Please don't try to use my words as rebuttal to kennahijja's arguments. I speak only for myself, provocatively, and without her careful tact and diplomacy.
To accuse one or both sides of a wank of mob mentality is not to say they don't have valid and coherent arguments. In fact, the tragedy of mob mentality is that it often obscures valid arguments beneath layers of vindictiveness, cruelty and sheer hate so that it becomes impossible to reach the truths at its heart. The genuine posters who might otherwise be persuasive get buried beneath the ugliness.
There is a point, I think, in which public opinion becomes mob mentality. Some indications that the point has been passed include:
* Posts that attack the poster rather than the argument * Involvement of f_w * Posts which deliberately mis-understand the opposing argument, reading slurs into innocent words in order to find grounds for offence * Name-calling * A sense that the posters are beginning to enjoy the feeling of mass outrage and offence * A degree of violent anger well out of proportion to the original offence * And the classic indicator: posts which exhibit the above symptoms where the poster hasn't actually read much of the evidence beyond one or two inflammatory secondary posts.
It's the hate without reason that sickens. The original arguments may well be persuasive and intelligent. It's the posts that come after that my comments had in mind. The posters who feel safe making nasty, ill-informed, personal comments not only to the original offender but to anyone who defends them because they know they can't be blamed because other people had said it first. The ones who stayed silent until they had mob support. It's part of human nature that people lower themselves to appalling behaviour in a mob that they wouldn't countenance if they bore sole responsibility. I didn't think it was controversial to suggest that the same behaviour might apply online.
And I suppose I should reiterate that this isn't a specific observation on the current wank, but on past issues. I haven't read the current because of exactly these reasons.
I hope that clarifies my objection; I'll let kennahijja clarify hers.
no subject
To accuse one or both sides of a wank of mob mentality is not to say they don't have valid and coherent arguments. In fact, the tragedy of mob mentality is that it often obscures valid arguments beneath layers of vindictiveness, cruelty and sheer hate so that it becomes impossible to reach the truths at its heart. The genuine posters who might otherwise be persuasive get buried beneath the ugliness.
There is a point, I think, in which public opinion becomes mob mentality. Some indications that the point has been passed include:
* Posts that attack the poster rather than the argument
* Involvement of f_w
* Posts which deliberately mis-understand the opposing argument, reading slurs into innocent words in order to find grounds for offence
* Name-calling
* A sense that the posters are beginning to enjoy the feeling of mass outrage and offence
* A degree of violent anger well out of proportion to the original offence
* And the classic indicator: posts which exhibit the above symptoms where the poster hasn't actually read much of the evidence beyond one or two inflammatory secondary posts.
It's the hate without reason that sickens. The original arguments may well be persuasive and intelligent. It's the posts that come after that my comments had in mind. The posters who feel safe making nasty, ill-informed, personal comments not only to the original offender but to anyone who defends them because they know they can't be blamed because other people had said it first. The ones who stayed silent until they had mob support. It's part of human nature that people lower themselves to appalling behaviour in a mob that they wouldn't countenance if they bore sole responsibility. I didn't think it was controversial to suggest that the same behaviour might apply online.
And I suppose I should reiterate that this isn't a specific observation on the current wank, but on past issues. I haven't read the current because of exactly these reasons.
I hope that clarifies my objection; I'll let