When to blogroll? (update)

Quote of the day:

I guess we have to hold to the connections and commonalities and struggle on with the differences. Jean concludes in the comments at Richard.

... after writing: I thought about taking you off my blogroll, Richard, because I so deeply disagree with what you've been saying in the preceding days. I couldn't, because of pieces like this, which are so beautifully written, and which I so much appreciate reading.

I have taken people off my blogroll, Blogs I read or my list, Connections and Interests. Jean's comment had me thinking about when I choose to link to another blogger or what makes me decide take them off. Sometimes I have thought, "Well, if they won't link to me why should I link to them?" but then have laughed out loud at that notion. Who could possibly care about that? I think I link to people who interest, even, intrigue me. By that same measure all through my life I seem to have had an eclectic group of friends of different religions or backgrounds.

However, if I "deeply disagree" with what people are saying I probably will not link to them. Last night I saw Robin Williams on Actors Studio. When Lipton asked one of the famous Bernard Pivot questions, what "turns him off" Williams replied immediately, "People abusing children." I certainly have a bottom line, too. I guess I get a sense of a person's intelligence, integrity or respect for others in terms of acceptance, fairness, or understanding, and I will not want to participate in their web-site if those conditions are unmet. An intelligent sense of humor, one that doesn't hurt, shame or humiliate others, is important for me too.

I remember once Ronni Bennett wrote about our Essential Natures and how bloggers can't hide who and what they really are. She wrote:

Even though few of us meet face-to-face, bloggers can’t hide who and what they really are. Over time of publishing regularly, spouting rants, offering opinions, arguing (politely or otherwise), discussing this and telling stories about that, one’s essential nature cannot help but be revealed.

In fact, [I] would argue that in reading someones blog regularly, it is easier to suss out a blogger’s principles, ethics and general demeanor than those of new friends or colleagues with whom personal contact is less frequent.

Ronni talked about some bloggers as being arrogant but who write well: and that

They may, if they are capable of recognizing the sounds of their own voices, take pains to cover their haughty pretensions, but it leaks through week after week.

So, Jean, I don't know if we always have to "hold to the connections and commonalities and struggle on with the differences." Sometimes, I disconnect because it becomes too unbearable for my sensitivities or principles to want to read further. I even think, "Ooh, yuk! Ugh!"

As I think this issue through out loud here with all of us together, I seem to come to some conclusions about my blogroll choices. I am not sure if my rules or conditions are that rigid. I certainly can be persuaded to change my mind about people if I feel integrity, kindness, compassion, a warm spirit, humor, passion or enthusiasm emanate from them. I don't think I judge the style of writing or knowledge of the English language. I enjoy a good laugh. I am probably way far left of some who read me and seem almost centrist and even right wing to others.

I remember the spirited discussion we all had when I declared that I am an atheist and yet Mark finds it in his heart to link to me! And we all three find ourselves often together over at Richard's place.

And, perhaps, some of the attraction is just chemistry. Yes, even via those blogo-waves.

For sometimes I read someone and think, "Hm, oy, I just love you!"

______________________________________________________________________________

E-mail interaction between Jean and I:

Hello Tamar, Gosh, I was shocked when I saw your blogpost, taking up my quiet little comment. You don't take prisoners do you? (that's a compliment). I agonised for days about Richard. Thought about asking other blogfriends for their views; thought, no, I was being a wimp about it and should know my own mind; and suddenly knew when I read his blog today exactly where I stood (well, where I stand today, anyway). So I'm comfortable with being challenged on this. I sometimes worry that middle-aged feminist women bloggers are a bit too nice and gentle and mutually complimentary with each other. I'm happier with that when it also gives room for such upfront reaction as yours today.

In reply:

Dear Jean, Oh dear - did it come out critical of you? I will rectify that! I was thrilled that you said it actually. I had been feeling that too! and then it got me thinking about myself. I took off XXX because I find [it] so full of sarcasm and hate and I even took off XXX because [it] is preachy and dogmatic!! I felt that you had such courage to write that at Richard's site and thought it was quite an important and interesting topic - why people link the way they do.

