Toxic Disinhibition and Blog Comments
Have you noticed how free people feel to make comments on blogs to others that they would not necessarily make in the course of normal conversation? John Suler, a psychologist at Rider University, has a good post on aggression and cyberspace and an article on the online disinhibition effect:
Suler talks about how people hide behind anonymity on the internet and feel they can say more hostile and aggressive things online than they would to a person's face. As I have said before, I do not mind if commenters wish to stay anonymous but I will ask my readers and commenters to please remember when responding to others, do not say things that you would not tell someone to their face--that goes for identifiable commenters also. I happen to be one of those people who is not terribly afraid of conflict. If I saw you in person and we were having a discussion, I would say the same things to you in person that I would online. I have a strong tolerance for negative comments, etc. (Remember, I deal with the most negative aspects of human behavior on a regular basis). They do not bother me terribly, however, they do bother others so please, respect the other commenters on this site and disagree in a polite manner. Any other suggestions for how to keep comments civil are welcome. Thanks!
It's well known that people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn't ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel more uninhibited, express themselves more openly. Researchers call this the "disinhibition effect." It's a double-edged sword. Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they show unusual acts of kindness and generosity. We may call this benign disinhibition.
On the other hand, the disinhibition effect may not be so benign. Out spills rude language and harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats. Or people explore the dark underworld of the internet, places of pornography and violence, places they would never visit in the real world. We might call this toxic disinhibition.
On the benign side, the disinhibition indicates an attempt to understand and explore oneself, to work through problems and find new ways of being. And sometimes, in toxic disinhibition, it is simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all.
What causes this online disinhibition? What is it about cyberspace that loosens the psychological barriers that block the release of these inner feelings and needs? Several factors are at play. For some people, one or two of them produces the lion's share of the disinhibition effect. In most cases, though, these factors interact with each other, supplement each other, resulting in a more complex, amplified effect.
Suler talks about how people hide behind anonymity on the internet and feel they can say more hostile and aggressive things online than they would to a person's face. As I have said before, I do not mind if commenters wish to stay anonymous but I will ask my readers and commenters to please remember when responding to others, do not say things that you would not tell someone to their face--that goes for identifiable commenters also. I happen to be one of those people who is not terribly afraid of conflict. If I saw you in person and we were having a discussion, I would say the same things to you in person that I would online. I have a strong tolerance for negative comments, etc. (Remember, I deal with the most negative aspects of human behavior on a regular basis). They do not bother me terribly, however, they do bother others so please, respect the other commenters on this site and disagree in a polite manner. Any other suggestions for how to keep comments civil are welcome. Thanks!
posted by Helen at 7:51 AM
44 Comments:
The way to invite the bare minimum of self-restraint would be to change the Blogger settings on comments to require a Blogger identity. It is very easy to set up a Blogger account as a pseudonym, so there is no loss of confidentiality. But commenters would then have the tiniest little bit of reputation to protect, their Blogger screen names. It could make a big psychological difference.
This is what Ann Althouse does in her blog. You can post comments, but you have to have a Blogger account. It's a very simple way to make things better.
I'm not saying that it solves everything. I have been on the Internet for a long time and I know better than that. I'm sure that it helps. Blogger-account comments are at least better, on average, than 100% anonymous comments. (Nor is the problem "negative" comments in general, but more specifically unconstructive comments.)
Besides, with the Blogger comments you can at least know when two comments came from the same person. There is a lot of "who's on first" confusion with the comments labelled "anonymous".
From my own perspective, I found that there has been some overly personal toasting on the comments section...but generally involving people who have certainly been very snotty and superior in their own regard.
But then, those people are not being anonymous! Nor does that kind of behavior "deserve" ill mannered responses, no.
I would much rather see respect and polite language, but these things are hard to require.
I would hate to see a few "bad apples"---anonymous or not---spoil what is a very valuable barrel for me.
Just my two cents.
Again, it comes back to civility and hoping that "bad people" won't frequent the site.
I don't see any way to have an open comments site that prevents that problem.
Dave: But, someone else can just as easily register as 'Dave' and call you a schmuck...how are you going to distinguish between my contradictory comment and his hostile one?
