Dear Blogosphere,
When you were young, you were so full of potential as you gave people of all walks of life the ability to communicate with others about all things, whether they are life, love, politics or sports. It was exciting and oh so simple. Some believed that you would revolutionize the world and I was one of them and I embraced you oh so close to my bosom and like millions of others, put my thoughts out to the world. When you first came out to the world it was believed that above all, you would further political dialogue. It was a grand hope – Joe Nobody’s like me and countless others with differing political views, engaged in discussion, trying to solve the world’s problems. At a time when the mainstream media was becoming overtly biased and acrimonious, it was in you that our hopes rested for some reasonable, rational, and honest discussion.
But something has happened dear blogosphere. You seemed to have lost your way. You’re angry. Really angry. And you’re also, sorry to say this my love, full of it. You seem to believe that you know it all and are totally unable to appreciate dissenting opinions and hold a rational, honest discussion. All you’ve ended up doing is mirror the bullshit that fills our airwaves, TV’s, and newspapers. And for that, I am so disappointed in you. Now, I know – your political opponents, be they liberal or conservative, are doing it too. I know because I’ve seen it – you’re all acting like fools, being silly, childish, and unbelievably arrogant – passing on opinion as fact and acting as if you have all the answers. But why can’t you just rise above, or as some other dude said, turn the other cheek? Why do you insist on resorting to partisan hackery and half-truths in order to get your points across?
I guess when it comes down to it ‘ol friend, I just don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish acting like this. Why are you so angry? Why do you feel that you are so right and everyone else is so wrong? And why are you so afraid of having a real dialogue that isn’t full of accusations of fascism, leftardism, or outright dismissal? I know I sound like a high school basketball coach, but you seem to have forgotten how much potential you have. You can be SO MUCH MORE than you are. You’ve settled. And I couldn’t be more disappointed in you.
Now don’t get me wrong, even though I’m disappointed I still love you. I’ll still peruse you everyday, shaking my head at the depths you’ve fallen too. I’ll do it because I still have hope that you can be better than you’ve shown. We all need people to believe in us and I believe in you bloggy. But come on and smarten the fuck up. Check that, grow up. Please?
Love,
PeterRecommend this Post
Posts
British Health Minister Quits
9 minutes ago
39 comments:
This is why I nominated you, Bravo.
Thanks GAB.
You know, I love the blogosphere, but it kills me to read a lot of blogs these days on both sides of the imaginary political spectrum. To me, it's just such a sad waste of time, energy, and words. So much potential, such a waste of time.
That's not to say that there aren't some good blogs out there - always exceptions to the rule. But they are so few and far between.
My question is this - why are there so many blindly partisan bloggers out there? Why do so many bloggers hate their political opponents?
It's a fascinating social phenomenon.
Part of the answer may lie in the concept of filters. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest (okay, I borrowed that line). If you want to believe that Harper is evil, there is a massive amount of blogging material out there to support that belief - all you have to do is read it and ignore ther rest. And if you want to believe that Harper is the best thing since John A., you can find plenty of that too. You just have to be selective in what you choose to view.
There are all these feedback loops that reinforce whatever they are preaching. And these loops are constantly becoming unstable and veering off into idiocy, insanity ... and inhumanity.
A second aspect may be the dehumanizing aspect of blogging. You are not looking people in the eyes when you spew vitriol. It's completely impersonal - you don't have to account to anybody.
There's a graduate thesis in this for someone.
Hey Rabbit,
Part of the answer may lie in the concept of filters. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest (okay, I borrowed that line). If you want to believe that Harper is evil, there is a massive amount of blogging material out there to support that belief - all you have to do is read it and ignore ther rest. And if you want to believe that Harper is the best thing since John A., you can find plenty of that too. You just have to be selective in what you choose to view.
Couldn't agree more. You can find any amount of information on the internet that reinforces your belief system, whatever it is. One would imagine that this is a very empowering thing.
As for the blinders, well I agree that is is a fascinating phenomenon. People have an unbelievable ability to ignore that which counter their worldview - the question is, what kind of worldview do you have that requires you to ignore anything that contradicts it? Not a very stable one me thinks.
A second aspect may be the dehumanizing aspect of blogging. You are not looking people in the eyes when you spew vitriol. It's completely impersonal - you don't have to account to anybody.
I think that's a huge part of it. If Anonymous wants to tell I Love Canada that he/she is a fucking monkey who humps elephants because they don't believe in global warming, there is absolutely no way that Anonymous will ever be forced to account for their words. The same goes if I Love Canada calls Anonymous David Suzuki's love slave.
I've had many a debate with real live people I don't see eye to eye with on certain issues and never has the debate fallen to the depths that on-line debate has. I think, in the end, it just shows the immaturity and cowardice of a lot of people who blog.
There's a graduate thesis in this for someone.
