  No, the impact on the reader is more like, “Ooh, ick, I’ve been slimed,” even if the comment isn’t directly aimed at you. You can’t refute these comments because there is nothing there to refute. Knowingly or not, the commenters are quite brilliant in stopping any sort of thought or debate.

At the Ruth Institute, we have permanently disabled commenting on the blog for this reason.  We have long realized that our most vocal and persistent commenters were not advancing any debate. After reading this book, we realized that many of our critics were using these tactics. We are no longer using our resources to “debate” these blogmen, and we are going to channel those resources into more productive avenues.

We recommend that all pro-marriage blogmasters do the same.

The medium is the message. In order for our readers to absorb our unique and complex teaching, the blogmen and their distractions have been banished. Goodbye, blogmen! Welcome, serious students of marriage.

Read more from this author:

Why Everybody, Including Gays, Should Support Traditional Marriage

“Marriage Equality” Creates Equality for Whom?

”Marriage Equality” – What’s Love Got to do With It?

Pro Choice and Informed Choice

Teen Abortion – Is MTVs “No Easy Decision” a Contradiction?

——————————————————————————-

About the Ruth Institute:

We train the next generation of socially conservative leaders to understand why marriage matters not only on a personal level, but on a sociological and public policy level. They then influence their peers, families, and friends, both now and in the future. Your tax deductible gift makes this possible, and our students are so grateful for your support. Thank you!