The links to the Blogger profile pages would differ. Of course you could try to make the Blogger page deceptive, but most people don't go to such great lengths to irritate specific commenters. (Why mock up a Blogger profile just to get in the face of one person?) In all of this, I'm not mainly talking about premeditated vandalism in the comments section. In this particular side of the question, I'm talking about well-meaning people who simply get lost when the default appelation is "anonymous". Once you have four "anonymouses" going in a conversation, you have no idea who said what.
It's the "luggage lock" principle. Token security has a psychological effect on half-decent people. You don't have to always EITHER get a steel suitcase with GPS tracking, OR leave your luggage unlocked completely. There is a middle ground here.
i tend to type what i would say to people, i try to be polite about it, i dont swear, or insult people.
sometimes being anonymous is preferable in certain cases, you need to say a deeply held private beleif but are afraid of stating it incase of a backlash.
Great post -- and the article on the online disinhibition effect was fantastic.
In nearly three years of blogging, I've been identified publicly, and I've done my best to be civil and logical, even when I'm extremely angry. I try to refrain from insults and ad hominem attacks, even when provoked. I also "hold back" much of my personal feelings and experiences. This takes its toll on me emotionally, and can lead to irrational feelings of martyrdom at times. But if I had to do it over, I don't know what I'd do differently. It's a tricky business; a rude comment can ruin my whole day and make me want to quit blogging. Sometimes I feel like turning comments off. There's an absolute right to do that. I'm sorry not to have a better answer, but what works for me doesn't work that well, and each blog is such a personalized undertaking that I don't think there can be any one rule.
(If I've learned anything, it's that anonymous commenters tend to be the rudest, and I should have been tougher and more ruthless with rude commenters.)
I think the other issue at play is that some people post very frequently, and are in the throes of "punditry syndrome" (as opposed to any Instapundit syndrome!). They have a vested interest in frequent comments, consistent positions, etc.
Other folks are "lookie-loos" who cruise by and comment as they please.
Both have value, in my opinion.
I am reminded of First Amendment cautions: in order to have the freedom of speech we cherish, we must sometimes listen to speech that we find offensive.
Perhaps this is the cost of free expression---even on a blog.
Sorry for posting a lot---I have had some opinions about this for some time.
This topic reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend several years ago, when the Kevin Bacon remake of the Invisible Man was out in theaters. My friend said something to the effect that anyone who was invisible might act the way Bacon's character did in the movie - spying on people who don't know you're there, for example. He thought that everyone, if made invisible, would give in to the urge to behave in negative ways they never would otherwise. I replied that invisibility would more likely cause people to behave more truly like themselves. (I, for one would probably not sneak into someone's home or play cruel jokes, given that I can't even bring myself to play a bad character in a video game.)
It seems to me that posting comments online has a similar type of effect. People think of themselves as invisible, and thus free to behave any way they please. Those who would like to be more positive tend to post positive comments, or at least civil ones. Those who would prefer to give in to their darker, less pleasant or socially acceptable natures tend to vent their spleens.
I may be off base, but I thought it was interesting that an observation I had years ago might prove to be somewhat realistic.
Thanks for your post, and your site in general,
Julie C
Hi Julie C,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I think that the web gives people a feeling of protection from others, much the way a person with road rage uses their car as a shield for acting in a crummy manner at times. However, as the article I linked to mentions, some people act as they truly want to be and wish they were and that can be a good thing--to speak up in a way that you might have been afraid to do so in the past, to act as a person who is not afraid to speak in public, or to confront another commenter who belittles and harasses others has its good points.
So, there is good and bad behavior on the internet, just as there is in real life---no surpise there--people can make their own decisions about how to act and hopefully, the majority will be decent and those who are not, will be called on it.
Y'know, the key to blogosphere happiness is ignoring posts or people who annoy you, and stickin' to the topic and points. There are some real opportunities to learn from one another.
But 'tis a human profession, and full of human frailties.
...oh, and I forgot: someone wrote that anonymous posters tend to be the rudest.
Not so. The rudest people tend to be the rudest, friends.
Das ding an sich, as Goethe wrote.
that's the stupidest fucking study i ever read!!!!!! suler doesn't know what the fuck hes talking about. what a fucking idiot!
