Susan, many thanks for your thoughful comments and insights on your experience as a contributor to OLO. They largely mirror mine. If you look at the comment directly above you will see the main negative (but inevitable) aspect of OLO. That is that OLO provides a mouthpiece and platform for people who see intellectual discourse as a competition rather than a valuable and meaningful sharing of ideas, values and emotions. The (anonymous) contribution from such people is rarely thoughtful or respectful, and typically reflects a cynicism and elitism that is disturbing. Anyone who cares deeply about human rights, refugees or even the nuances of complex issues is subject to derision and denigration (bile). Their reality must be sad and narrow if this reflects their general attitude to life.

Susan,
Having re read your original post given its subject matter and the personalities on OLO I'm not surprised at the response you received.
While you did indeed get some good/constructive posts you did stir up the more idiosyncratic members.

I see the issue as follows.

In any site I've ever been on there are as in society the are a wide range of commenters. Some are wise and measured and others are well borderline xenophobic and limited in their reasoning, literacy skills. Others see OLO conflict as a game or agenda grinders. Some in the absence of any insight tend to stir as a means of maintaining their perceived importance i.e. Easier to be a stirrer than have one's arguments proven deficient.
For that reason it is a matter of placing your blog with the most suitable site depending on the response you want.

The naysayers to your seminal point on OLO, at least the more vocal ones don't tend to be the best skilled at alternative arguing. Many as you have found, resort to tactics that are more common in bars after a few too many. No one listening to the other, getting louder and more trenchant in their individual stances ...etc.

Secondly in the public domain authors must develop a keener sense of judgement as to the merit of the commentor and therefore comment.

I personally hold article contributors to a higher standard of argument than comment posters. I have no real interest in those who follow biased political dogma as opposed to objective propositions etc. Balance is sterile objectivity rules. The first type tend to polarise ensuing comments and are largely thinly veiled political tub thumping than thought provoking or informative.

Finally the over all issue is one that all editors face finding the balance between freedom of speech as opposed to those who see the freedom to insult, bully, axe grind etc.
I would suggest stronger objectivity in both articles and discussion topics and gradually counsel the more extreme to modify their pointless/counter productive argy bargy etc.

I agree that debate should be generally respectful - without personal insult. And ideally participation will be such that well-thought-out positions will be put to affirm positions in articles, and to criticize them... But even though, debate should not sink to personal insult.

As for the main newspapers - and their online incarnations - I have tried many time to put my view forward on Fairfax and other such websites - and have rarely been published. (I remember being published just once many years ago in The Age... I also had a good run with The Canberra TImes - but that was a long time ago)) re: Fairfax - I'm not talking about Op-Ed material here- just trying to take part in public debate...

That said, I really appreciate the opportunity OLO provides for the kind of open debate that you just don't find elsewhere... The forum here is open and participatory - and we need more - not less -of that...

Interesting feedback, Susan.

I must confess that my first thought when I saw your original article was "my goodness, that lady is leading with her chin." A piece about dam' furriners, written by a dam' furriner. Asking for trouble, I thought.

As it turned out, my fears that it would be used as a hook from which to dangle a raft of racist sentiment were not realized. But it did come close at one point.

Sadly, the chances of a coherent debate on issues related to immigration are extremely slim.

I don't believe this position is confined to OLO, or even to Australia. Of all debatable issues, immigration is one that receives a predominantly visceral response.

Much like religion, in that respect.

Like religion, "where I live" is at base an emotional issue. Logic, or economic theory, or even government policy, have little effect on the way we feel about our nationality, and how we wear it.

Some find overt nationalism an embarrassment, while others rely upon it for a good part of their self-image.

So don't take the responses you received - or are now receiving - at all personally. You chose a subject that in my view, quite literally cannot be debated at an intellectual level in an open forum such as this.

Had you chosen a less personal topic, you would have been received more thoughtfully.

Susan - I regret that I did not see the original article but as journalist for 30 years experience and an occasional contributor of OLO, as Mark Lawson, I can make a few comments.

* Those with thin skins should not post online. There are plenty of readers who will not like what you say but, being unable to set out their own arguments, will stoop to abuse. These people should be ignored.

* There are those who will be abusive and may also have a valid point. Never respond to abuse with abuse. Respond to the point, if you wish to respond at all. You said something about meeting critics in person. Never do that. It will not be seen as strength but as weakness. The abuse worked!

* You may see some posts that are so far off the point and nonsensical, that you feel obliged to point this out. Don't. All you get is a response that is even more nonsensical.

* All that said you do sometimes get interesting responses. You just have to go through a lot of dross to get to the gems.

Susan thanks for an interesting piece. Much of what you have said mirrors my thinking on the issue. I'd rather see more people take responsibility for making the environment here better for all, others hold quite strong views to the contrary. I prefer active involvement in this process by contributers rather than the heavy hand of a moderator.

I think that there is value when authors engage in the discussion associated with their articles (and in other discussions). It provides opportunity to clarify points which might not have been well understood in the original, hopefully the opportunity for the author to rethink stuff whichg needs a rethink and refine parts of their premise (along with other posters).

R0bert