Is the Internet turning us into rude, obnoxious jerks?
Not anymore than TV!
#1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:41 AM EDTAnonymity hurts public discourse. You have no accountability for what you say. It is true our anonymity here on newsvine and other blogs allows us to speak more truthfully concerning what we feel, but it also allows us to completely trash our competition without any social ramification. Newsvine tries to put accountability to what we say, but there's usually one moderator who gets to the offensive (or simply spamming) posts 5 hours late long after the poster has logged off, eaten dinner, created a new account, and posted another slander or threat against someone.
It just gives the rude, obnoxious a stage. At least now we know who you are.
#2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:41 AM EDTI concur, when the comments can be tied to real names and faces. The civility will return for most people.......... The Idiots and Jerks hide behind their monikers and their perceived inability to be identified personally.....
I agree with both of you, the lack of civility has always been there, but the internet is making it worse. Part of being civil that no one likes to discuss is that people are civil somewhat out of fear of whatever: Fear of being beaten up, fear being thought of negatively, etc. The internet eliminates that fear, so those that truly are spineless will now spout off about whatever whenever. Its a poor example and idea, but maybe we should all take a lesson from Jay and Silent Bob. If people knew that they could be found and beaten up, maybe they'd think twice about posting rude and quite frankly, vulgar and bigotted comments.
It's a lot of things, but it's fueled by politics. We have allowed religion and politics to mingle, injecting judgmental ignorance into our public discourse and sanctioning an "end justifies the means" approach that makes it OK to lie and insult others, as long as it scores political points. As the founders envisioned it would, the intermingling of religion and politics is corrupting both, and we are all poorer for it.
#3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:45 AM EDTThat's one of the best arguments for the separation of church in state and state in a long time. Bravo.
Rudeness began in the 80s with the "me" era. If any media has contributed to our rudeness, it is television, but the reality is that rude people raise rude children, because politeness has to be valued to be taught. The internet reflects our rudeness; it didn't cause it.
#4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:45 AM EDTann,
I can't buy the idea that rudeness "began" in the '80s. The origin would more likely be the early 80,000s BCE---around the time when various behaviors were divided into "rude" and "polite."
The recent technological explosion of instant communication, tied with the anonymity of screen-names, only encouraged tendencies toward rudeness that already exist in the insecure, the stupid (those who can learn but refuse to), and the insecure stupid.
For instance, in the 1700s when (according to surviving literature and modern takes on it) everybody seemed to bow/curtsy to everybody else, rudeness appears to have been an extremely rare aberration.
Go into the literature of the 1700s a little more deeply, however, and you'll see that the proliferation of printed material brought out quite vivid, if rare, rudeness among those who could write (thus, generally didn't need rudeness). Those who could not write, however, continued to be as rude as ever, because almost nobody who was anybody in the 1700s paid the slightest attention to those people.
Flash forward 300 years or so, and those who would have been largely ignored in the 1700s are now finding national exposure through the Net, through reality TV, through call-in radio talk shows, among other outlets.
Nobody's any more rude or less rude than they would have been in parallel circumstances in the 1700s; their rudeness is merely more easily publicized and available to the rest of us.
Or, do I have that all wrong?
---nansky
Demagogues stoking the fires... Most of the filth flung is parroted.
#5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:49 AM EDTIt began before the 80's I think. I am a baby boomer and kids can be very rude and obnoxious and very bullish even in my era. Children learn at lot from their parents but now days with the Internet and entertainment industry so predominate in the lives of children and adults and the ability to stay anonymous as well - the me attitude and obnoxious behavior is only exemplified.
#7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:52 AM EDT
Is the Internet turning us into rude, obnoxious jerks?
No! It merely gives a forum to rude and obnoxious jerks!
#9 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:04 AM EDTCass Sunstein's a leading advocate of the idea of "cyberbalkanization" —the notion that the Internet promotes rudeness and intolerance, and may one day do in democracy. He suggests the presence of an exploding number of interest-based online communities, personalized search, personalized news, Amazon-style book recommendations, and such, which seem to offer something for everyone, will ultimately encourage Internet users to wall themselves into ever-smaller interest-based groups with no tolerance for other points of view.