There are internet sites that I avoid because the environment is hostile and commenters attack each other in destructive ways. I like to visit websites like this one where there are civilized disagreements, and I enjoy those discussions more than sites where most commenters agree. I prefer that in my "real life", too. While I don't seek out conflict in my everyday life, I don't avoid it because dealing with disagreements early on often prevents bigger problems later.
I think the best way to maintain a civil discussion on a website is for the host to be civil and monitor comments daily. In addition, if a commenter gets out of line (by the host's standards), advise the commenter by deleting the comment or inserting an editor's note on the objectionable comment. That lets other commenters know that the host has standards, is watching, and what is out-of-line. Most civil commenters will agree to the host's rules, and those who aren't civil will eventually tire of the discussion.
And even though I don't post in my own name, I assume my identity is discoverable (although I doubt anyone cares enough to discover it) and I post accordingly. Even so, I don't feel hostile when I post comments and I hope it never comes across that way.
What amazes me is the level of anger and hostility that many people express. Occassionally I know the person, not just know who the person is but know them. I have to wonder if they have that much pent up anger or what. Sometimes, a person defends their hostile statements as "hyperbole" which, somehow, makes it all OK.
I don't always succeed but I prefer to keep debates/discussions on a more formal/less personal level.
Certainly "Dadvocate" and "Drj" are good examples of how blog comments should go, and I have learned from you both. You have never insulted anyone, and you have been cordial to folks with whom you disagree. Neither of you have ever resorted to "baiting" or showing a snide manner.
The baiting and snide nonsense is designed to get a rise out of people, and it feeds off itself. It is very common among people who feel that they need to disagree with a thread here that appears to be showing agreement...as if a different point of view is somehow in and of itself virtuous. Instead, it is just a different point of view.
I like to see respectful and thoughtful debate. I dislike contrarians. There is a huge difference.
Again, "dadvocate" and "drj" are reliably helpful here on this site as sources of calm debate. I have learned a lot from both of you, truly.
I am certainly much more astringent in comment sections than I am in real life, and am not entirely happy with that.
What I find in myself is responding in kind to tone. If someone makes a rude and attacking statement in the 3D world, responding with milder rudeness is not considered inappropriate. Comments that are at a level of arrogance I might just walk away from in person, I might answer online. A commenter who asserts that people who agree with X are just dupes who believe everything the Bushies tell them I would not even acknowledge on the street. I might try to reason with him, and might be quite cold and snippy doing so, online.
My uncle and brother, who are quite liberal, and my son and I who are more conservative, have had email arguments for years now. Especially early on, I would challenge statements as being completely out of line in rudeness. I recognized, of course, that this was just considered offhand criticism on the left, to characterize those on the right as stupid, bigoted, and the like -- my relatives were not even aware of the immensity of rudeness. Repeatedly over the first two years, I would have to reverse comments and write "So, if we zipped the name 'Al Gore' into that comment instead of 'Newt Gingrich,' how would it sound?"
They were genuinely uncomprehending at first, puzzled that I was offended, and easily irritated. I understood that this was (is?) just how liberals talked, having been one myself for so many years.
I think the rudeness factor is leveling out, both in my family discussion, and in the political discourse in general. The Kos kids might revel in being as rude as possible, but other liberals are at least taking more care to express themselves clearly, mindful of some word choices (even if their prejudices remain and leak out a bit). And there is certainly now no shortage of sites you can visit where conservative rudeness is in full bloom.
On the positive side of this, I find that online you can actually find a head-to-head argument on facts and first principles. People can state things forcefully in a way that might be rude in the 3D world, but is simply debate here.
Personally I think that it's tedious when people spend so much time talking about each others manners. Tedious at best. The material point is that if the comments section required blogger identities, then you could at least tell apart the rude anonymous people from the polite anonymous people. Yes, people could in principle have the same nickname. In practice, it doesn't happen very often.
Oh, Greg K, things always get interesting when you decide to stir the pot! Here we are having a nice tea party, enjoying our little discussion about good manners, and you apparently find it tedious. I know a lot of people who would agree with you but indulge us this one time since it was Dr. Helen who raised the subject.
Anyway, look at the bright side. At least we aren't quoting Miss Manners. (Yet.)
And thank you, Eric Blair, for your encouraging words. It's a pleasure to be a small part of Dr. Helen's interesting comment section.