Hmmmmm....I have been looking for one!
Filters indeed.
One of the better qualities of hardcover dictionaries, newspapers, even sometimes television, is that one encounters a variety of material even if only looking for one thing. The Internet is often much more direct and vertical; diving instead of crossing the channel.
But I think the phenomena of selective listening and enquiry is a bit older than blogging ;).
But I think the phenomena of selective listening and enquiry is a bit older than blogging ;).
Oh. no doubt about that. Probably as old as humanity itself. I guess my point was that I came to expect more from the blogpshere because it allowed the common individual to speak and for many, this was out of frustration with main stream media sources - but all that's happened is that we've become exactly what it is we hate.
There's a graduate thesis in this for someone.
Not you, obviously.
Rabbit,you're an idiot. When someone brings up the topic of the useless blogosphere, I tend to blame people like you.
Lots to say, no evidence to back it up.
Rabbit,you're an idiot. When someone brings up the topic of the useless blogosphere, I tend to blame people like you.
Lots to say, no evidence to back it up.
Well Ti-Guy, thanks for backing up my thesis.
I'm not here to back up anyone's thesis. If you have one or propose one, it's incumbent upon you to carry through with the process that gives the word "thesis" meaning; things such as antithesis, exposition, research and evidence.
I'm not here to back up anyone's thesis. If you have one or propose one, it's incumbent upon you to carry through with the process that gives the word "thesis" meaning; things such as antithesis, exposition, research and evidence.
My thesis is that the political blogosphere has turned into a cesspool because of the crass partisanship and the vitriol spewed by those all over the political spectrum. As I see it, you are part of the problem. You comment on lots of blogs, but I often wonder - what do you add except baiting others and being overtly crass?
But Ti-Guy, you would make such a great case study! I grant you pathological psychology is not my forte, but how tough can it be?
Of course a vivisection may be necessary, but hey, all science exacts a price.
Did I just spit the bit on the "reasonable, rational, and honest discussion"? Yeah, I think I did. Damn this internet thingy! So easy to go off the rails.
Because it is easy.
Hey Rabbit and Ti.
Take it elsewhere please. Or did neither of you actually understand what I wrote?
But he started it!
Okay, okay, sorry. But I've always thought that humour was a good defense against cyber bullies. Not many seem capable of returning fire.
But he started it!
To be honest, I don't really care. It certainly did help illustrate my point though :)
As an afterthought, the best defense against cyber bullies is probably to ignore them completely. Attention is likely what they crave most.
Few people, however, are capable of that kind of discipline. Not me, anyway.
You comment on lots of blogs, but I often wonder - what do you add except baiting others and being overtly crass?
A lot of blogs? Which ones, Peter? List them.
This is what I'm talking about. Beliefs uninformed by/unconcerned with evidence.
Don't misunderstand me, Peter. I've always admired you for being candid and articulate; but that's not enough to critique the blogosphere.
As an afterthought, the best defense against cyber bullies is probably to ignore them completely. Attention is likely what they crave most.
See you and your concern-trolling at my favourite haunts, Rabbit. Make sure you try really hard to ignore me, the cyber-bully.
I think the kind of behaviour you described is part of human nature and will always be part of us.
I think people engage in "hackery" and negative because it works. Really. If it didn't work at some level, people wouldn't do it.
Suzanne:
I absolutely agree - it does work.
The nasty thing is that when it occurs the entire blog gets skewed. All sensible discussion is abandoned. The conversation falls to the lowest common denominator.
This hands the provocateur all of the power. Witness (ahem) the above.
A good solution is what (a geek blog) does. Noteworthy comments are moderated (voted on) by regular denizens. Trollish behaviour builds bad karma, so that people like, um, our friend here, soon become invisible. On the other hand, commenters with good karma become more visible.
Brutally effective at preventing poor behaviour, but probably only workable on a major blog.
I don't know why it highlighted the entire last half of my message. Didn't occur in the preview. Think it's a bug.
This hands the provocateur all of the power. Witness (ahem) the above.
Witness...*ahem*...concern troll's support for the most illiberal blogger I can think of.
Who do you think you're fooling, Rabbit?
Anyway, I'm not going to trash up Peter Dodson's blog any longer with a feud with the liar/hypocite/insensate Rabbit, but frankly, she/he/it is what's wrong with the blogosphere.
Are you proud of being a fraud, Rab? You should be; you do it so well.
A lot of blogs? Which ones, Peter? List them.
Come on Ti, you know you post to a lot of blogs. You are one of the most (in)famous commentators out there. Don't get me wrong, I think you are a smart dude, but you are a master at riling people up and allowing the debate to fall thru the floor. I am sure that you enjoy it and are sometimes particularly amusing at it, but as I said, I just wonder sometimes what it adds.