Comments

[the narrator]

I've sure battled with Richard on what he's said re: the London bombing - seems like 10,000 words between us, and I've struggled, because I "can't figure out how he can't understand the issues" but I also know that disengaging makes little sense. Maybe my debate with him has sharpened my presentation. Maybe I've planted seeds in his head that might flower as time goes on. Maybe, well, perhaps we'll just disagree on this. It's a huge thing to me, but it doesn't make him "guilty of a crime" in my head. There are issues that are "deal-breakers" in communications, but I try to keep those to very few. We are divided enough in this world. The only way to even consider making it better is to keep talking.

[Jean]

What you quote me as saying is what I feel in this particular instance, faced with these particular divided feelings, I guess. I might conclude differently in a different context. It was a gut feeling, not (just) an intellectual conclusion, and I find I can generally trust those.

[Tamar]

I agree with you, "narrator" that dialogue is very important. However, sometimes the content or way something is written can be very off putting in the sense that it probably won't make much difference what we say. That is - the other person/blogger shames us or is unaccepting of our point of view, dogmatic and unyielding.

Jean, I was thrilled with your comment. I thought you had such courage to express that view. There have been twice that I can think of when I took people off my blogroll and I wished I had said something about it! Yes, I think we can trust our "guts" in these communication matters - as well as content and way things are written. Thanks so much for giving me all this food for thought today.

[nappy40]

I never think about other blogs as places where I agree or disagree. We're all very different people, so I just assume we will all have different opinions and points of view.

And I just make it a point to never disagree with Richard.

[Tamar]

Nappy40, Interesting perspective ... especially the part about not disagreeing with Richard! I think I know what you mean but surely I'm making assumptions based on my own experiences?

[nappy40]

Tamar, I don't take myself too seriously (not anymore). I try not to read too deeply into what people write on their blogs or what they say. As long as what I read isn't "disturbing" to me--like you said above, mean, snarky, preachy--I can deal with it. But we're all different, and on my blog I try not to offend. Sometimes it works. Sometimes I get rude email.

[Richard Lawrence Cohen]

If you think disagreeing with me is dangerous, try disagreeing with Ann (http://althouse.blogspot.com) sometime!

I'm laughing fondly at the comments of a good handful of my favorite bloggers on this post. I'd sure hate to lose any of you. Jean, I admire your courage in making that comment on my site. Please feel free always to tell me what you think. Tamar, thank you enormously for continuing the discussion.

As you know, I'm a writer, not a political analyst. I'm not all that well-informed, either. I suspect I ought to avoid political commentary. (I was told that by a conservative reader who thought that my anti-conservative posts of a couple of months ago would lose me readership. So, progressives, don't lose heart.) After all, what do I know? However, when terrible events such as the London bombings occur, I'm sure you'll understand that we may all need to air our feelings and views, and that these may differ. As Narrator can attest, I try never to use insulting or belittling language, and I respect people who disagree with me. I read political blogs both left and right and I'm often appalled by the nasty rhetoric used. I hope never to descend to that.

[franchini]

Hi Tamar. I have had differences of opinion which I am happy to express civilly in comments sections on other blogs but I haven't come across any other blog where I think I would be fundamentally at odds with the author. I have only removed someone from my blogroll once - it was a blog where every time I commented I felt I had to write something bolstering and/or soothing and after a while that became tiresome. Reading the blog in the first place became a chore so I stopped visiting and then it didn't seem right to keep it on my list of "Blogs I Read". I have never minded who puts me on their blog roll - I don't feel obliged to reciprocate and I would still read blogs I liked even if they were completely oblivious to my existence. I guess I take blogs as I find them, much as I do people in the real world.

[the narrator]

Tamar, that's the difference. I can fight with Richard because though we might very fundamentally disagree on this issue (the way to combat terrorism), he is clearly listening to me and I sure hope that I am listening to him. It might have been a heated conversation, but it was a conversation, and I'm happy to do those.

But yes, there are commenters who use hate speech (on my xanga blog, "nobody" comments on my blogspot posts), and I toss the comments. And there are sites that are rants against anything I view as acceptable in my moral universe, and I'm not going to link, encourage, or waste my time commenting on those.

Anyway, Richard writes really well. That makes me far more likely to keep coming back.

[Mark Daniels]

Tamar:
You are a good writer who has good things to say. So, linking to a post or including your blog on my blogroll isn't so much a matter of my "heart," as it is of my wanting to share blogging imbued with real quality with those who drop by my site.

I enjoy your blog and your honesty!

Mark