You've probably heard of this idea. It's the notion that the more personalized our information universe gets, the less likely we are to encounter points of view unlike our own, the more comfortable we'll get that we're right in everything we think, and the more fragmented and polarized our society will become. It's sort of the antidote to early Utopian visions of the Internet that painted it as the future home of perfect democracy—a place where class divisions, gender and racial stereotyping, and all other forms of prejudice would magically disappear. The real Net isn't so simple, of course, but neither does it seem to mesh so well with Sunstein's version of events. He laments the decline in influence of the mass media, saying that un-personalized sources of information are ultimately what holds us together as a democratic society, exposing Democrats to Republican arguments, cat-lovers to televised dog shows, and football fans to baseball championships. But while Sunstein sees "general interest intermediaries"—the mass media—as superior to personalized media in their contribution to democracy, he assiduously avoids discussing the means by which information is produced and conveyed by the mass media. Which is another way of saying, his argument's got a short memory.
After all, less than a century ago, in the wake of World War I and its creepily-effective propaganda machines, social critics were screaming about how bad the mass media were for democracy—that they gave great reach to a few commercially influenced voices, sharply limiting the diversity of viewpoints people got to see and ultimately curbed the sort of free expression and outside-the-box thinking on which healthy democracy depends. If Sunstein's arguments about the problems with blogs and personalized news sound familiar, it may be because many of the same debates occurred about radio 80 years ago. I'm oversimplifying things here, of course—there are distinct differences between today's variegated information universe and the age of three broadcast networks. But I'd love a discussion on the topic. I'll leave with some wise words from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey: In times like these, it's helpful to remember that there have always been times like these.
I'll thumbnail an argument I've made before. Famed legal scholar Cass Sunstein's a leading advocate of the idea of "cyberbalkanization" —the notion that the Internet promotes closed-mindedness or rudeness and may one day do in democracy. He suggests the presence of an exploding number of interest-based online communities, personalized search, personalized news, Amazon-style book recommendations, and such, which seem to offer something for everyone, will ultimately encourage Internet users to wall themselves into ever-smaller interest-based groups with no tolerance for other points of view.
You've probably heard of this idea. It's the notion that the more personalized our information universe gets, the less likely we are to encounter points of view unlike our own, the more comfortable we'll get that we're right in everything we think, and the more fragmented and polarized our society will become. It's sort of the antidote to early Utopian visions of the Internet that painted it as the future home of perfect democracy—a place where class divisions, gender and racial stereotyping, and all other forms of prejudice would magically disappear. The real 'Net isn't so simple, of course, but neither does it seem to mesh so well with Sunstein's version of events. He laments the decline in influence of the mass media, saying that un-personalized sources of information are ultimately what holds us together as a democratic society, exposing Democrats to Republican arguments, cat-lovers to televised dog shows, and football fans to baseball championships.
But while Sunstein sees "general interest intermediaries"—the mass media—as superior to personalized media in their contribution to democracy, he assiduously avoids discussing the means by which information is produced and conveyed by the mass media. Which is another way of saying that his argument's got a short memory.
After all, less than a century ago, in the wake of World War I and its creepily-effective propaganda machines, social critics were screaming about how bad the mass media were for democracy—that they gave great reach to a few commercially influenced voices, sharply limiting the diversity of viewpoints people got to see and ultimately curbed the sort of free expression and outside-the-box thinking on which healthy democracy depends. If Sunstein's arguments about the problems with blogs and personalized news sound familiar, it may be because many of the same debates occurred about radio 80 years ago.
I'm oversimplifying things here, of course—there are distinct differences between today's variegated information universe and the age of three lone broadcast networks. But I'd love a discussion on the topic. I'll leave with some wise words from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey:
In times like these, it's helpful to remember that there have always been times like these.
#10 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:06 AM EDTWhoops, I hit the paste key twice and it's too late to edit. The above post should begin after the third paragraph down. Pardon me!
