The way I see it, in a debate, there are two scenarios in which you can't formulate a "come-back:" you lost fair and square or your opponent devolves into personal attacks.
The second one isn't too common on a debate stage or even in person. However, it is the accepted norm on the Internet.
A few days ago, I posted on my band's Facebook page and was almost immediately confronted with an angry comment suggesting that I move to Afghanistan if I hated the US so much.
This is a far right slogan I've heard too many times, and always have the same response for. Dissension is the greatest form of patriotism. It's because I love my country that I work to make it better. I then thanked him for commenting (hey, it's more hits on my band page), and went about my day.
Apparently, he didn't like my response.
After just those two comments, the rest of the 20 or so comments focused on personal, violent attacks: I hope you die, you deserve to be raped, suck this, eat that, go to hell, you're a piece of shit, etc. etc. Another one chimed in to bolster the behemoth display of dumb-assery, liking each others posts and re-iterating previous comments.
I watched this all unfold - after all, what would I say?
It was clear that any form of intellectual discourse was lost on these buffoons so why bother? I wasn't about to stoop to their level so after a while, I simply banned them from the page, reported it to Facebook and went on debating and discussing with those who had posted logical and valid points.
But it got me thinking, also because this wasn't the first time this has happened. Just a month or so ago, I commented on someone else's post only to be barraged by violent personal attacks. I've also had psycho stalkers on YouTube who began with death wishes and wrapped up with date requests.
Having grown a thick skin, I mostly just shake it off and continue on.
It's certainly not enough to shut me up, but should it be enough to make me pause?
And that's what I'm doing now.
It seems far too frequent and abundant, these digital dunces who troll the Internet armed with a full arsenal of expletives and an empty head.
And while we can't weed out all of them, or even always stop them from posting - could we trade the desensitization for awareness and not allow our entire interactive paradigm to retard to this shit-slinging level?
Because - imagine, if we begin to accept this as the norm - where does that end?
Can you picture it: once eloquent speakers meeting to debate but instead engaging in an epically grotesque and juvenile cut-down contest? Complete with foundation-less, factually inaccurate, juvenile, threatening verbal vomit?
....Scary to think that might already be happening...
If we continue to accept this as our 21st century digital discourse, we will continue to see more of these cretinous commentators and less intellectual dialog. People will cling to ideologies without the ability or even the need to back them up in any social setting. It will be black and white, good and evil. Compromise will be considered weak and any opposition to a viewpoint will be met with a slew of personal attacks instead of knowledgeable debate.
Sitting in the comfy confines, safe behind your computer, is apparently not just to avoid physical interaction, but also intellectual.
We don't need to agree on everything - what a boring and mono-faceted world it would be if we did. But if someone puts forth a point in a respectful, valid way, we have to learn and/or continue to debate it in the same fashion.
And we can't learn to accept those who don't.
Free speech is one thing, but threats and violent verbal attacks are another.
Deleting comments, reporting abuse - these are options - but is there anything else we can do? Not just to curb this behaviour but to bolster the behaviour of intellectual debate?
(*Please note, if you have a comment on this post that has anything to do with me dying, getting raped, or getting the shit kicked out of me - stop. Go away. Come back when you have something useful to say.)
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA and PIPA (sample letter at bottom of post)
Marketed as anti-piracy acts, The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) seek to hold websites accountable for including any copyright infringed material on their sites. As a quick aside, the bills grant immunity to ad networks and payment processors involved in any copyright infringement battles, so no matter what, only the site suffers.
Here's the scoop. I'm an artist. I work damn hard on my intellectual and artistic property and the last thing I want to see is someone pirating it. However, I also don't want to go to the internet one day and find that thousands of sites are "off limits" due to what Congress decides is piracy.
Smacks just a little too much of 1984.
We do need to come up with more cohesive and powerful laws to fight piracy and copyright infringement. But this isn't it. These are bills that directly target smaller market sites, i.e. Wikipedia, and focus on bolstering the gains and rights of big market moguls. That's a familiar tune these days, but don't let it become our new national anthem.
Today on wikipedia, you can type in your zip code and find contact information for your representatives. Write to them, call them. Beyond that, find a local chapter of Occupy or Move to Amend or similar organizations and fight for this country, of the people, by the people and for the people - before it by law, becomes a country of the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations.
Here is a sample letter to make use of:
I am proud to be American. But I am greatly disappointed with what that has come to mean. A country run by corporations, for corporations and of corporations is not the country granted to us in the constitution.
In the past, rights have been usurped by the power of an economic oligarch.
Now, that power extends to the wide expanse of the internet. Don't let it.
SOPA and PIPA are created by those who gain significantly from the slashing of our rights and the strict control of our freedoms. That is not what our republic is founded upon.
Please block SOPA and PIPA from blocking our ability to gain information from and access to the internet as a whole. Constricting that access is constricting our constitutional rights, however it is dressed in verbose legalese.
Vote no and take a stand for the people.
Your constituent,
Here's the scoop. I'm an artist. I work damn hard on my intellectual and artistic property and the last thing I want to see is someone pirating it. However, I also don't want to go to the internet one day and find that thousands of sites are "off limits" due to what Congress decides is piracy.
Smacks just a little too much of 1984.
We do need to come up with more cohesive and powerful laws to fight piracy and copyright infringement. But this isn't it. These are bills that directly target smaller market sites, i.e. Wikipedia, and focus on bolstering the gains and rights of big market moguls. That's a familiar tune these days, but don't let it become our new national anthem.
Today on wikipedia, you can type in your zip code and find contact information for your representatives. Write to them, call them. Beyond that, find a local chapter of Occupy or Move to Amend or similar organizations and fight for this country, of the people, by the people and for the people - before it by law, becomes a country of the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations.
Here is a sample letter to make use of:
I am proud to be American. But I am greatly disappointed with what that has come to mean. A country run by corporations, for corporations and of corporations is not the country granted to us in the constitution.
In the past, rights have been usurped by the power of an economic oligarch.
Now, that power extends to the wide expanse of the internet. Don't let it.
SOPA and PIPA are created by those who gain significantly from the slashing of our rights and the strict control of our freedoms. That is not what our republic is founded upon.
Please block SOPA and PIPA from blocking our ability to gain information from and access to the internet as a whole. Constricting that access is constricting our constitutional rights, however it is dressed in verbose legalese.
Vote no and take a stand for the people.
Your constituent,
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Clinton looks back
Former President Bill Clinton sat down with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room (sounds like something out of a superhero movie) to discuss the upcoming anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19th, 1995.
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)