Christianity Today has an article "Why Bloggers Are Calling It Quits", about how "Even some of the Internet's most popular writers have decided to step away from the pressures and haters of the web."
That sentence jolted me when I read it. I've always advocated hard core, tough-minded, troll-resistant, audience empowering, passionate blogging.
Listen to me, and listen good.
Blogs = the first time in human history that the average person could have a voice on same playing field as big corporations, governments, and religious institutions.
Blogs are democracy in motion, baby -- and sometimes the waters are not smooth sailing.
But it's easy to make a hater look ignorant and immature, expose their true intentions, and turn the entire social community against him.
It's easy to intimidate a troll and make them so confused and angry, they declare in exasperation, "I'm done with this thread!!!" I love to see flamers exit a discussion thread with the lurkers and admin laughing at them.
Quit because of haters? That is so uneducated. Just moderate comments, delete abusive remarks, block trolls, and keep riling up the opposition.
Keep it civil and rational, but let it be as hot as it wants to be.
Online debate is good exercise in logic and a nice workout for the brain. Bloggers who quit due to trolls, griefers, or just too much contrary opinion to deal with -- they seem weak and childish to me.
However, I do sympathize with these ex-bloggers who want to go back to the actual world, you know, the original arena of natural reality. Nowadays, "outdoors" just means where you have to go for a quick cigarette or to let the dog do his business.
Andrew Sullivan says he wants to go back to reading books, maybe write a book.
I ask them all -- why did you abandon all those things when you started blogging?
I blog, read books, write books, keep paper journals, do gardening, take hikes, engage in contemplation outside. Why can't you do all this and still blog?