With the election cycle starting up again, I have seen more than my fair share of political news stories. However a new piece to the puzzle is readers' ability to comment on the story. This may seem like a well-intentioned step by the presenter of the news to involve the readership, but I have to question its effect on our society's communication.
It has become common for people to expect bad comments these days. Affirmation of one candidate from commenter "a" is received with a "YOU'RE GAY!!" response from commenter "b" and "You are so f*&^@%# retarded you must have been dropped as a baby." from commenter "c." Commenter "a" gets angry with the two other commenters and unleashes his own foul response. The "discussion" is then led down a road of expletives and personal attacks that neither furthers the individuals' cause nor the conversation.
I am here to say I am sick and tired of this. People think they can say whatever they want because the Internet hides their identity - and that is true - but does that make an action right?
I am reminded of an anecdote from Plato called the Ring of Gyges. In the myth a farmer finds a ring that makes him invisible. He uses this newfound power to sleep with the queen, kill the king, and take the power of the throne. It was originally used as an example to show how men will not retain their morality if they can get away with immoral acts. That is exactly the case we have with anonymity on the Internet.
This begs a few questions. First is the matter of proving the wrongness of acting in such a manner online.
It used to be the case, so I am told, that such behavior was taken for granted to be wrong. That is not the case any more. So let me make two appeals.
First it should be considered wrong on the "Golden Rule" basis. The Golden Rule of course is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I ask: do you like it when people name-call you, swear at you, insult you, degrade your humanity? If the answer is no - and it should be - then you should also not act in a manner that does the above things.
My second appeal is to the affect such actions have. Are you convinced of a position because the person talks in a poor manner, curses and argues using logical fallacies? No. So why do you do the same thing? An attack on the person is not an attack on his ideology. The argument makes no sense and you're only angering people you are trying to convince.
The second question these actions raise is should there be accountability on the Internet?
I hold freedom to be paramount in a free society. A part of that freedom is to remain anonymous wherever and whenever you desire or are able to do such. So I do not advocate for the government to reveal the people who comment on the Internet. That not only lacks feasibility but it violates people's freedom. I am however an advocate of personal accountability. Here's a good test. Copy all your comments you make online and paste them all to a document. Then send the document to your grandmother or mother. Are you hesitant? Then maybe you should not post such things on the Internet.
The last question this raises - and the main crux of my post - is how this ability to comment unidentified is affecting our political discussion as a society.
I am a firm believer that social discourse helps shape ideas, form community, and help discover truths. I love sitting down with people - whatever the intelligence - and talk about politics. What I do not tolerate is personal attacks or slurs towards the discussion. I approach everyone with respect that they have formed their opinions rationally and that their point should be taken seriously, and I hope they do the same to me. That way we can both approach whatever subject we are discussing reasonably, open to dispute and with honest consideration to the opposing view.
I like to do this because it lets me see what people think, why they think that, and how they came to the conclusions they did. It helps me to empathize with the problems people face and solutions that need to be found. It also helps to challenge my ideas. I don't want my ideas to be a house of cards. I invite people to oppose me so that if I am proven to be wrong, I can correct my mistakes.
In a political discourse where reasonable challenges to ideology are met with immediate anger and hatred, there can be none of this. As I have said above, this reaction does not further the cause, but what it does do is protect the individual from challenges. This shows that the individual is not sure of his beliefs and has no grounding for his views.
This is my hope and my challenge: When you are commenting on forums or news stories keep this in mind. That you are representing your idea. Fallacious attacks only hurt you and your credibility, which means they hurt your belief's credibility. So treat others with respect and you might be surprised that they treat you with respect as well. Give an honest and open ear to other arguments and debate the points in love. After all, if your position is right, shouldn't you want people to adopt it?
No comments:
Post a Comment