Feb 24, 2009
Perversion, bitterness, and stupidity aren’t new, but the web can make it seem that way.
Like this post?
Has the internet degraded discourse, or does it just seem so because conversations we once avoided are now almost impossible to miss?
* * * * *
Yes. Both. I think the internet makes it much easier for people to engage in (active or passive) degraded discourse that normally would (should) be avoided.
What have you been reading?
Everyone’s willing to give their $0.02 on the internet. If there’s a backlash you can disappear into obscurity. this isn’t true of the real world. So I’d say it makes people more willing to speak…but also less thoughtful in that speech.
People say things on the phone they’d never say in person. The internet is much worse with the illusion of anonymity, and the lack of contact with others. A good discussion is rare online because of all the trolls.
Wow, I disagree on this one.. (hope I’m not viewed as a troll). :) I think the internet and blogging has increased and enhanced discourse.
Even though it has opened the door for more ugliness, it has also allowed for more honesty and refining. I’m in favor of people (and myself) checking their hearts before they post something disagreeable, but on the other hand, the internet has brought some honesty that many people usually would just stuff and then gripe about at home.
The discourse online has increased the discourse in person, at least in my life.
Oh, and I should have also said that I may not be seeing all the ugliness online, I don’t go to a ton of places.. so in that sense, my take is very limited to my own blog and the few that I check.
Not so sure. The internet creates the venue for people who might not have spoken up to speak up, comment, etc.
Discourse is not necessarily degraded, but maybe…
For instance, the Twitter phenomenon has procured some criticism, (even by me) until you (AP) reprimanded me with something like “People have these conversations all the time, what is wrong with putting them online?!”
But is there a type of communication that should stay oral and infrequent?
I don’t know, I am really asking…
I agree with abigail. I think blogging and the internet are a good thing, although I have encountered a lot of ugliness, and very recently, at that.
I’ve been having some discussions about atheism and I’ve had to keep my cool in the face of people accusing God of raping mary and that’s just the beginning. I copied some of the dialogue, but to fully grasp the ugliness I found, you’d have to read all 200+ comments.
Nonetheless, we can’t just avoid ugliness. I wouldn’t have been able to share my faith with these people otherwise, so I’m ultimately thankful.
Matt
Christian2.0
It’s a good question.
Read Luther. The web’s not so bad.
abraham,
this really has nothing to do with your post, but i just found out that it’s free pancake day at all participating IHOPs. (thank you, internet…thank you, greta).
http://www.ihoppancakeday.com/
I think Jenna’s comment proves BOTH points! :)
Stupidity–the Internet provides so many more ways to fall into it, and then it’s permanent so you have lots of time to go back and read what you wrote and then agonize over whether you should have said it…
Perhaps it just shows what a small group of people we typically come into contact with outside of the internet. If you hang out in the right (or wrong) places you are sure to find the same perverseness, bitterness, and stupidity in verbal discourse.
I think the internet both degrades and enhances discourse. And I don’t think it could really be any other way. More risk, more (potential) reward.
On one hand I mildly disagree because I don’t think the ugliness is internet unique or even internet predominant.
If we were to verbally talk one-on-one with all the kinds of people we meet on the internet, I think we would get very comparable responses. (Except maybe in the land of “Minnesota nice”.)
There are a lot of wackos out there and the internet is just one more medium for them to use.
I admittedly only “know” you through your blog but I would guess your cybercontacts is much more diverse than your real life contacts. At least that’s the way it is with me.
In real life, we tend to hang more with the people who think like us or at least live in close proximity to us, whereas in cyberspace anybody in the world is game. (I noticed that John T preceded my thoughts in this matter.)
On the other hand, I agree in the sense that the internet does seem to allow certain people a freedom to more truly express their feelings. I am one of these such people, and it’s not a negative as long as we keep in mind rules of civility.
(I do know several other people who are actually much more open and free with their opinions in real life than they are online.)
I definatley agree it opens up conversation. Not sure that was the original point though was it?
I’m sure also though hat I’ve said more things I regret’online’ than I have in ‘real life.’
The internet provides a sense of anonymity and lack of consequences for your actions. Conversations can be shut down or be opened up.
Disconnected thoughts:
Sammiedaviesjr second paragraph–me, too.
Everything “bad” about exposure to/participation in “hasty/nasty internet conversation” can be said about “terrible TV”, too. Many folks have pretty much eliminated TV from their lives for that reason.
The solution re the internet is the same. It wouldn’t make sense for me to watch TV a lot and then spend time complaining about how terrible TV content is, more so if my comments were accurate!
Perhaps it would be closer to say, “…my fresh awareness of web content makes me feel like p, b and s are new…”
(You’re a brave soul, AP, to put your thoughty thoughts out there every day, knowing that–internetwise–we invisible ones stand ready to comment. You’re truly a fine man, you are.)
Just re-reading everyone’s posts: Deron! Don’t get me started (I won’t…!) on “Minnesota nice”.
After 28 years away and returning here 15 years ago, I assert that there is no such thing. It’s just passive aggressiveness by another name.
I am quite serious about that:)! And now, like another poster suggested we often do, I will go away and wonder if I should have shared that.
I will regret this, probably, but I have to agree about the “Minnesota nice” thing. At least, not in the twin cities part of MN.
I believe that what is called “Minnesota nice” is actually rural, small town nice and because the midwest is comprised of mostly small towns, it is often considered a nicer part of the country. People have to be nice to other people when they know they will see them most days of their life and have to co-exist in a small geographical area with them.
It is too easy to be anonymous in a large city (like Mpls/St. Paul) and it makes people less nice…just like on the internet…which I think is evidenced by people not using their first and last name when they comment (in case someone knows you:)
[...] Has the internet degraded discourse, or does it just seem so because conversations we once avoided are now almost impossible to miss? View article… [...]
I suspect that the “net effect” is an improvement in sociability. If everything you write is fossilized and public then it surely makes sense to keep your worst excesses to yourself. Maybe we get better at hiding what we feel, or at spinning what we present of ourselves.