At the risk of seeming digitally provincial, I’m going to illustrate my point with an example from a recent Guardian blog. Michel Ruse, who is apparently a philosopher, suggested that, whilst disagreeing with creationists on all points, and agreeing with Dawkins et al on both their science and philosophy, it might be wiser and more humane (humanist, even) not to vilify the religious as cretinous and incapable of reason. Which seems reasonable, to me.
According to many below-the-line responses he is a ‘half-baked’ atheist, ‘one of the more strident and shrill New Apologists’ and, apparently, “needs to get a pair’. And that’s just from the first twenty comments. A recent article by a screenwriter at a
I’m going to sound like a maiden aunt dismayed by an unsporting bridge play and can perhaps be accused of needing to ‘get a pair’ myself (although, before you offer, I’m fine for socks, thanks), but I find that, after a couple of years of participating in online comment and blogging, my teeth still go on edge whenever, on whichever side of a debate I stand, the language of debate declines into abuse, macho posturing (from men and women), intricate pedantry, deliberate misreading and a general noise of inelegant, unconstructive and self-aggrandising yelling. The Internet has given the world (or that part of it which can get online) a new collective voice but, as Caliban says: "You taught me language, and my profit on't / Is I know how to curse.’
I like swearing. A well-placed swear can enliven, colour and enhance communication, can build camaraderie. This isn’t about swearing. Rather, I’m beginning to get the feeling that the internet - which offers globally-expanding vision and a historically-unparalleled opportunity to explore new ideas and experiences different from one’s own – has become, for many, nothing more than a crude amplifier for their own opinions and an opportunity to mug and harangue anyone with whom they disagree.
For a while I followed a blog called Speak Your Branes, which critiques and satirises the most bigoted comments from the BBC’s Have Your Say forum. SYB is, of course, as sneering as it is politically motivated but, hey, they’re my politics and there was some good satire, but I had to stop. The Have Your Say comments were so ignorant, so hate-filled that the humorous frame evaporated and all I was left with was the feeling that these were the thoughts churning in the minds of my fellow bus passengers, the queue at Lidl, the people wandering in and out of Parliament. The internet has cracked the shell of our collective id so that we can hear its snarling and bleating, from clueless Daily Mail patriots to high-minded GU science commentators.
With previously unimaginable freedom to speak, why do so many choose to use this voice to address strangers with such naked contempt? I have read comments that have made me so angry I’ve lost sleep over what I perceive as the wrongness, the injustice or ignorance of what’s said. And once or twice I’ve lost my temper and responded in spirit. I’ve always regretted it; largely because, in anger, I never communicate well the thing I wish to say. Rarely, if ever, have I seen online an admission of an opinion changed, an insight admitted, or a compromise agreed, in the wake of one of these brawls. Only the technology, it seems to me, has evolved. As ever, near-miraculous invention speeds ahead of the human reptile cord.
And if you don’t agree you know what you can do…
Comments
But, also, one person's catahrtic rant is another's spiteful attack. I'm questioning why, given the endless varieties and freedoms of expression now open to us, so many choose almost exclusively to express themselves in terms of almost manichean rage and contempt.
Marcus Aurelius gives the following advice on dealing with very angry people:
"Imagine every person who is grieved at anything or discontented to be like a pig which is sacrificed and kicks and screams. Like this pig also is he who on his bed in silence laments the bonds in which he is held And consider that only to the rational animal is it given to follow voluntarily what happens; but simply to follow is a necessity imposed on all."
Not sure if you're implying that the quiet desperation is mine? I think one can publicly 'lament the bonds in which he is held' without abusing an online stranger who happens to disagree over the bonds' nature.
We are expected to take far too much on trust in this society - advertisers, employers, goverments, companies take people for a ride.
I remember being told to ignore the fact that anything was printed, ignore the authority of the person who said it and to look at the opinions and ideas on their own merit.
I can't help feel that the "violence" some people feel is being done is actually their shock at the fact that people disagree with authority and something written in print.
But how about when the violence is being done, extreme violence, by quiet little clicks on a computer keyboard in Langley or the City of London.
Then the response to this, as Slavoj Zizsek says, is ethical violence.
Think about it. Lying in chains and screaming inside, as Marcus says, and consigning yourself to your fate or ethical violence.
CiF is not a chat room, it is a public space. It is not a place for civilised discourse because civilised discourse is what happens betweens bankers around a dinner table.
Do I need to qualify by saying that I'm not a supporter of the Langley and City people you describe? Seems unnecessary in this company.
Civilised discourse wasn't a term I used, but I believe that attempting to maintain respect for one's opponent, especially when a stranger, is a quality to aspire to. Otherwise we're all just yelling and cathartically emptying ourselves into the wind. Which is what the 'advertisers, employers, goverments,' etc would probablly prefer us to do.
To really win an argument a soldier can pull out a gun. Or an adertiser could study neuronal brain responses and spen millions on designing a manipulitive little short that Goebbels would have hd wet dreams about. An employer could have a little chat. "Dear X, we are worried about the dip in your performance, please make adjustments. A torturer would convince you through pain. A recruiter would use love and acceptance into the cult to manipulate you.
Words in a debate are clean in comparison.
That we should moderate our own thoughts and language for public consumption is a worryingly close to the idea of self censorship.
Self censorship is a marvellous trick to make other people perform for you. But it takes a long time to inculcate it.
You mention 'a marvellous trick to make other people perform for you'. I also feel, strongly, that stonewall abuse is a very bad way to convince others of the justness of one's argument. A quiet word is better, and more admirable imho, than a howled sermon or attempts to belittle one's opponent. Those who would persude should refine their tools.
One little f**k off could turn into a long and explanatory "Look back in Anger."
I love the sound of clashing symbols in the morning.
'One little f**k off could turn into a long and explanatory "Look back in Anger."'
If only. Have you seen that happen? In my experience, one little f**k off usually turns into a bombardment of ever-more elaborate and ideologically-entrenched f***k offs.