There is so much that people think about today - republican vs. democrat, global warming real or not, religion vs. spirituality, work/life balance. These issues create uncertainty and are hard to discuss with friends and family sometimes.
But take a look at some of the conversations going on around Gather. There is Rob Port's great conversation launch regarding CNN's coverage of Bush's approval numbers. There are the moral arguments made by Michael Gazala. People are asking the question about why aging is so frowned upon by Eric Nilsson, Alice Burroughs, and John Greiner-Ferris. These are issues that people want to discuss. Gather is a great place to air these concerns and draw opinions from others.
How does one do that? There are a couple of ways to present controversy. The most obvious one is to pose a question and let the audience interpret it the way they feel is most appropriate. The Gather Editorial team (gathereditorial.gather.com) has been doing this to get conversation started on relevant topics of the day. Sometimes we pick entertaining and interesting topics, but we get a lot more comments when we tap into the issues like the Supreme Court and hurricane relief (or relief from hurricane news).
These conversations are unique on Gather. The comments are not one-line responses, but in-depth rebuttals to the questions and answers posed. They show the picture of the commenter, and a link to that person's profile. This is important, because it allows the reader to understand the perspective that the author and commenter bring to the virtual table. So when someone disagrees with Bush's administration, it's helpful to see if they are already a democrat, or a disappointed Republican. It changes your opinion of the response, right?
Another thing to remember - Gather is a great community that respects its other members and tends to provide supportive, forward-looking commentary. We encourage people to be honest and positive by using their real names, or first name and last initial, as a way to build trust among our participants.
So, be controversial, ask the hard questions, respond to your peers on the site. It's a great way to get to know each other, and a great way to think through the issues of the day.
David is editor-in-chief of Gather Inc. His comments can be found at http://david.gather.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 4
i put liberal on my profile, but that is really meaningless. not many Americans would say they are not liberals if they used a dictionary to define the term. i note that the world is getting confused by a lack of clarity. i don't know what a muslim militant is, whats an insurgent? is it an american independence fighter or a native american Indian terrorist? why did the world change after 9-11 did i miss something? it all sounds like, "Who's on first"
The idea of a gestalt (whole, wholly inter-related) culture sees the economy as rising out of the culture, and the economic/cultural separation recognizes inter-relations but holds business practices to be standardized throughout all cultures in a global economy. The problem is the American cultural economy sees itself as the microcosm of what it anticipates other cultures must participate in, as if American cut-throat capitalism can fit over all cultural economies. And new trade deals that allow corporations to sue gov'ts and does not have any basic standard of worker's rights. All the better for American businessmen when their cultural economics becomes the global laissez faire standard it will be like pro-tennis players inviting new amateurs into a "fair" game. American corporations can crush any 3rd world economy and by our franchises and developed technologies prevent their cultural to engage and compete, rather just be a pool of serviceable workers. What is Iraq's oil company?? Will they ever really compete with American oil companies in Iraq? Does cultural economics and regionalism bring the world together or divide it on those very same cultural lines? And then does a global economy amalgamize all cultures into a commercial/corporate assimilation? just some rhetorical questions provoked from that debate.
bart -Individualism and innovation have been the best of the American ethos. I think it has morphed into something different and something not so healthy or admirable anymore.
I agree there, ideally I thought it meant to pursue happiness as an individual and not a subject, to realize your potential, to find fulfillment and self-actualization within society, not on a deserted island where ones effort would belong only to that one. Now "individualism" and originality instead of being about the power of individual behavior accuses others of not living up to my standards and advantages, that business and financial institutions should be trusted to police themselves with their own "auditors". Because to demand accountability is to coerce or interfere with the highest class of laissez-faire saints. Individualism has morphed into some anti-social, to heck with everyone, selfishness is a virtue, thing. As if to say, "I may deserve all the advantage from the liberty and opportunity/education my society has presupplied. But if that democratic society dares demand anything of mine to help others with education, social security, welfare, and basic health care, well then my country and fellow countrymen are nothing but thieves. Individualism has morphed into a selfish and prideful devil-may-care conceit.