Netiquette as Social Dysfunction

Have you ever read a blog where the author repeatedly insults those who disagree with him? Have you ever read a forum in which a poster only references counter arguments, instead using rhetoric and self-aggrandizing assertions? Have you ever read through a site’s comments and found bullies that don’t actually talk to anyone, rather they stand like street preachers screaming their ideology across a crowded street? I’m almost certain you have. Why so sure? Because these problems happen everywhere across the internet. Bile and venom have become the new standards of netiquette.

This new social dysfunction is part and parcel of my disillusionment with debate. Instead of humans interacting with respect and courtesy it’s a bloodbath of back-biting ideologues. Even decent people with whom you share a respectful conversation with over the phone or around the water cooler become socially retarded once their fingers hit the keys. At times there appears no intentional malice. Someone unloads a spiteful bitter rant and when someone takes exception the author stands befuddled. A man yelling a screed against an idea or organization will be ashen faced to see a similar work aimed at his own thoughts.

If you want to see the worst excesses of social idiocy I invite you to examine religion and politics. Let’s take a stroll to any of the top five conservative websites. Libtard, traitor, stalinist. Instead of treating internet discussion like an actual social encounter we have people using this as an excuse to make themselves appear superior and all knowing. Let’s jaunt on down to any of the top five liberal blogs. Nazi, oppressor, greedy. Instead of reasoned disagreement we have primal rage. Rarely can you find a website that truthfully presents the opposition’s viewpoint, endeavors to understand the reasoning, and then disagrees without devolving into poo slinging. It has reached such endemic levels that sites which cater this kind of content have traffic that dwarfs those with tolerant cum-academic presentation. Such a culture of loathing has grown so extensively that a new language of group epithets has sprung up.

Politics and Religion. The two things you’re never supposed to talk about. It seems most Americans are exposed to political dog fights on an almost daily basis through a.m. radio and 24 hour political news. So when some naïve soul goes looking for deeper truths in the series of tubes instead of dense academic treatises, what do they find? Christians are accused by atheists of being cultish and irrational. While atheists are accused of being dogmatic and angry. Their both right, and their both wrong. Again and again I see the xenophobic reactionary Christian with logical fallacies and appeals to emotion. However I also see again and again atheists who don’t construct arguments anymore, they label their opponent with schoolyard names and declare themselves the victor. I see Christians who are willing to believe anything that supports their faith and see atheists who are latching onto ideas without discussion. Atheist sites cry out about bigotry, and they have a point, but then go on to rant about how all Christians are necessarily insane or stupid. There are dogmatic non-believers and angry bitter atheists just as there are bigoted irrational Christians . You can find the bad eggs I’m talking about in the atheosphere and a short trip down to a preaching ministry will show you the bad eggs in the christian blogosphere. I will say that I am not accusing either community as a whole of misconduct, but pointing out a social phenomena that neither group is immune to.

Is this intellectual laziness? Is our thought process so helplessly self-reinforcing that no matter our airs we are sucked back in to slogans and soundbites as truth and arguments just as attempts to justify our preconceive notions? Or is it something else? Is it that the internet is so new and alien that our brains can’t quite make the connection that we’re speaking to real people instead of straw-men of our own subconscious? Maybe it’s worse still. Maybe this is who we really are untempered by custom and the awkward self-restraint that comes with the face to face. Maybe this is our impersonal selves, with such fragile ego that we must lash out at anyone with a different concept of truth than our own, lest we be shown incorrect and have our intelligence questioned. Perhaps it is learned behavior. We see those preening self-righteous kings-of-the-hill in forums and comments to be the ones that shout down the competition, who out stubborn, who think of the better insults. People often leave sites they feel this animosity from, concentrating opinion into cliques of like minds. When someone leaves it’s a victory of your ideology, when you’re the majority you feel the thrill of others believing you to be right, and with each new self-reinforcing voice a clique becomes more like a cult. Cults of ideology where orthodoxy is rewarded with the praise of the mass and heterodoxy is punished with excommunication or segregation.

Of course, this is not a universal problem. In jovial matters like games and television we often find communities built on laughing and respectful communication. In local groups and mutual-aide societies we find a tone of inclusion and amenability. Those who become disenchanted with this cage match style of socialization or those who have more formal training in academic discussion often seek out communities based on respect of differing opinion. To me an example of model behavior is to be seen in the best skeptics going about their work. When presented with a claim that seems irrational and even foolish at first they do not call the person stupid or dismiss them. No, they state their opinion with consideration but then test the phenomena. They explain to them their reasons for disbelief and disagreement without invoking epithets or a venomous tone. It is that style of honorable discourse that I’m trying to promote, not only to avoid the closed off citadels of opinion but to foster better communication and a more hospitable online environment for those of us who disagree or have disagreeable ideas.

Respectful tone in blogging is also not a lost art, but I fear it is a minority one. I’m no saint in this either. I have lost my composure and tact before and regretted it every time. I’ve deleted several entries from the early days of this blog because they were partisan attacks and didn’t reflect the image I wanted to project. I try to be watchful of my tone so as to avoid, as much as I can, the appearance of self-righteousness or acidic disdain. This post alone could be said to contain both those things, but at least I am trying. That is the most I can offer and the most I ask of anyone. My point here has been to remind all those who wander the blogosphere to think twice before you dismiss someone with some pithy barb and to check for a calm tolerant tone in your blogs instead of flinging mud and howling insults. Be mindful of these things and don’t congratulate or praise those who use unsavory devices to attract a crowd. Set an example that others seek to emulate.

And never forget, that’s a human being just like you on the other side of those ones and zeroes.