Jay writes that I think “that a potential problem with blogging is when your opinion changes or your opinion is unclear.” It is a potential problem, but what that can be alleviated by acknowledging that people's opinions are subject to change when new data or opinions become available. Lisa Williams has written on this subject: “One of the things I really enjoy about blogging is that you actually see people change their minds online (I need to start collecting examples of this phenomenon so I can point to them easily).” In terms of political candidates, Tom has written about changing opinions. Derided as "flip-flops", an evolving and/or changing opinion can also be evidence of a critical mind at work.
I'll one-up Lisa by stating I've changed my mind on a few issues, although it would probably be hard to pinpoint what, where and why. I don't buy into this have-an-opinion-and-stick-with-it nonsense. Writing a weblog—and writing in general—are great ways for people to develop opinions on subjects. Instead of just reading something and either nodding one's head or shaking it, people—potentially a huge amount of people—can take the time to engage with what they read. Not engage fully, mind you: everybody has things other than reading weblogs that demand their attention, and there's only so much our puny brains can digest. So instead of engaging fully, weblogs potentially allow people to come closer to engage sufficiently with what they see around them and read. Consistency for consistency's sake is probably best avoided; on the other hand, consistency in questioning everything around us—questioning does not necessarily mean rejecting—is probably best valued.
Jay then asks “should we really respect people who do not seek direct discussion?” It is possible to respect people despite their not seeking direct discussion, since there are a lot of other properties in humans that make them respectable. Do I seek direct discussion? If direct discussion is defined as having comments enabled, then the answer is obviously no. If it means posting thought-provoking comments that lead to discussion on other people's weblogs, then that—especially whether something is "thought-provoking"—is not for me to decide. I don't necessarily like direct discussion, since being shown to be wrong on something can be embarrassing. But just because I don't like something doesn't mean I don't think it's necessary. I can only grow intellectually if someone accurately calls bullshit on me, especially when that calling bullshit is done in such a way to not hurt my sometimes fragile sometimes disproportionately large ego.
