Academic

tl;dr and discourse

By Rob Heverly

tl;dr, or, alternatively -- TL;DR or TLDR -- is an abbreviation for "too long, didn't read." It is used when a post or description of something is considered too long by the forum members or community in which it is posted. It can also apply to a thread or discussion wherein one member comes in after a discussion has been long underway, doesn't read the previous posts, and then posts something repetitive of something posted elsewhere in the discussion (remember, it was too long, they didn't read it).

I wonder if the discourse we are seeing on the health care debate (and according to many conservatives this is the same discourse we saw on the Iraq war and other Bush era policies) is reflective of this. It is not very likely, for example, that all those "involved" in the health care debate have read, or even skimmed, the health care bill. I can see the responses now: Health Care Bill? tl;dr (but you will then get their opinion of it anyway).

If we look, we will likely find examples elsewhere, many facilitated directly by technology. For example, the esteemed NY Times often allows comments on articles, commentary and opinion pieces. One editorial published yesterday provides a good example of the tl;dr experience. The Op-Ed Columnist, Bob Herbert, is writing about health care reform, so it fits in nicely with our theme, and he does so in a column titled, " This is Reform?"

But the real tl;dr here comes in the form of 601 comments. How do you deal with 601 comments as a reader and possible contributor? Do you simply make your voice heard? "tl;dr, BUT, I think . . . " repeating what was said in entries 102, 233, 245, 385, etc. (after each of them hadn't read the posts that came before them)? Do you make an attempt to read through, and then simply state your thoughts anyway, even though they're repetitive (though perhaps admitting they're repetitive)? Do you focus on the NYTimes editors' picks of comments (there are none for this piece), or the readers' recommendations (there are 523 of those, not much of a filter)?

Perhaps we need to adopt a slashdot approach to commenting on public issues; rate comments (or perhaps commenters) and then set a filter for how "good" a comment has to be rated by others before you will see it. That would keep the number reasonable, but would also mean you're "skipping" a lot of comments. The filter could become the scapegoat for a discussion taking a particular direction; if we're only reading pro-reform messages, then the pro-reformers must be out there rating down the anti-reformer's posts. This just sets up a new war, not word against word, but to see who can get the most rating done. 

It seems to me we will need to answer this question at some point. While we may not agree about health care, and while reformers bemoan the tactics of the opposition and the opposition sings the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" song, I doubt anyone would seriously debate that something needs to give. We need to be able to talk civilly about policy in this country. We need to be able to listen to each other, agree to disagree, and move on. I'm not sure how to do that, and I'm not sure technology is the answer. I'm not pining for the old days, but I wonder what this debate would have been like in 1970 (assuming other modern facts remain equal), with 1970s communications. Would it have been more civil? Would it have been one-sided, or perhaps even more hidden and private than it already  is? One thing is for sure, there would have been a heck of a lot fewer voices in the mix. Whether that's good partly depends on your view of many of those voices starting out, "tl;dr."

I think the need to find a new means of discourse, a new method or culture of talking facts and positions and not form and rhetoric, and also of somehow dealing with the sheer volume of voices, is going to continue to grow in importance. How do we do that? I'm not sure of the answer, but writing this post has really tired me out; I really should proof-read it before I post it, but, you know . . . tl;dr.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on August 18, 2009 (boomark / email).