DRJ: I didn't think that the question was tedious! To review, the question was how to make the comments section more civil. I thought that it was a reasonable question and I suggested an answer.
What I think is tedious is long conversations about other people's manners. Tedious at best, as I said. It isn't particularly civil and it doesn't invite civility either.
DRJ: Also, the main thing that makes Miss Manners bearable is her sense of humor. Example:
"Dear Miss Manners: What is the proper way to eat potato chips?
"Gentle Reader: With a knife and fork. A fruit knife and an oyster fork, to be specific. Good heavens, what is the world coming to? Miss Manners does not mind explaining the finer points of gracious living, but she feels that anyone without the sense to pick up a potato chip and stuff it in their face should probably not be running around loose on the streets."
Well, that didn't take long, did it? "Tedious"? "Tedious at best"? Discussions about civility do not "invite civility either"? Here we go again. The tone does not seem very...well, civil.
In everyday life, if I am part of a group conversation, and I find it "tedious"---well, do I tell the other members of the group that I find the conversation "tedious"? The result would not be pleasant, I would imagine.
No, I usually set off in search of another conversation, elsewhere, that I find more interesting.
Unless the point was not conversation, but simply "stirring the pot."
I knew what you meant, Greg, and I hope you know that I was just joking with you.
Seriously, though, you do raise a good point regarding the Blogger settings. If someone uses their real name on the internet (as you apparently do) or if they use a consistent alias or pseudonym, then I agree that they are more likely to tone down and/or think through their comments - if only to protect their internet reputations. So I agree in theory that requiring Blogger identities might be a more effective method to promote civility in online discussions.
On the other hand, I notice a tendency at some websites (including at Ann Althouse's blog) for identifiable commenters to become entrenched in their views, almost as if they are trying to live up to the reputations they have developed as conservative, liberal, etc., commenters. Being an anonymous commenter may cause some to post more extreme comments but it also affords the flexibility to change one's mind without recriminations. And, as Dr. Helen has alluded to in earlier posts, there are many reasons people comment who want to remain anonymous. As long as things don't get too hostile, and I certainly don't think they are at this website, then I respect and appreciate that position.
Greg -
I can't compete in the game of dueling Miss Manners because your example is too good, but here is Miss Manners on internet etiquette.
I thought that the potato chip story above came across as pretty snide, folks. But then, different humor for different people.
Still, I thought it typified the problem another poster brough up---an issue of tone.
Fortunately, drj came along and put in a fair and thoughtful post.
DRJ: On the other hand, I notice a tendency at some websites (including at Ann Althouse's blog) for identifiable commenters to become entrenched in their views, almost as if they are trying to live up to the reputations they have developed as conservative, liberal, etc., commenters.
If they aren't identifiable, then they may be just as entrenched in their views, but you wouldn't notice it.
i run a forum board, and i know how hard it is to get people to make non rude comments, my board has an emotional content, its about the childfree, we dont particularly want our own kids, but we do object to out of control kids and we dont object to well behaved kids. there are a lot of boards about and there are literally hundreds of flame wars over this emotional subject. some are anonymous commentors,which can be good in itself a differing view point so long as its reasonably framed and i usually reply to the comment in a fair mind, i dont sink to the rude/crude posters level. and i make sure i put warnings on saying its my decision to delete or not delete a comment, as this is my board and i can do what i want.
Boiled down, it is simple. Some people---identified or anonymous---act like jackasses online. Rude, snotty, etc.
Other people are wonderful.
What I have always found ironic is that the snide and snotty posters seem the most sensitive to attacks on their own persona---to things said in response to their nonsense. But that is because such people are, at their core, bullies.
As one poster wrote, this may be the cost of free expression.
I've been on several forums where I've requested that folks try to be more civil to each other. In every case, this has resulted in a virulent flame war against me, where I am outed as a "baby," "over sensitive," "don't belong on the Internet," etc. There seem to be a lot of folks that think that whatever is said on the Internet doesn't matter, and don't think that the people behind the words on a screen should be treated like human beings. They are comfortable with their anonymity and prefer being able to vent their spleens over treating others with basic respect. I've learned that the fact that I represent myself online in the same way I represent myself "in real life" makes me somewhat of an oddity. As such, I no longer tolerate online environments that I would not tolerate IRL. I've also learned not to try to make things better, best to quietly leave a hostile forum to "wallow in their own crapulence."
