Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
One Peter Five & Crisis Magazine Stop Combox Farces

One Peter Five & Crisis Magazine Stop Combox Farces

Last updated on: June 19, 2021 at 12:52 pm by Dave Armstrong

One Peter Five & Crisis Magazine Stop Combox Farces 2021-06-19T12:52:28-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Growing Movement of “Internet Reform” & the Realization of the Worthlessness of Much of Online “Discourse”

As I recently noted (Steve Skojec: “Traditionalism” = “Sewer”, “Toxic”, “Tribalism”), Steve Skojec of the One Peter Five site has recently publicly expressed his disdain for the oft-observed abominable and sub-Christian behavior of what he calls “traditionalists” (and what I call radical Catholic reactionaries: though in fact there is much overlap, as in most large sociological groups). The fact that he has considered himself a part of this group for some thirty years (as well as the significant influence of One Peter Five), is what is so notable about his “speaking out.”

Another development has now occurred in Steve’s continuing odyssey: the idea of the overwhelmingly worthless nature of so much of online dialogue: whether in the traditional / reactionary environments, or (I would say) virtually everywhere else: including very much so (to our shame) Christian sites. Hence, he has just decided to shut down the comboxes at One Peter Five. This is momentous, and in my opinion, a very welcome and bold, principled move. I commend him. Here is how he expressed the reasons for his decision:

I do believe that the very-online version of traditionalism produces more of the kind of nasty judgmentalism and petty tribalism than any other community of folks I’ve run into on the internet, . . . traditionalism, inasmuch as it only exists on the margins of the Church, tends to attract the marginalized. It’s an actually oppressed group of people, and it carries with it both victim status and stigma — and the chip on the shoulder that goes with it. And because traditionalism is, generally speaking, very concerned with the re-institution of rules, doctrines, and rubrics that have been left on the cutting room floor, it easily lends itself to an over-emphasis on checking the right boxes and saying the right things. If you misspeak, if you intentionally say something that’s too cozy with the post-conciliar way of looking at things, you WILL be called out for it.

Unsurprisingly, this makes traddy forums, social media, and commboxes into places that often look like war zones. Admonitions and purity spirals are common features. And it takes a very thick-skinned moderator with a lot of time and patience to wade through hundreds of comments per article — many of them five or more paragraphs in length — to keep things on the level. . . .

It is my personal experience that a lot of folks use comment boxes at their favorite sites to get up on a soapbox and grandstand. It’s easier than building their own platform. They get to hold court and critique whatever they like without ever having to offer anything constructive. . . .

We all need to spend less time arguing online, and more time figuring out how to live right in an age dead set against that. Think about it for a while, and I’m sure most of you will agree. (“Very Online Toxicity & Catholic Commboxes”, One Peter Five, 6-14-21).

He cites at length a similar piece from Eric Sammons, editor of Crisis Magazine (which I would classify as a traditionalist / reactionary-leaning outfit), entitled “The Scourge of Toxic Online Catholicism” (6-11-21). This appeared to strongly influence his decision. I cite selections from Steve’s excerpts from this article:

Any Catholic who’s been online for even a small amount of time quickly encounters the darker side of the Catholic internet. The Catholic subgroup with the biggest reputation for toxicity is the “trads” (traditional Catholics), and while that reputation isn’t wholly undeserved, it’s not any more unique to them than it is to [Mark] Shea and his ilk. Unfortunately, every subgroup within Catholicism has its toxic supporters, ready to attack anyone who doesn’t pass the chosen purity test. . . .

Before I continue I should note that while I do believe toxicity exists in online Catholic circles, I also believe many people today are too thin-skinned. Even a reasoned, balanced criticism is labeled an “attack” these days. It’s a textbook liberal move to play the victim whenever someone dares to disagree, and sadly conservatives have embraced this move as well in recent years. A healthy Church includes vigorous debate; charitable, yes, but not wimpish. Disagreeing is not toxic.

But even granting that people can be too thin-skinned, it’s still true that too often online Catholic debate crosses the line. Why is it that Catholics love to attack Catholics online? . . .

Crisis Magazine is shutting down our own website comment section, effective immediately. This decision is driven by a number of factors, including some related to combatting the problems I noted above. While our comment section has many valuable and charitable contributors, it’s also true that at times Crisis commenters do not reflect the better parts of human nature, and we spend an inordinate amount of our resources moderating the combox.

Bravo to both men! I have comboxes open on virtually all of my 3,300+ blog articles, but I very strictly moderate them: with a strict, “zero toleration” policy regarding insults and nonsense. That’s what is necessary, and both Skojec and Sammons refer to the inordinate amounts of time to monitor their own venues (which have far more traffic than I do).

I’ve been writing about and scathingly criticizing the poor nature of online discourse since at least 2003: the year I decided to largely stop participating in any online discussion forums: which were hugely popular in those days, at the point in time where personal blogs and Facebook were starting to take off. I wrote in my announcement of that departure, “Good Internet Discussion & Dialogue Are Virtually Dead (10-10-03):

As a very broad, general rule of thumb (with many exceptions), I don’t think Internet discussion boards and rooms and lists foster good discussion. I believe that the medium is severely flawed (as many people have noted).

The absence of facial expression, tone of voice, humor, smiles, body language, pauses and vigor of argumentation; the lack of personal contact and getting to know people before launching into discussions of great importance, and so forth, breed many misunderstandings which would otherwise be avoided. To put it another way: people act much differently in these places than in person or even on the phone.

I also think that many people on these boards play to the crowd, and the atmosphere lends itself quite often to a sort of macho enterprise of showing off and sophistry, illegitimate rhetoric and propaganda and polemics, putting others down, “kicking people’s butts” and so on. Boards are places where huge egos thrive, and where they feed themselves at other peoples’ expense.