People who enjoy some mental stimulation and civil discourse should have some place on the "public" Internet, Blog site, where they can discuss issues without the 'FITS' and tirades spewed on commenter's by a handful of people who in the real world would be arrested or at least cited for the kind of behaviour displayed on the newsvine. The public would never condone such filth and bad behaviour. You'd get a 72 hr. hold placed on you so fast it would make their head swim....WHY do we have to tolerate that kind of behaviour on the blog/Internet/vine?
oh thank you for such a well written blog, and most of all for a blogger who is thinking and with whom i would be delighted to have a discussion. and to think that this is one of the first thought pieces i have read (sorry to say i have been too busy to do more than react to articles on the vine) and glad to be able to say that now that i have turned 68 without anyone shooting me (a slight laugh line here), this is an added treat today!
So if i were drinking as instead of typing, i would be saying here is to you Josh. Bette Folkenflik
You folks are too kind. I'm writing my dissertation, in part, on different moderation strategies in online communities and current affairs sites. I'll let you know if I find the magic bullet for championing prosocial behavior. ;o)
I think the whole rudeness thing started with Bart Simpson - that whole generation of kids thought it was cool - and proper - to be rude. We've fired a number of young, just out of school, staff members because they just didn't get the concept of civility.
#12 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:09 AM EDTStupid... really now we are going to blame a cartoon character.....
It did not start with Bart. Remember Veruca Salt, the spoiled brat in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?" What about Brando's character in "A Streetcar Named Desire?" Boorishness has a lengthy history. To suggest that human rudeness and inconsideration did not exist before the 1980s is ludicrous. I think what has happened, though, is a combination of values declining (typefied, though not monopolized, by religion placing its emphasis on money, social control and political power rather than humility and respectfulness), corporate media emphasizing what sells versus what is best for society (Bart Simpson being a fine example), and, now, the Internet's ability to amplify small-scale individual behavior to a vast audience (like, say, this forum). What Bart and his ilk have done, though, is to help create an atmosphere in which boorish behavior is viewed as the norm, and politeness the strange aberration. Now, of course, we have quasi-political figures (i.e. TV and talk-radio rabble-rousers) behaving even more reprehensibly, cheered on by legions of crude, uneducated bigots taught that everyone whose beliefs differ from theirs is undeserving of basic respect (including all non-Christians, non-whites and non-Americans). And so it spirals out of control. Bart didn't start it; he was just introduced near the point where the J-curve of rudeness began its leap skyward.
I don't think he's too far off. Loony Toons was the first thing I remember that turned "offensive" into "funny". Married with Children, Southpark, the Simpsons, and a slew of others built off of it. I hate to say it, but for me, the more offensive the joke is, the harder I laugh, even if it offends me!
Tom and Jerry came out in the '40s, and spent decades capitalizing on the idea that pain and cruelty are funny.
Very true! It always amazes me at how ethnically offensive loony toons were! Speedy Gonzales, Peppy Le Pew.....I watched the one recently with the Elephant that sat on the ostrich egg "I meant what I said and I said what I meant..." And the fish that comes out of the water and says "Now I've seen everything", and blows his head off!!! Yep, they edited that part out for todays children.
No, it started before the internet with tv and parents the largest influence.
The first internet generation would be about the age of my kids...24 and 26. Who are probaby now the largest age group of users. When I was raising my kids...going through highschool some of their friends had the worst potty mouths and attitudes. Rude to parents, teachers, any adult, they just didn't seem to care. Obviously, they where not getting any guidance or discipline at home. They learned bad behaviour early in life from tv and their friends and carried it forward to the internet.
#13 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:33 AM EDTSadly, I suspect that the decline in parenting began around the time I was born, in the late '60s. Parents were reluctant to crush their children's spirits, but in the process, they lost the most important tenet of parenting: children need, and crave, limits, and they will keep pushing until they find some. Parents reacted to the soul-crushing press for conformity that prevailed in the 1950s, but in doing so, they way overcorrected, and lost the ability or willingness to discipline. Parents' motives were admirable, but their methods were disastrous. I am just lucky that mine demanded good manners of my siblings and me, and I have, thus far, been able to impart the same to my children. Wish me luck in continuing to do so!
