theatlantic | Last month, an improbable Internet exchange inspired many who noticed
it to reconsider what's possible when debating politics online. It
began when MIT professor Scott Aaronson published a blog post on a
sexual harassment controversy. A predictably heated argument ensued in
the comments section. Then, 171 comments into the thread,
Aaronson achieved a breakthrough: He posted a reply so personal,
vulnerable and powerful that it transformed the character of the
conversation. And all sides emerged better able to see one another's
humanity.
The comment that begat this small Internet miracle wasn't perfect.
Neither were the responses to it–as ever online, some needless cruelty
and lack of charity followed.
But Aaronson and his interlocutors did transform an obscure,
not-particularly-edifying debate into a broad, widely read conversation
that encompassed more earnest, productive, revelatory perspectives than
I'd have thought possible. The conversation has already captivated a
corner of the Internet, but deserves wider attention, both as a model of
public discourse and a window into the human experience. It began with
the most personal thing that the professor had ever publicly shared.
