THE AWARD GOES TO...AND THE ENVELOPE~PLEASE!
By satirizing the babblings of the purely fictitious Professor Erik, who in real life is an embittered former local government employee who has dedicated her sunset years to singing the praises of a self-styled “citizens advocate” for whom she pines -- who in turn should be openly blogging for herself rather than endorsing trognonymity -- am I merely pointing out the obvious?
Yes, I am.
In the past, some NA Confidential readers have expressed concern that by doing so, I may be stooping to the level of the dysfunctional denizens of the Luddite Bar & Grill, as expressed in varying shades of acrid bile at the FOS blog. Is this assessment accurate?
Yes, probably so, but …
To my contrarian mind, I’m not empowering bad manners so much as engaging in open dialogue in full public view, even if the person or persons espousing the opposing point of view insist on hiding from the sort of scrutiny that accompanies full disclosure. Most readers know by now that I regard Internet anonymity is cowardly, though others -- perhaps even a majority -- do not.
You may agree or disagree that such a state of affairs compromises the efficacy of the Internet as a communications tool, but either way, a piece in today’s Courier-Journal by columnist/ombudswoman Pam Platt should be of interest to all. I’m providing an edited excerpt below, but by all means, peruse at your leisure the whole article at the C-J’s site. Platt's topic, “The rude, crude brood you can find on the Internet, and what, if anything, to do about it and them,” applies to more than just Internet incivility.
Pam Platt: Discussing civility and the Internet with an expert.
… (A) third conversation took place on the Internet, and it featured P.M. Forni, author of Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct and professor at Johns Hopkins University. I had invited him to take questions from Courier-Journal readers, and me, about this issue, and he graciously agreed. Last Thursday morning, he went
… I think what he had to say is very important and deserves to have the widest possible airing, because it deals with everything from parenting and teaching, to personal responsibility, to human nature, to democracy.
And in the past several days, like you I've read about a local case of road rage, which included a shoot-out in a grocery store parking lot (who needs a gun for a lettuce run?), and I watched video of an Alabama legislator smacking a fellow solon in the face on the floor of the state senate, and I think everyone ought to be talking about this ...
… Professor Forni on how the anonymity offered by Internet communication fosters a "disinhibition effect":
" . . . Anonymity and stress have long been identified as main causes of uncivil behavior. It is part of our human make-up that we need incentives to be good. We need incentives to be decent, to be considerate, to be kind. Anonymity takes away some of our incentives to behave as decent people.
"Also, since its very beginning, the Internet has projected an image of informality. It has billed itself as a place where maximum democracy could be achieved. Everybody could communicate with plenty of freedom and in very informal ways.
"Now, there is often a thin line between informality and incivility and the communication on the 'net often crosses that line. It seems that as a society we use very often the 'net as a dumping ground of what's least attractive in who we are. However, when we do that, we don't really free ourselves of those unpleasant thoughts, unpleasant traits, social toxins, because that mode of communication ends up bouncing from the
No comments:
Post a Comment