Its definitely not the internet that make youngsters rude, its TV, especially MTV. Kids see these young uneducated gangsters and have an urge to be just like them. Thats the issue... punks! Punks need to learn how to respect people...
#14 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:37 AM EDTYeah, unlike those clean, respectable children in West Side Story. Wait - didn't that come out before MTV?
Anger and fear drive much of the poor quality commentary. The rudeness is, I believe largely anger and frustration but the venting has to do with not havng to own your words. Notice I used my name scroll through the list and see how many didn't.
Its a lot like people who write on restroom walls, no signature means no responsiblity.
#15 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:39 AM EDTWhen I was raising my kids (single mom) , I would never have allowed some of this junk to come out of their mouths. Of course, I raised them in a different time......but learning what consequenses were about meant something. My son was 11 yrs old and he decided to show off for his buddies and said the f-bomb to me. This is not a word he learned at home! Without a second thought, I backhanded him across the face. This was the only time I ever hit him and I felt awful about it later. His teacher called me the next day to ask about the red mark on his face and I told her the whole story. She said "OK...no problem." That's the way things were in the 70's. To this day, neither of my kids would ever think of using that word in my presence. If that happened today, I would be arrested for child abuse. I took my kids to Mass every Sunday with me and did many other things with them. All while supporting them by myself...no welfare or foodstamps. They learned about work ethics and they both show that to this day. I'm not accepting full responsibilty for all that they do. But they learned to accept consequenses for their own behavior....good or bad.
#16 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:48 AM EDTYep! Kids don't deserve rights in my opinion. Unless they are truly being abused. Mom slapped me in the face and pulled my hair. As did my Nun teachers up til about 6th grade. Dad paddled me with a cutting board that was broken in half lengthwise. Got paddled in school too. I don't know why there is such a fuss over it. I am in no way, shape or form traumatized by any of it today and I've been successful as an adult. We need to add the ACLU into the Axis of Evil and bomb them into submission!
I am not an advocate of hitting children. I am living, breathing proof that the "Wait-Until They-Displease-You-Then-Whack-Them" approach to child-rearing is totally invalid.
As I was growing up, I was spanked hard and often---for having a messy room; for ruining my clothes; for not doing my homework; etc. The whacks I remember most are the ones I got for being within reach when my mother was in a bad mood.
Being hit (spanked, smacked, popped, walloped, swatted---choose your euphemism) again and again for the same offenses OBVIOUSLY doesn't work. If it did, I would have been hit only once for each offense.
I never did learn, until I was well away from home, to be careful of my clothes, to keep a tidy environment, or to do the work expected of me. What I did learn was how to lie, to get my siblings in trouble in order to save myself, to take refuge in substances to forget how unworthy a person I was, to pretend I was something other than I was. I wasn't clean/sober until I was 33.
I had my son when I was 38, and, before I had him I did a lot of thinking and planning about rearing him.
The result was that, rather than waiting for him to go wrong and then hitting him, I addressed issues before they came up ("When we go to church, people want to talk with God, and to listen for God's answers, so if you want to ask me something, whisper, okay?"). I taught him that he uses different language for different people: he doesn't talk to me the way he talks with his peers, for instance.
If he got in my way or reached for something dangerous, I'd figure out what he was trying to accomplish, and then show him a legal (safe, non-destructive) way to do it.
I required him not to be rude or mean to his peers. It made schooldays tricky for him, but it also provided him with a grace and strength I can only stand in awe of.
Rather than forbid him to watch TV, I insisted on watching with him, whatever he wanted to watch---and discuss what we saw as it happened. It was fun, and very instructive for both of us. Did you know that some of the best writing on TV is on Nickelodeon?
He's a pretty nifty young man, now---Eagle Scout, just graduated from college, working for the county Clerk of Court---with an uncanny diplomatic ability. He can keep his dad, me, his stepmother, and his grandmother and aunt (extremely strong-minded people with distinct dislkes) all civil and agreeable with each other. His social abilities and his own personality are astonishing to me---he is even good friends with all the young women he has dated.
As a un-hit child, he is a far, far better and more worthy person than I could ever hope to be.
