Ambrosia (
missroserose) wrote2009-08-19 07:15 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
On the Internet, and civilized discourse
I wrote this as a reply to a syndicated column in the newspaper today regarding the distressing rise of comparisons to Nazism in political discourse today. I'm reposting it here, because I think it's something we should all seriously think about.
Back in the early days of the Internet, comparisons to Nazism as an insult for some trivial offense were so common that an idea spread to combat them. Referred to as "Godwin's Law", it stated that in any argument, as soon as someone brought up Hitler or the Nazis they lost and the discussion was over. This idea came about in large part for the reasons Mr. Pitts describes - because the evil that the Nazis perpetrated was so vast that trivializing it for the sake of an argument was an insult to the millions upon millions of their victims.
Godwin's Law was (and is) necessary because, in this new world of cyberspace where people were represented by strings of characters, participants had little reason to be civil to each other during arguments. Sure, there was a certain level of social conditioning, but once people realized the true extent of their anonymity they had no reason to pull punches - there was nobody to make them take real-life responsibility for their words, and they couldn't see the hurt they'd caused in the other person with their remarks. So in many places discussion on the Internet devolved into vicious, nasty, personal attacks against people with ideas others didn't like. (Sound familiar, Empire board members?) Godwin's Law, and a few other basic rules that are nameless but equally universal (don't post personal attacks, don't "troll" - post inflammatory statements specifically for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, etc.) began to be enforced on various boards, sometimes unofficially by group members, sometimes officially by moderators. While there are still dark corners of the Internet where flamewars continue, in most places online discussion stays on a certain level of civility, because the alternative is chaos.
Here's what scares me. As stated above, nastiness was a problem in the early days of the Internet due to anonymity; in the real world, people remained at least moderately polite to each other because they could be taken to task for their words. But now, the level of discourse among people in the real world is quickly degrading to early-Internet levels. People call in about Nazism on talk shows as if they've never heard of Godwin's Law (which, to be fair, they may have not), pundits make completely false declarations without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever, normal people interrupt town hall meetings (which are supposed to be a forum for rational discussion) to scream about how Obama wants to kill your grandmother, etc. Once upon a time you didn't want to be known as the guy who was on television (or YouTube) saying all that crazy conspiracy stuff; these days, people wear it as a badge of honor.
What's changed? I honestly don't know. Certainly our celebrity-obsessed culture has done its fair share of encouraging behavior like this; when your entire goal is to be recognizable, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned pundits and the billionaire neoconservatives bankrolling the town-hall protests share some responsibility as well, for encouraging extremist thought. Perhaps even the Internet has played a role - it used to be that you didn't want to offend people who lived near you, but now that literally anyone can go online and find a subset of folks who think exactly like them, their ideas are reinforced and their motivation to avoid stepping on others' toes is reduced.
Whatever the reason, we're rapidly becoming a nation of trolls starting flamewars over politics. How ironic would it be if the moderated Internet became the last bastion of rational, civilized argument?
Back in the early days of the Internet, comparisons to Nazism as an insult for some trivial offense were so common that an idea spread to combat them. Referred to as "Godwin's Law", it stated that in any argument, as soon as someone brought up Hitler or the Nazis they lost and the discussion was over. This idea came about in large part for the reasons Mr. Pitts describes - because the evil that the Nazis perpetrated was so vast that trivializing it for the sake of an argument was an insult to the millions upon millions of their victims.
Godwin's Law was (and is) necessary because, in this new world of cyberspace where people were represented by strings of characters, participants had little reason to be civil to each other during arguments. Sure, there was a certain level of social conditioning, but once people realized the true extent of their anonymity they had no reason to pull punches - there was nobody to make them take real-life responsibility for their words, and they couldn't see the hurt they'd caused in the other person with their remarks. So in many places discussion on the Internet devolved into vicious, nasty, personal attacks against people with ideas others didn't like. (Sound familiar, Empire board members?) Godwin's Law, and a few other basic rules that are nameless but equally universal (don't post personal attacks, don't "troll" - post inflammatory statements specifically for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, etc.) began to be enforced on various boards, sometimes unofficially by group members, sometimes officially by moderators. While there are still dark corners of the Internet where flamewars continue, in most places online discussion stays on a certain level of civility, because the alternative is chaos.
Here's what scares me. As stated above, nastiness was a problem in the early days of the Internet due to anonymity; in the real world, people remained at least moderately polite to each other because they could be taken to task for their words. But now, the level of discourse among people in the real world is quickly degrading to early-Internet levels. People call in about Nazism on talk shows as if they've never heard of Godwin's Law (which, to be fair, they may have not), pundits make completely false declarations without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever, normal people interrupt town hall meetings (which are supposed to be a forum for rational discussion) to scream about how Obama wants to kill your grandmother, etc. Once upon a time you didn't want to be known as the guy who was on television (or YouTube) saying all that crazy conspiracy stuff; these days, people wear it as a badge of honor.
What's changed? I honestly don't know. Certainly our celebrity-obsessed culture has done its fair share of encouraging behavior like this; when your entire goal is to be recognizable, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned pundits and the billionaire neoconservatives bankrolling the town-hall protests share some responsibility as well, for encouraging extremist thought. Perhaps even the Internet has played a role - it used to be that you didn't want to offend people who lived near you, but now that literally anyone can go online and find a subset of folks who think exactly like them, their ideas are reinforced and their motivation to avoid stepping on others' toes is reduced.