Jonathan,
Thanks for the suggestions. I especially like the one about changing the URL to whitehouse.gov--that is quite humorous. I do think the comments get worse when someone links to my site from a "lefty" one. These types tend to set a bad tone by using words to describe those they disagree with, such as "Shorter" or other names that imply a lack of decency and civility. Luckily, most of these types stay within their own communities and rarely link or go to other blogs so it does not happen often.
Helen:
You have, I believe, deleted comments on occasion. What caused you to delete these comments and were they generally posted by anonymous posters? I'm curious.
Anonymous,
I have never deleted a comment--the only deletes would be from the commenters themselves. My personal take on obnoxious rude comments is that I tend to leave them there for all to see. My only concern is that others seemed bothered by them.
Jonathan's suggestions about deletions, and about squelching rules discussions were alarming concepts for running a marketplace of ideas. Some major totalitarian leanings there.
I really wish people would choose a pseudonym - blog comments shouldn't even have an "anonymous" option - make people assign themselves some sort of identifier.
The whole disinhibition thing escapes me. I've posted in Usenet under my own name, and had knock down, drag out disputes with other posters. One of my best friends is a person I met in a newsgroup telling him he was full of crap.
yeah, in person i would be hesitant to question if you really believe this insane bullshit that is printed daily on pajama poopypants meadea or do you just drink yourself into a stupor about your misgivings about selling your soul to the fascist theocrats that are ruining this country by throwing us full speed ahead into unsustainable deficits, no account treason and fraud, no congressional oversight of that treason and fraud, and all the deaths your dear leader and his fucked up administration has given the past five years
if this war is so great, put on a uniform to back up your words with actions, you chickenshit chickenhawks
fuck you all with extreme prejudice and malice beforethought
Jonathan,
I'm not confusing anything. I understand your point, but couldn't agree less.
The distinction between public and private fora is a legal one, not an ethical one. The PRINCIPLES of what constitute a real marketplace of ideas apply equally to both public and private venues. If you create a forum, then squelch some ideas or discussions, the fact that you have a legal right to do so doesn't make you any less of a hypocrit. Either your mind, and by extension, your forum, are open to ideas, or they are not, in which case, your forum will inevitably decay into an echo chamber. Once you start to censor, it's very difficult to stop.
As to abusive commenters, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put this - don't be such a wuss. Years of Usenet experience have taught me that participants of any emotional and intellectual strength are undeterred, and have many options for dealing with abuse. Some abusers are ignored - anyone who's familiar with Usenet has heard the admonition "don't feed the trolls." Abusers thrive on attention, and you can starve them out. Anyone with reasonable wit can also easily put them in their place. Some combintation of these two approaches will almost always do the trick. As for people who don't participate because of such things, hey, life is rough, cowboy up and deal with it. To propose that people shouldn't have to deal with it is no different than saying that Muslims shouldn't have to deal with knowing those cartoons exist - both are PC whining. If you never encounter something offensive, you're either totally apathetic, or you're intellectually sitting out life on the bench.
>I happen to be one of those people who is not terribly afraid of conflict. If I saw you in person and we were having a discussion, I would say the same things to you in person that I would online<
Alas all too many folks are not able to disagree without being disagreeable. Many see disagreement as a green light for being verbally abusive.
I also have a very direct style; even face to face, this does rub up a few the wrong way, that’s something I’m prepared to live with rather than accommodate my style of interaction around a particularly sensitive minority (golly gosh, how politically topical!). I find it extremely easy to pick up the tone of ‘ill will or ‘good will’ with folks with whom I’m having a discussion, regardless of whether I agree or disagree on the substantive matters in question.
>Any other suggestions for how to keep comments civil are welcome. Thanks<
Allowing comments only from users who registered under a verified e-mail addresses. Additionally insisting that folks register under their real name does help a great deal in engendering good manners; possibly for 2 reasons – firstly yobs and boors may be less inclined to register and secondly, the mask of anonymity seems to embolden some folks – as it happens I see this as indicative of lack of moral fibre…but I’m digressing.