I think people engage in "hackery" and negative because it works. Really. If it didn't work at some level, people wouldn't do it.
Agreed Suzanne. And, as Rocket said, it's easy. Very easy.
So, Peter, how much did you pay ti-guy to so nakedly demonstrate your point? My belief in serendipity goes only so far …
I think Ti-Guy is Peter Dodson. Or rather his alter ego, his inner troll if you will.
Has anyone ever seen them together? Didn't think so. QED
I follow the same priciple in my blogreading as I do with my newspapers: read stuff from the left, read stuff from the right, and then try and synthesize. I don't believe ANYBODY is evil: people just see the world in different ways. And even the most partisan blog serves a positive purpose in showing me one way that some people see the world.
I second GAB: great post, Peter.
I have to admit, that when I read this, and some bloggers came to mind, Ti-guy was on my internal list.
And Slashdot's moderation system doesn't make the Ti-guys of the world disappear, it glorifies them. Many people like to read controversial flaming (me included, sometimes). As with most entertainment though, it doesn't make the participants more civilized (in a good way).
Interesting thoughts - there's a book out called Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me that speaks to exactly the kind of perceptual filters that rabbit was speaking of. The thesis of the book is that before humans make a decision one way or another, they're equally open to be influenced by argument from either side, but once they've made a decision, arguments that reinforce the decision are given priority over arguments that disprove the decision.
The book is written by two social psychologists and was recently featured on Quirks & Quarks on CBC.
I long for the days of usenet - when men were men and the blind were flamed in braille.
Blogging is like peewee hockey. All padding, big nets.
Anon, seconded.
Ti-Guy is a blast to read, you can _feel_ the frustration of the lesser skilled opponents. I'm sure rabbit and wilson come from the same stock as they tend to gravitate away from each other, or God comes in and kills the fun.
Course this is OT.
Regarding the post, I think it's hogwash. I don't think the blogs changed, I think Peter changed.
I see Peter pining for something that never existed, could never exist except in an idealist mind.
People fight.
Cheers,
lance
Regarding the post, I think it's hogwash. I don't think the blogs changed, I think Peter changed.
I never said that blogs have changed Lance, I said that they never fulfilled the promise that I and others held for them. Instead of creating real dialogue, many have just followed in the footsteps of their real life partisan hackery.
I see Peter pining for something that never existed, could never exist except in an idealist mind.
You're right, I am pining for something that never existed. But that doesn't make me an idealist, it makes me hopeful.
People fight.
Sure, but people also have respectful, interesting dialogue, which seems to be quite rare in many places in the blogosphere. I'm not saying that people shouldn't disagree, just do it with a touch more class perhaps.
I mean even today, the Libs and Cons actually agreed with each other and look like they will be working together on Afghanistan. Imagine if all issues were looked at from a non-partisan perspective. We might actually get stuff done in Ottawa.
The Liberal amendments and the apparent CPC acceptance is a terrible analogy, they both had guns to their heads. Threats are implicit violence and are the extension of what you're arguing against.
People have been traipsing down this road for thirty plus years now. Blogs, IM'ing, IRC, Usenet, FidoNet, BBS's, chat/talk. Every time there is more fight than talk.
Hope is looking for something new, idealistic is believing something old will become something new.
Cheers,
lance
The Liberal amendments and the apparent CPC acceptance is a terrible analogy, they both had guns to their heads.
Maybe not the perfect analogy, but a sign of what can be achieved when people work together rather than against, regardless of the circumstances.
People have been traipsing down this road for thirty plus years now. Blogs, IM'ing, IRC, Usenet, FidoNet, BBS's, chat/talk. Every time there is more fight than talk.
When you talk with people in real time - meaning, face to face over a coffee and you disagree with them, do you act like you would see people act on SDA for example? I hope not.
I'm not disagreeing Lance that this is how it's been for a long time using computers, I just think it's a waste. I wonder what is achieved by the constant partisan hackery and bluster that is so pervasive. I wonder if people are more interested in being right than actually solving particular problems.
Hope is looking for something new, idealistic is believing something old will become something new.
Hope is whatever you make of it Lance, at least in my world it is.
Look, I'm sure you're a good guy but look at the language since you've come into this conversation. My article was hogwash and my analogy terrible. You don't seem all that interested in conversation, but proving that you are right and I'm wrong. I just don't see what the point of it is - I would rather learn and have an interesting conversation than enter everyone believing I am right.
"The blogosphere" is a huge place - and it doesn't all "suck".
When you were young, you were so full of potential as you gave people of all walks of life the ability to communicate with others about all things, whether they are life, love, politics or sports. It was exciting and oh so simple.
When was that?
What is with with glory day rhetoric like this? "Oh, things were SO much better in the [insert decade here]." I can tell you that the blogosphere certainly didn't have the simplistic glory days that you speak of and using that as the crux of your argument falls flat.
The blogosphere was never a bed of roses. It wasn't supposed to be. It's a place for unfiltered personal commentary about life and that is never "simple" - no matter what form it takes.
Did you ever consider that maybe the blogosphere actually hasn't "lost its way"? That there are as many reasons for the anger you see as there are people? We're living through some very turbulent times. In fact, every "time" in human history has been turbulent.
You seem to believe that you know it all and are totally unable to appreciate dissenting opinions and hold a rational, honest discussion. All you’ve ended up doing is mirror the bullshit that fills our airwaves, TV’s, and newspapers. And for that, I am so disappointed in you.
How can you be disappointed in a constantly changing phenomenon and why have you chosen to anthropomorphize a communications medium?
I guess when it comes down to it ‘ol friend, I just don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish acting like this. Why are you so angry? Why do you feel that you are so right and everyone else is so wrong?
And just why do you think you're so "right" about the state of the blogosphere? Perhaps you need to be holding a mirror up to yourself when you pose those questions.
But come on and smarten the fuck up. Check that, grow up. Please?
Like I said, it's a massive blogosphere. I seriously think you really need to get out there more.
I guess my point was that I came to expect more from the blogpshere because it allowed the common individual to speak and for many, this was out of frustration with main stream media sources - but all that's happened is that we've become exactly what it is we hate.
It is what you make of it and that's all it can be.
"The blogosphere" is a huge place - and it doesn't all "suck".
I agree - it's just that most of it sucks. Or, at the very least, the majority of it sucks.
What is with with glory day rhetoric like this? "Oh, things were SO much better in the [insert decade here]." I can tell you that the blogosphere certainly didn't have the simplistic glory days that you speak of and using that as the crux of your argument falls flat.
All I am saying is that when blogging first became popular there was a certain potential for it from my perspective. That potential has never materialized.
The blogosphere was never a bed of roses. It wasn't supposed to be. It's a place for unfiltered personal commentary about life and that is never "simple" - no matter what form it takes.
I'm not asking it to be a bed of roses, all I'm asking for is a little more enlightened commentary and debate between political opponents rather than "I'm right and you're wrong." Everyone who disagrees with me fails to answer this very simple question - what is the point of the partisan rhetoric that takes up most of the political blogosphere?
Did you ever consider that maybe the blogosphere actually hasn't "lost its way"? That there are as many reasons for the anger you see as there are people? We're living through some very turbulent times. In fact, every "time" in human history has been turbulent.
I don't doubt that we are living in turbulent times - in fact, my blog is, for the most part, dedicated to what a shitshow our way of life has become. And you're right, perhaps that is the reason there is so much anger. But for me, if we really wanted to try and solve the massive number of problems we have, wouldn't it be better to work together, rather than to constantly assert that we have the solution?
How can you be disappointed in a constantly changing phenomenon and why have you chosen to anthropomorphize a communications medium?
How is blogging constantly hanging? And I decided to anthropomorphize a communications medium for effect. Call it creative license.
And just why do you think you're so "right" about the state of the blogosphere? Perhaps you need to be holding a mirror up to yourself when you pose those questions.
Why do I feel I'm right? I'm not sure I do - was just an observation really based on what I read on a daily basis in the blogosphere.
It is what you make of it and that's all it can be.
I can only make so much of it because I don't control what others write.
The thing is that there actually are spots on the blogosphere where you can have decent discussions and, in the end, the idea of the blogosphere is to make your blog what you'd like the blogosphere to be (channeling Gandhi but it's true).
You can't control what others write, but you can control what you write and what your reactions are.
As for finding solutions to the world's problems, just like any intellectual forum, the blogosphere is a jumping-off point- a place for discussion. Rarely does blogosphere action have much of a repercussion in the so-called real world. That's what activist groups etc etc are for.
what is the point of the partisan rhetoric that takes up most of the political blogosphere?
That's why I enjoy being an independent liberal. I'm not beholden to any party. Makes my life much easier!
Seriously though, hyper-partisanship on the blogosphere is just a reflection of real life. Change that out there and the blogosphere will change. And, FWIW, I just don't bother debating with people who are attached to their party as if its some sort of extra limb of themselves. I'm more into issues. I've said it before and I'll say it again: partisanship kills brain cells. When people put a party before an issue or principle, they've restricted the number of possible solutions. As Dr Phil would say, "how's that working for you?".
Today's bit of cliched wisdom: Frustration happens when your expectations don't meet reality. When that happens, it's time to rethink your expectations.
I'd say that people start to become partisan after they've found individual action to be ineffective for reaching their goals, and so they hear a party is willing to work toward that goal, and thus they see it as a friend they can never betray by saying something bad about it, lest they lose their only ally.
Hard to believe that this wasn't even a year ago.
Post a Comment