So, please don't expect me to endorse all these hymns to the virtues of swatting kids. The only virtues that hitting children has, in my experience, is to relieve the parent's own feelings.
That's not good parenting. It's nothing but self-indulgence.
IMHO, everyone has an "ugly" side. This ugliness comes out, most of the time, when there are disagreements( though some actually have confused this to be the norm and behave this way all the time). In a multicultural society, there may be differing ethnic standards of appropriateness. Thus, this problem is complex because standards are unclear and we don't want to start to overregulate this by making these into laws. I haven't seen a successful libel suit made by an ordinary citizen ever. Maybe the Carol Burnetts of this world can protect their good name but a jury , I think would not reward an ordinary joes hurt feelings. However, I'm encouraged that this kind of discussion is happening and it is happening on the INTERNET! Like a gun, the internet is a tool. It's people who kill or are uncivil!
#17 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:49 AM EDTI think people over the past 50 years have been taught to keep their feelings inside and go along with things to get along. You see where that has gotten us, Childrens Rights trump those of their parents, we have let the left wing idiots take over the country inch by inch and have been told to keep quiet if we don't agree. Those days are over with a vengence now! hehehe.
#18 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:00 AM EDTAmericans enjoy being obnoxious jerks.
Being rude to people is our national trademark. It gives people without any real power something to do. It's like Henry Miller's novels where all the people who had no real power measured everything by how well they were able to fornicate.
In the meantime, those who have real power are sitting back and laughing while counting their money. That's the way of the world kiddies. Sorry.
#19 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:10 AM EDTI agree with Americans being obnoxious jerks....Ugly Americans, No Class!
LOL! Europeans aren't exactly civil 'B_Real'. I lived there for almost seven years and witnessed among other things a waiterspatting on a fellow Brits food for sending it back to the kitchen as well as a moving company hacking up a fellow Americans furniture because they blamed the US for the Lockerbie plane bombing. So I don't think America or Americans own the patent on rudeness. Be Real, Let_Us-B-Real!
Let_Us_Be_Real,
Both (international opera superstars) Beverly Sills and Luciano Pavorotti, in each of their autobiographies, declared that their favorite opera audiences are ... {{{{are you ready for this?}}}}
.............................................................Americans.
"American audiences are knowledgeable, courteous and truly appreciate our work"
and:
"I love the Americans! They listen, they appreciate, they know what they are hearing, and they are even polite if you do not sing well!"
Quit ragging on Americans, people.
American men are expected by American society to exercise self-control.
Italians think it's cute for men to slap, pinch, lick any woman within reach, especially foreign (non-Italian) women.
French men seem to think that foreign women just can't wait to be bedded by a Frenchman---and some of them don't bathe often enough to smell decent!
The Muslim Koran promises a Paradise filled with virgins who are simply panting to serve men. No word about how these virgins feel about it.
American men may, if ignorant enough, sneer at a devout Muslim woman wearing a scarf, but they are not societally expected to assault her.
A little honest patriotism might be a good thing, Let_Us_Be_Real.
How did you guys jump from"rude on the Internet" to slapping kids and Americans are the rudest? Society has always had some form of "slap stick" comedy. I do not find it funny many othes do. Even as a child I was smart enough [because of the values taught in my home] to not think Tom and Jerry bashing and hurting one another funny. People have to start 'owning' some of their own bad behaviours. I was a Social worker in Children's Services and you can strike a child with you open hand for punishment. Not the best way to redirect behaviour, but better than letting "little Fauntleroy" morph into some of the NO Boundary,no Limits jerks I see spewing expletives and bad manners to other people ,"just Because"!
Yes, we are ruder, but look at our inspiring examples. Michael Vick gets to go back to being a Role Model for our youth. Sen. Vitter goes back to the Senate, and he is just one of the many congressman who are bad examples. The clown who heckled the President was really showing of good civility. People have already made the point about the pundits. Should we even start with the boys on Wall Street and our captains of industry.
With all of our inspiring leadership, it's a wonder we're as well behaved as we are.
#20 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:10 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Blowhards like Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Beck are turning people into jerks. The Internet is where jerks gather to be themselves.