All these measures of course have their downside, and I’m not familiar with how well the functionality of the Blogger application supports them. In the forum I created and ran for 3 yrs I also did not allow registration under hotmail and other such popular ‘throw away’ e-mail domains. The other option is to get into tight moderation – personally, I think this a waste of time and energy and it cuts against my natural classically liberal inclinations.
It may be wise to make clear that you insist that folks avoid ad hominems – play the ‘ball’ and not the man (or woman) and insist on civility. There is no reason one cannot disagree vehermently, yet maintain decorum and basic civility.
Reading reams of bloviating, bilious venom is to me, not particularly rewarding in terms of noise to signal ratio, and I am disinclined to re visit on line places where this is the norm. I have no doubt that many others feel this way.
Another point that occurred to me; Lack of civility in anonymous on-line discussion reminds me very much of objectionable drunks.
The anonymity strips away social veneer rather like alcohol and the real person is revealed.
Booze and the on-line medium are sort of truth drugs for character.
Perhaps Helen could use this in her practice to reveal true character - "Please have this double vodka and partake in this on-line discussion."
Anyway, down here in the arse end of Africa, the sun is well past the yard-arm; time for a glass of the Fairest Cape's nectar. In this instance a deep maroon Pinotage with notable legs; cheers!
No hypocrisy here. I don't claim to allow anybody to write anything on my blog.
But, by even having a blog, there is an implied claim that discussion yields insight, which is at the heart of the concept of free speech. Inevitably, you end up with just an echo chamber for your own ideas, because you control the ideas expressed. A closed forum is not a forum; it's a star chamber.
I don't know where you got the idea that a marketplace of ideas is required to tolerate uncivil behavior.
By nature it is. In a free commodities market, one is free to sell rotten food, provided others can recognize it as such. The same goes for the idea market. The value of one's ideas is not a function of their ability to express them well.
that makes it difficult for everyone other than the disruptive parties to communicate. .
Therein lies the key. Your examples all revolve around the SPOKEN word. With the WRITTEN word, it's different. In a written forum, no one can drown anyone else out. People are free to ignore what they don't want to read, without interfering with their reading what they DO want.
If I own the marketplace I get to set the rules. Don't like my rules? Set up your own marketplace..
Exile as a solution for dissent. Nah, no totalitarian leanings there.
One of the reasons why many people avoid Usenet is that the unmoderated newsgroups tend to be so taken over by insults and personal disputes that it is difficult to find real information among the noise. .
Not for astute individuals. The thread organization makes it very easy to ignore not only the jerks, but responses to them. There is a great deal of information in Usenet, including useful information not available in moderated venues.
Telling people to "cowboy up" misses the point about how flaming crowds out meaningful communication and drives off many people who have something to contribute. My skin is plenty thick and I have no problem ignoring jerks, but it is clear to me that many commenters on my blog are repelled by flaming. .
Then they need to grow up. It's been my observation that people who are discouraged from participation by flamers care WAY too much about what other people think of them to truly be independent thinkers.
It is also clear that many other commenters are unable to resist the temptation to argue with the jerks, so that any thread in which jerks are tolerated quickly gets diverted in whatever direction the jerks take it..
Only if the non-jerks lack the intellectual wherewithal to prevent it.
Telling me that I'm a hypocrite or have totalitarian tendencies because I don't do things your way is a laughably weak argument in a world where anyone can set up his own blog at the cost of a few minutes' time. .
What's a laughably weak argument is claiming that the the ability to go elsewhere in any way impacts the objective nature of your policies or positions. The hypocracy and totalitarian leanings comment stems not so much from your advocacy for moderated forums as your approval for making discussions of such rules off limits. One has to ask, what are you so afraid of - are you so lacking in conviction that if you allow participants to comment on your rules, you'll experience a compulsion to change them? When you made this point, you immediately cancelled out any leg you had to stand on with the distuptive jerks issue. By your original post (I notice you've conveniently avoided mentioning your original statement about discussions of the rules, hmmmmm) a person offering PERFECTLY CIVIL, WELL REASONED criticism of your policies would be barred. THAT is the essence of totalitarianism. You've essentially put forth your opinion on how a forum should be run, and then rejected any dissent or disagreement.
The complete irony of all this is that the growth of the blogosphere is a response to the private club nature of the mainstream media. Since your response to everything is "go start your own blog" I guess my response to your position should be "if that's what you want, go publish a printed newspaper." Hey, it's your right to set up your blog however you want, just like it's the right of the KKK to use the web to advance their cause - but it doesn't make it right.
