Lark
Rothchildian Agent
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 9
I've read people criticising online discussion for its intellectual poverty before, which I've thought is a little anti-democratic sometimes, although I dont think lousy arguments or failure to display learning and understanding of topics, points and counter points is as bad as the sorts of emotional poverty in discussion I've witnessed instead.
Before I go any further its important that I state that I'm not talking about this forum, although on other psychology or personality forums, which have open forums or topical forums too which discuss politics, culture, philosophy and religion, all the contentious or potentially contentious topics, I've witnessed more than one "I dont visit when there is conflict" or "I dont like conflict" threads.
I think that's pretty serious, there's a climate on these forums which does not tolerate disagreement, difference, diversity of opinion, unpopular opinion and loathes anything which threatens to diverge from the perceived consensus, which is itself usually and broadly speaking not very well thought out, not very clear, reflects by and large the received wisdom or cliches and catchphrases of the big political or cultural tribes. This could be just a matter of the kinds of scenes which exist offline being reinvented or reinforced online but I tend to think that if that sort of climate is fostered online, considered something positive, then I am absolutely certain that it will migrate across to the real world.
In the context of the internet I've seen threats to consensus, quickly branded as this or that sort of bigotry, not simply subject to trolling, yah-boo groupthink and all those sorts of things but bannings, where the posters arent breeching any forum rules either the rules are amended under pressure or really serious attempts are made to provoke a breech of rules to allow for a banning. Having visited and observed this pattern panning out in more than one forum, which I'd thought to begin with I broadly agreed with the politics of those present, ie feminist, liberal (at least fiscally so), perceived as being open minded and inviting, its pretty chilling to see people who given the sorts of language they can summon up and evidence of reading complex texts you could believe are no intellectual light weights believing that they are acting in good conscience and securing their corner of the web from wickedness and bigotry. Its chilling because there's no recourse to reason or the strength of argument, there's even sometimes outright acknowledgement that they can not make an argument, dont like an argument being made or any challenge to their opinion, which they believe is correct anyhow, at and feel its, broadly speaking, anti-social behaviour. Instead there's a recourse to groupthink, appeals to the gallery and finally power via the mediums of forum standards and rules.
That bothers me because it is perfectly reflected in the real world, where groups hold views and opinions which do not arise from their experience, and are not falsifiable by their experience, which are often vague and negatively defined, ie in opposition to ill understood "others" or "institutions" (which are the villains of the piece in contrast to another valourised constitutency, usually a minority, perhaps historically an underdog) and, most importantly, which naked power politics can be used against. I did not always but I have begun to believe that academia has a role in the cultivation of this sort of thing. In the media there are camps which encourage this too, pushing emotional buttons, ramping conflict and enmity to boost ratings with little or no consideration of the consequences of being such "trigger men".
Do you agree with this analysis or have you encountered anything similar or do you think it is flawed and unreflected in your experience online?
Before I go any further its important that I state that I'm not talking about this forum, although on other psychology or personality forums, which have open forums or topical forums too which discuss politics, culture, philosophy and religion, all the contentious or potentially contentious topics, I've witnessed more than one "I dont visit when there is conflict" or "I dont like conflict" threads.
I think that's pretty serious, there's a climate on these forums which does not tolerate disagreement, difference, diversity of opinion, unpopular opinion and loathes anything which threatens to diverge from the perceived consensus, which is itself usually and broadly speaking not very well thought out, not very clear, reflects by and large the received wisdom or cliches and catchphrases of the big political or cultural tribes. This could be just a matter of the kinds of scenes which exist offline being reinvented or reinforced online but I tend to think that if that sort of climate is fostered online, considered something positive, then I am absolutely certain that it will migrate across to the real world.
In the context of the internet I've seen threats to consensus, quickly branded as this or that sort of bigotry, not simply subject to trolling, yah-boo groupthink and all those sorts of things but bannings, where the posters arent breeching any forum rules either the rules are amended under pressure or really serious attempts are made to provoke a breech of rules to allow for a banning. Having visited and observed this pattern panning out in more than one forum, which I'd thought to begin with I broadly agreed with the politics of those present, ie feminist, liberal (at least fiscally so), perceived as being open minded and inviting, its pretty chilling to see people who given the sorts of language they can summon up and evidence of reading complex texts you could believe are no intellectual light weights believing that they are acting in good conscience and securing their corner of the web from wickedness and bigotry. Its chilling because there's no recourse to reason or the strength of argument, there's even sometimes outright acknowledgement that they can not make an argument, dont like an argument being made or any challenge to their opinion, which they believe is correct anyhow, at and feel its, broadly speaking, anti-social behaviour. Instead there's a recourse to groupthink, appeals to the gallery and finally power via the mediums of forum standards and rules.
That bothers me because it is perfectly reflected in the real world, where groups hold views and opinions which do not arise from their experience, and are not falsifiable by their experience, which are often vague and negatively defined, ie in opposition to ill understood "others" or "institutions" (which are the villains of the piece in contrast to another valourised constitutency, usually a minority, perhaps historically an underdog) and, most importantly, which naked power politics can be used against. I did not always but I have begun to believe that academia has a role in the cultivation of this sort of thing. In the media there are camps which encourage this too, pushing emotional buttons, ramping conflict and enmity to boost ratings with little or no consideration of the consequences of being such "trigger men".
Do you agree with this analysis or have you encountered anything similar or do you think it is flawed and unreflected in your experience online?