These factors bring out the lowest instincts and faults of man (particularly spiritual and intellectual pride), feed on human insecurities and petty jealousies, and kill good discussion whenever they are present (which is very often). This state of affairs doesn’t inevitably have to be, but human nature being what it is, that’s how it far too often is.

I want to make it very clear that I don’t deny that there are many, many exceptions to this, and don’t wish to denigrate anyone who enjoys Internet boards. . . .

I have found boards far more frustrating than edifying. Boards operate on an excessively male-oriented approach to human relationships. It’s not balanced. Women understand this very well and do far better, I think. Men can get together and completely skip over the personal, “how are you doing?”, “what’s going on in your life?”, “what has bothered or hurt you lately?”, “how is it going with x, y, or z problem?” They go right to the intellectual and the problem-solving theological, apologetic types of discussions (especially on the Internet).

The problem with such a “disembodied” ideas-only approach is that, oftentimes, once disagreements set in, there was no necessary prior build-up of trust and good will, within which constructive discussion and discourse can only occur (at least for any decent length of time).

So when the disagreements come, usually on these boards, personal insults immediately enter into the previously-constructive and amiable discussion, because the people don’t really know each other. They assume the worst and the accusations fly, because they don’t know the other person well enough to know that they are not closed-minded, obstinate, or some other charge that so often comes out in these discussions. . . .

Why do people still want to engage in discussions, anyway, when there is ill will and bad feeling and little respect between two parties? Well, because it is a macho, competitive, “get the heretic”, “show how ignorant and stupid so-and-so is” mentality (at least that’s my best guess). Why in the world should one try to do a discussion with someone, with all that baggage, coming into it? What’s the point? This is not good-natured dialogue or charitable, gentlemanly discussion. It is a mud-wrestling match. . . .

Dialogue and discussion ought not be about “winning” and “putting people in their place.” It should be about seeking the truth; sharing it when we think we have a bit of it (by God’s grace alone), learning more of it whenever we can, in dialogue with people who care about the issues and truth as much as (or preferably more than) we do. But personal attacks and cynical second-guessing about motives kill discussion, and this sort of nonsense is largely the reason I am through with discussion boards. . . .

Fighting and wrangling (rather than dialoguing) on these boards is a waste of time and energy, is a bad witness to the world, and divides Christians — all of which are the devil’s victories. May God help us to see this. I urge all Christians to deeply examine what occurs in Internet discussions, and if they are contributing to the poisonous, spiritually destructive environment that often is the status quo.

That was written 17 1/2 years ago, and things haven’t gotten any better, have they? They have become much worse, especially with the postmodernist / judgmental / relativist / subjective mentality seemingly reigning supreme everywhere. When I revised this article in October 2016 I added as an introduction:

This paper was originally directed towards “Internet Discussion Boards” and was written before I had a blog (2004) — I had had a website since 1997 — and before Facebook became almost universal (I joined in January 2011), but virtually all of what is observed here fully applies to blogs and Facebook as well. The widespread personal dynamics and faults are the same in all these media: human nature being what it is.

Ironically, I was a paid staff moderator of the online discussion forum for the Coming Home Network from 2007-2010. We had a strict policy of no insults and no-nonsense, and so a great environment for constructive discussion was achieved. I think it’s entirely possible to do this, but the problem is that people so rarely strictly enforce any guidelines that they claim apply to their venue. People want to be liked and loved, and so enforcing rules is difficult for them to do, because some people will become angry. It takes a certain “judicial temperament.” But it’s well worth it. If the “bad apples” are removed, the good apples in the basket can thrive.

This issue has always been a very important one to me: as an apologist who constantly engages in interaction and dialogues and debates online, and as one who majored in sociology in college (thus is interested in group behavior). I think the solution is simple, though very difficult to put into practice: either 1) shut down comboxes, as One Peter Five and Crisis Magazine have done, or 2) very strictly moderate according to elementary Christian ethics.

There is a price to pay for trying to be serious about Christian behavior and the command from Our Lord Jesus to love one another. In shutting down comboxes, one might very well lose a lot of readers and followers: those who like to comment and give feedback (including the relative few who can do it constructively and charitably).

And one might also get falsely accused (as I am all the time) of deleting comments (supposedly) simply because folks disagree, as opposed to the real reason: violation of simple ethical precepts and guidelines. But it’s well worth it. Doing the right thing always is in the long run. We need to seek to be God-pleasers and not people-pleasers (in the worst sense of that term).

Ethics of Internet Discourse: Some Basic Observations [4-24-13]

The Bible on Separation from Divisive Christians [6-6-13]

Is Facebook Beyond All Hope As Regards Dialogue? [6-2-14]

War- & Garbage-Free Facebook Zone (Your Search is Over) [between March 2014 and May 2015]

My Comments Policy: Thoughts on Amiable and Constructive Dialogue [8-15-15]

Comments Policy to be Strictly Enforced! Atheists in Particular . . . [8-20-15]

I Actually Enforce My Discussion Policy [10-31-15]

Clonish Choir-Preaching and Orwellian PC Groupthink . . . Rather Than Fair Dialogue [4-11-17]

Journalism is Dead / Dialogue is Dead (RIP) [6-19-18]

***

Photo credit: Tumisu (5-23-19) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Two major self-described “traditionalist” venues (One Peter Five & Crisis Magazine) have decided to shut down their comments sections, & eliminate what I call “combox farces.” Bravo!

Catholic Apologetics

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

amiability

atheist-Christian relations

civility

combox farces

congeniality

Constructive Discourse

zero tolerance for insults

Previous Post

June 18, 2021

Atheist Pearce Agrees: Let's Stop Mutual "Dishonest" Charges

Next Post

June 19, 2021 Random Thoughts on Poor Internet Discourse

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz