I, troll
Alan Jacobs has some thoughts on the virtues and vices of blogging, vis a vis the seemingly endless “is religious belief rational” merry-go-round. He says
As everyone knows, the less complex and nuanced the positions on a blog are, the more comments it gets. This is an Iron-Clad Law of the Internet. Blog posts are just too short to deal with the Big Issues, and too likely to be fired off in short order, with minimal reflection and no pre-post feedback from wiser and cooler heads. Andrew Sullivan may think this is a good thing, but I’m not inclined to agree.
I am more sanguine than Alan about the uses of blogging, but I do think he’s right that often, blog arguments are shorter, less satisfying takes on issues that have already been debated in more rigorous arenas. Certainly, with topics as heady and well-discussed as theology and philosophy, you’re dipping your toes into a pool that has already been dived in many times before, and by far abler swimmers than you. I still think there’s something worthy in the attempt, but as a half-baked ruminator myself, I’d have to, wouldn’t I?
Personally, my bigger problem with the Internet is that it simply brings out the worst in me, again and again, and diminishes me in doing so. I sometimes feel like a simple troll. Where in real, face-to-face conduct I might be friendly, on the Internet I might be cold. Where I might be humble, I’m frequently arrogant. Where I may be respectful, I’m often dismissive. Where I might demonstrate equanimity and tact, I’m a shrill partisan. I can’t say exactly why that is, but my guess is that it’s a function of the lack of real human sensory connection. Instead of a face and a voice, I observe only a name, an avatar, and ideas. I say things online I would never, ever say to anyone in real life, and as time goes on and I develop more Internet-only relationships, I worry constantly: who is this person who they think I am?
Funnily enough, all of this has been said before, and said better….
points well taken. One possible response: we interact with different kinds of people on the internet that we wouldn’t normally know IRL. I’m not convinced that if this guy met you at a bar and started talking to you about his adventures at Wal-Mart, you wouldn’t call bullshit on him there, too. Another response: it’s true that people behave differently on the internet than in other situations, but that’s a good thing. We should make those social distinctions–it’d be weird if I interacted with my boss, my mom, the President of the United States, that girl I’m hitting on, etc. all in the same way. Similarly our conversations on the internet have their own conversations-on-the-internet-specific norms, which are different from the norms of a face to face chat, or an academic symposium. That doesn’t make your internet persona “fake,” anymore than your work persona or your high-school-buddy persona is fake. It’s just a different social space. Response three: let’s not generalize the internet. I behave totally differently on LOOG than I do on facebook. some of the stuff i write on facebook is incredibly, unbelievably heartfelt, things i’d never say IRL, even to the same people. LOOG is more like an philosophy deathmatch arena–the point is to wrestle with the Big Issues, right?– and i don’t mind being rude if that’s what’s called for.Report
Freddie, two words – situational ethics.Report
I couldn’t have said it better myself:
Thanks for being so honest!Report
And yet here you are, writing about me.Report
I think the Internet can be/is many things and that it is futile to try to box it into whatever suits one’s fancy. Andrew is right on the money when he writes: It’s a real-time airing of provisional thought, and so, unless I were omniscient, I don’t see how this could be otherwise. Some can legitimately see this as a weakness of blogging; I prefer to think of it as a strength, if it is seen for what it is. [my emphasis]
Personally, I blog mainly to share information that I have gleaned on the Internet from bloggers, researchers, book reviews, whatever, around themes that interest me. And as they say, because it’s there (the Internet, I mean). Just that.Report
Gene, I would tend to agree with you. Alan might be correct in saying that blogging doesn’t currently do long form, in depth discussion well, but there’s nothing saying that a conscious effort to change that wouldn’t prove successful.
I suppose the question that confronts us is: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change?Report
Scott: Are you working on the article I suggested to you? That would be one way to get people to start working for that change. Just saying…Report
Hmmm, I’m not sure the two are as clearly linked as that. Alan’s point, such as I took it, had less to do with conduct on the Internet and more to do with the structure/architecture of blogging. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive either.Report
Scott, I think that what Alan has in mind when he writes about ‘blogging’ is not what I have in mind. Isn’t what Greenwald does ‘blogging’ or Walt or Clemons and so many others? I would say ‘yes’. Some of their postings are rather thick indeed, in the good sense.
Secondly, it is not proven that in depth, long form discussion has more impact than short tit-for-tat exchanges on blogs. Indeed, I would think that change is more likely to come about through a combination of both long form discussion & short exchanges AROUND those long form postings.
You ask more specifically: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change? As far as “critical mass” is concerned, I would think that Daily Kos has shown that critical mass can been attained when there is an issue that grabs the public’s attention, to wit Obama vs Clinton during the primaries. As for change itself, according to Press Think‘s Jay Rosen, there has been some already.
Finally regarding tone, I would refer to Sullivan’s posting today on ants where the question asked is this: Is it possible […] that the invention of the Internet is leading to a similar social evolution of our own species? , which together with Freddie’s posting above got me thinking not about a social evolution similar as that of the ants, in terms of boundaries and so forth although that is quite valid, but also in terms of human interaction. We do, as Freddie explains above, get to experience new feelings about ourselves. Is that such a bad thing?Report
Jesus Freddie, if you on the internet is a pale shadow of you IRL then you must be fucking jaw-dropping.Report