What Shall We Do To Noel Edmonds Today?
The internet is a terrible place to debate. If you want a serious argument with the intention of enjoying a gentlemanly contest of wits, you should burn your modem now and kick your computer in the tits.
If you debate something with a friend, that's all it is. A debate. But online it is war. There are no friends, only brothers in arms and enemies. The hate is tangible and speaks volumes. Be it veiled or naked, this is aggression in text form and depressing beyond belief. We treat anyone with the opposite opinion as a closed minded lowlife who can't argue properly.
So we say to hell with compromise, to hell with two or more people thrashing out a situation until some kind of new conclusion is reached...this is standing on a box in the street and trying to shout louder than the person opposite. This is not how arguments go in the pub.
Unfortunately, with the internet being populated with its own weird demographics, anywhere that on the surface appears to be a fertile ground for intelligent debate has the same depths of puerile point-scoring. One of the more frequent tribes in the area consists of 21 year old media professionals who think they have the angle on everything because they hate minor celebrities and say cunt a lot, because, y'know, Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker do. The humour here is heavy-handed and repetitive. One day it's a description of Noel Edmonds being graphically mutilated and killed, the next it's a description of Noel Edmonds being graphically killed and mutilated. Repeat until the sun explodes and the earth burns up.
Well...there's nothing wrong with this in essence. It's just another valid viewpoint after all, often conveniently muddied by reassuring references to satire and other Big Boy's Stuff. But the satire defence is not watertight. It takes frequent recourse to cheap, graceless writing that lacks imagination, whilst tossing out defences about the evils of censorship an' that onto the road behind them to fox their pursuers.
It is a pseudonymous minefield of image and one-upmanship. A tough, cynical facade put on by people who pride themselves on their intelligence and ability to debate properly. The twist is that the people involved are indeed intelligent, but they are as prone to twisted emotion and a hormonal fear of humility as anyone. And so the debates are as unsatisfying as a bunch of thirteen year olds arguing over music:
Slit_Wristz:
Music X rocks!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
No, it sucks!!
Slit_Wristz:
Rocks!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
Sucks!!
Slit_Wristz:
Your mom!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
Fuck you. Your mom too!!
Suicide_Boi:
You iz all fucked in the head, Wagner is a far more aesthetic composer.
Fred_Durst's_Teeth and Slit_Wristz:
He SUXXX!!!
The "intellectual" version uses bigger words and more convoluted sentences, but the form above can eventually be teased out. It begins with a couple of well constructed arguments from either side, and may even continue for a few posts with the participants responding to each argument with either counter-arguments or acknowledgments.
But soon enough the participants find a way to take it personally. From here we go downhill. Instead of "your argument is flawed because...", it becomes "YOU are flawed because..." They start to cram in as many snide remarks, pronouncements that they've won the argument because the other person misused a semi-colon, and long-winded attacks on the opponent's character based on one single sentence taken from the last post, utterly ignoring the actual argument put forward, as possible. Sarcasm is the weapon here, and tedium is the result.
Then it becomes an argument over the high ground. This part is won by the first person who claims they're above all this and they are not continuing to debate for one of the above stated reasons, before inexplicably adding a silly testosterone soaked and vaguely threatening comment along the lines of "I'm not looking to make friends here, if we met in real life you would be on the floor with a broken nose by now". Also, bonus points up for grabs to the first to accuse the other of being a nerd!
Crucially, no actual debating ever occurs, however intelligent the combatants decide they are. It is simply two academics throwing bits of screwed up paper at one another in the library until one flounces off in anger. Nobody ever gives any quarter to the opposition; they are simply there to be in the wrong and be told of their character flaws. They do not see them as friends or fellow intellects with whom to debate. They are The Enemy who needs to be Beaten. It is pathetic. And worst of all, it is boring.
If you debate something with a friend, that's all it is. A debate. But online it is war. There are no friends, only brothers in arms and enemies. The hate is tangible and speaks volumes. Be it veiled or naked, this is aggression in text form and depressing beyond belief. We treat anyone with the opposite opinion as a closed minded lowlife who can't argue properly.
So we say to hell with compromise, to hell with two or more people thrashing out a situation until some kind of new conclusion is reached...this is standing on a box in the street and trying to shout louder than the person opposite. This is not how arguments go in the pub.
Unfortunately, with the internet being populated with its own weird demographics, anywhere that on the surface appears to be a fertile ground for intelligent debate has the same depths of puerile point-scoring. One of the more frequent tribes in the area consists of 21 year old media professionals who think they have the angle on everything because they hate minor celebrities and say cunt a lot, because, y'know, Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker do. The humour here is heavy-handed and repetitive. One day it's a description of Noel Edmonds being graphically mutilated and killed, the next it's a description of Noel Edmonds being graphically killed and mutilated. Repeat until the sun explodes and the earth burns up.
Well...there's nothing wrong with this in essence. It's just another valid viewpoint after all, often conveniently muddied by reassuring references to satire and other Big Boy's Stuff. But the satire defence is not watertight. It takes frequent recourse to cheap, graceless writing that lacks imagination, whilst tossing out defences about the evils of censorship an' that onto the road behind them to fox their pursuers.
It is a pseudonymous minefield of image and one-upmanship. A tough, cynical facade put on by people who pride themselves on their intelligence and ability to debate properly. The twist is that the people involved are indeed intelligent, but they are as prone to twisted emotion and a hormonal fear of humility as anyone. And so the debates are as unsatisfying as a bunch of thirteen year olds arguing over music:
Slit_Wristz:
Music X rocks!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
No, it sucks!!
Slit_Wristz:
Rocks!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
Sucks!!
Slit_Wristz:
Your mom!!
Fred_Durst's_Teeth:
Fuck you. Your mom too!!
Suicide_Boi:
You iz all fucked in the head, Wagner is a far more aesthetic composer.
Fred_Durst's_Teeth and Slit_Wristz:
He SUXXX!!!
The "intellectual" version uses bigger words and more convoluted sentences, but the form above can eventually be teased out. It begins with a couple of well constructed arguments from either side, and may even continue for a few posts with the participants responding to each argument with either counter-arguments or acknowledgments.
But soon enough the participants find a way to take it personally. From here we go downhill. Instead of "your argument is flawed because...", it becomes "YOU are flawed because..." They start to cram in as many snide remarks, pronouncements that they've won the argument because the other person misused a semi-colon, and long-winded attacks on the opponent's character based on one single sentence taken from the last post, utterly ignoring the actual argument put forward, as possible. Sarcasm is the weapon here, and tedium is the result.
Then it becomes an argument over the high ground. This part is won by the first person who claims they're above all this and they are not continuing to debate for one of the above stated reasons, before inexplicably adding a silly testosterone soaked and vaguely threatening comment along the lines of "I'm not looking to make friends here, if we met in real life you would be on the floor with a broken nose by now". Also, bonus points up for grabs to the first to accuse the other of being a nerd!
Crucially, no actual debating ever occurs, however intelligent the combatants decide they are. It is simply two academics throwing bits of screwed up paper at one another in the library until one flounces off in anger. Nobody ever gives any quarter to the opposition; they are simply there to be in the wrong and be told of their character flaws. They do not see them as friends or fellow intellects with whom to debate. They are The Enemy who needs to be Beaten. It is pathetic. And worst of all, it is boring.
posted by Jamie at 4:11 PM
1 Comments:
Music X owns you!!!!!!11!!
kthxbye.
Post a Comment
<< Home