I am pleased that we seem to share a common view about the value of rational discussion – when all goes well, both parties move a little closer to the truth. We may have somewhat different perspectives because we probably see and use Hubski somewhat differently. You talk about the “speaker” and the “listener”; I think in terms of the “writer” and the “reader”. These are not synonymous relationships. You see Hubski as a verbal discussion; I see it as an eclectic magazine with a large number of contributors, most of whom are aspiring critics. Using the metaphor of Hubski as a bar, I would sit quietly in a corner booth drinking whatever drink I hadn’t tried before, typing out an essay – possibly about the social dynamics of the bar itself. I don’t care very much about being cut out of discussions because the discussions are just an incidental perk of the environment to me. I do get irritated, though, when people delete my very existence from their universe. I like the place, and can live with this impertinence – but it will never fail to irk me.

It has occurred to me that mute/ignore (hush is merely ignore with ethical pretentions) has a benefit I hadn’t thought of. Most of the noxious people who would shriek ad hominem on Reddit (typically in the form of calling people trolls who simply disagree) will probably use the mute/ignore instead. Thus, it could be that the conversation is being kept civil, at least in part, by the fact that people who can’t handle disagreement don’t have too. I suppose I have already beaten around the edges of this idea in my essay. While I have reservations about the system, I don’t have any better suggestions. I admit that it works reasonably well, most of the time. If I think of any better ideas, I’ll try to sober up from whatever toxic absinthe you and your thenewgreen barkeep have served me, and if the idea still looks good in the cold light of day – I’ll let you know!

Always enjoyable. Move my typewriter to the back room if you need the booth. See you next time. Cheers. - e.m.