I just delete comments that are unacceptable and without any relevance to the discussion, like the one here at 9:55p. Not much point in letting something like that live. I wouldn't participate for long in a face to face conversation when the talk was rude and foul, why do it online? If your point is a valid one, you can get it across without the profanity. The foulmouthed and rude usually don't have much of a point to make anyway.
Rudeness on blogs is similar to rudeness on the road. If bumped into accidently on the sidewalk, I doubt that most people would flip off the bumper. But on the road, and the web, it's easier to do it with limited consequence.
It's called common courtesy, and we could all pratice more of it these days.
.I just delete comments that are unacceptable and without any relevance to the discussion, like the one here at 9:55p.
I had to scroll up and find it, because I certainly didn't waste any synapses remembering it. If you did, I feel sorry for you that you don't have anything better to fill your memory with.
There, I read it. Oh, yes, I'm dying from exposure to those, those.....WORDS!
Yeah, someone demonstrated their own poor communication skills, so what. I ignored it once, I'll forget it again, it really doesn't affect me. If it affects you, that's a personal problem, and something you need to work on.
Not much point in letting something like that live.
Yes, let's please have a "final solution" for everyone with poor personal expression skills. And then, who should we kill next, because you know it's like eating potato chips.
I wouldn't participate for long in a face to face conversation when the talk was rude and foul, why do it online?
No one is asking you to. Online, several conversations, including a few foul one sided ones, can occupy the same space at the same time. My WRITTEN words in no way interfere with anyone's ability to read your WRITTEN words. With SPOKEN communications, it's time dependent, and thus a zero sum game, but the WRITTEN word is not like that. All the analogies to spoken conversation are complete fallacies.
If your point is a valid one, you can get it across without the profanity. The foulmouthed and rude usually don't have much of a point to make anyway.
That's a naive and inexperienced POV. I've learned in life that the validity of a person's point is not a function of their ability to express it. Con men are some of the most verbally agile and eloquent people on the planet. A good saleman does not a good product make. If you spend enough time in a truly open forum, you will eventually see a foul-mouthed jerk come up with a valuable insight. The media is not the message.
Rudeness on blogs is similar to rudeness on the road.
And exactly how many peopl are killed or maimed each year by "blog rage?" This is what is so infuriating about your position - people get KILLED by road rage, but what does it really cost you or anyone else to ignore rudeness or flaming on the net? Absolutely nothing, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that your feelings are somehow of world shattering importance. That kind of arrogance is just astounding.
It's called common courtesy, and we could all pratice more of it these days.
Including to those who don't understand it. Restricting posting is just elitist arrogance. If you're REALLY better than the foul mouthed jerk, prove it by not letting him dictate what you do.
Jonathan,
Nice petulant outburst, but how about something with substance.
You're welcome to point out what I've mischaracterized. The only one insisting his way is the one true way is you, since you are the one who believes in suppressing competing or conflicting ideas. You're the one who would not allow his rules to be questioned or discussed, even politely, and whose answer to those who disagree is "my way or the highway" i.e. if you don't like make your own blog.
Through many years in Usenet I demonstrated my ability to ignore or decisively shame a foul mouthed jerk. You're the one who allows them to turn you into a dictator in your own little patch.
So, your response becomes little more than the name-calling of the flamer, minus the profanity. You're welcome to address my points, such as the clear differences between the spoken and written word. but apparently unwilling or unable. I guess now I see why you feel the need to limit discussion so.
Yes, it's amazing how intolerant everyone else is.
I think that I've made my argument clearly, and clearly you don't accept it. Other readers are welcome to judge for themselves.
No, you haven't made your case.
You've made fallacious comparisons to disruption in SPOKEN conversation, which I've rebutted, and you've not reinforced. I've addressed each and every one of your points, and you've responded with what amounts to name calling. If that's your idea of supporting an assertion, well, like I said, the reason for your desire to control the conversation is obvious.
You've also made NO attempt to defend your policy of not allowing ANY discussion of a forum's policies within the forum. Have you now withdrawn that position from consideration, or are you just at a loss to defend it?
Post a Comment
<< Home