Whatever the reason, we're rapidly becoming a nation of trolls starting flamewars over politics. How ironic would it be if the moderated Internet became the last bastion of rational, civilized argument?
no subject
no subject
Sadly, your even, rational, well-thought-out letter will be lost, because the opposition is no longer about controlling the argument, they're about reducing the level of discourse to a point where intellectually vapid and vitriolic rhetoric dominates. It's no longer about the idea and the argument (if it ever was), it's about the fear and the emotion invoked by the least-supportable arguments that don't need to bear scrutiny if the passions they invoke are fervent enough.
I can barely follow the health care movement anymore -- I'm just demoralized. Even with a supermajority in the Senate and control of the White House, the Democrats are playing like they're outnumbered nine to one. Yes, the Republicans are being hysterical obstructionists but we expect this; if this fight is going to be lost (and I think it will), it won't be because of their opposition but the timidity and trepidation of the progressives, and we're seeing that apprehension manifest in the national dialogue, or specifically how the left is allowing the right to poison it unchecked. Recent headlines indicate the Democratic leadership might be finally interested in playing offense, which is not only a welcome surprise, it's the only possibility left for genuine reform (anything short of a public option is not reform, it's just window dressing -- and honestly, the acquiescence the White House has already shown to drug manufacturers has been distasteful enough). But as long as they allow the empty accusations to stand unchallenged and allow rhetoric of the other to fester, I don't see it working.
As for the Internet becoming the last bastion of rational discourse...oh, I'll believe it when I see it. It would be a nice dose of catastrophic, universe-ending irony, though, even if people are too pissed off at each other to appreciate it.
no subject
They're going insane because a black man is President.
no subject
no subject
The people who are left? They're shrieking about "death panels" and "Obama is a Nazi" and all that, and most of all, about not wanting to pay for someone else. Not just any someone else, though; they're upset about the possibility of their tax dollars paying for the care of someone they think is undeserving. Usually? That someone, in their minds, has brown skin.
no subject
I hear you. I don't even follow politics directly, and just what trickles through Slate and the other places I read is enough to make me want to rage out at someone. I applaud Obama's idealism, I really do, but the fact is that when someone digs in their heels and absolutely refuses to discuss things rationally, the only way to overcome that is basically to steamroller them - otherwise you're left with the mess that we're in now. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that health care in our country is obscenely bad, and in dire need of change. It'd be nice to get everyone on board (you'd think that "health care is a basic human right" would be something everyone could agree on), but if the minority isn't going to play, nothing's going to happen unless you override them. I know the Obama administration's probably worried that something similar to Clintoncare will happen (in that it'll be an unpopular enough measure that they'll lose the House and Senate in the next election), but if he, and the Dems, really care about the ill, uninsured and bankrupt folks out there as much as they say they do, they'll cram it down the protesters' throats if they have to, next election be damned.
What I think would be hilarious? Say the Democrats look into their drawers and find something wondrous - their testicles - and pass a public option or some other reasonably useful health care reform. Then, four or eight years from now when the other side invariably gets their turn, they start talking about undoing the changes and reverting back to the old system. How many of the people protesting now will be absolutely 100% behind them then, do you think?
no subject
The sad thing? Even with the mincing about on an issue that, like you said and needs to be shouted as loud as the cries of Nazism and fascism and touted as proudly as an assault weapon at a town hall meeting, is a human right, this is still the best we got. They're cowed to the point of cowardice, but even without two vertebrae to scrape together, they're as correct as they're brave to be. And time will prove them right -- if we can get a handle on health care costs in this country, we'll have brought to terms one of the most crippling fiscal strains on personal economies and the effect will be profound in enough of a trickle-down phenomenon to make Ronnie himself smile. If any significant reform comes from this push -- and it may not; the change we can believe in may be watered down to the change that is politically expedient for future consensus building (but BO, dude, this is not the time to surrender, this is the time to cash in the chips, for God's sake) -- you're right, is anyone in '12 or even '16 going to seriously lobby for a return to this fetid status quo? Probably, but only guised in code words: socialism, capitalism, free market, the American spirit, entrepreneurship, dying alone at home for want of a $300 prescription...oh, wait, one slipped through. Sorry.
¹Seriously. Not that a small reptilian part of me doesn't mind seeing him in pain, but I do feel a bit sorry for Beck '08. Beck '09 makes the story obvious: the hemorrhoid rejected him.
no subject
Meanwhile, nobody will shut up about health care. Lovely red herring!
no subject
What really makes me sad is that they don't even realize how they're being played. So many people were never taught to think critically about claims like "death panels", and so many people have been implicitly told all their lives that they're never going to be able to do anything about what the folks in power do. So they resent their powerlessness in the face of things like the financiapocalypse, and all they need is someone to tell them "This person is trying to pass laws that will kill your grandmother!" and despite it being a blatant lie, they suddenly have a target for all that resentment and/or rage. The fact that said target is trying to act in their self-interest, or that there are other, far better targets for their rage (the financial market, anyone?), or that they wouldn't be so powerless if they organized together and made demands for transparency and accountability rather than raging out about Nazi!Obama, is completely lost in the tide.
Or as a friend of mine put it, "Why do you think Republicans' educational policies are so universally awful? They don't want people thinking about their government!"
no subject
I've been trying to figure out what has been bothering me about American politics since the Bush administration, and you have finally put it into words for me.
no subject
no subject
As for why it's happened - I blame the baby boomers. This has proven a solid strategy for me in the past, since they are usually too busy doing something else to take any notice.
In My Own Defense
Re: In My Own Defense