Comment on this entry
Online Vitriol and Derision - it is Necessary?
Does unmeasured vituperation damage internet conversation? Is there a proper time and place for ridicule and denunciation?
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/12 at 10:11 AM
This was a pleasure to read. Not all have welcomed the adoption of Buddhist Right Speech on this blog, but it certainly seems to me to have created the kind of “space of reasoned debate referred to here. Those who insist that all forms of (self-)censorship are necessarily bad are either adopting a non-consequentialist system of ethics (in which freedom of expression becomes an end in itself) or are ignoring the important points made here about deadening effect of vitriol on the quest for truth.
The same goes, of course, for the more extreme forms of libertarianism (espoused, for example, by Ron Paul) and the need (often unrecognised or downplayed by such people) for laws, regulation and enforcement to create the “safe spaces” needed for society to flourish…as any experienced leader knows.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/12 at 01:29 PM
All true yet there’s something to what Giulio writes on this. Let’s take Nixon as an example, if he were president today it would only be just and proper to attack him viciously via the Web in forcing his resignation.
If men want excessive power, I want unmeasured vituperation, ridicule and denunciation to harm those men and if necessary their families as well. Pete, you are among the best and brightest, however you may be a bit gullible as to what men want: they want power more than anything else and by the end of his decade—if we survive it—you will know so for a fact.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/13 at 10:40 AM
Intomorrow, there is a wealth of empirical psychology addressing the question of what people want, and as far as I know none of it concludes that we want power “more than anything else”. It’s just more complicated than that. If one were to assume that people have generally good intentions that might indeed be gullible, but that doesn’t mean we are justified in going to the extreme. Assuming the worst of people can be as unhelpful, even from a point of view of one’s self-interest, as assuming the best. It can lead you to miss opportunities for cooperation.
In any case, neither the author nor I are saying that there is no place for vitriol and derision. In fact the author very clearly states that there is, and I did not disagree with that. Read the article again: I really think he has nailed the question of when we should allow ourselves to use these rhetorical weapons, and when we should eschew them.
As far as IEET is concerned, I still believe that the discussions we have here are some of the most advanced to be found in addressing the real issues for the future, but we have seen first-hand how vitriol, and flaring tempers, can disrupt a good, Millian quest for truth.
By the way, the fact that people crave power is precisely one of the reasons why these things need enforcement mechanisms. The rules of the game need to be set up to allow reasoned debate, and other aspects of advanced civilisation to flourish. Libertarianism is an unrealistic and irresponsible creed: by neutering the well-intentioned natural leaders it only paves the way for the most unscrupulous to take over.
Posted by René Milan on 09/13 at 01:04 PM
@Intomorrow: I agree with your evaluation of Nixon, but what you’re suggesting is a form of activism (much like what we see in political campaigns) while the article’s focus is more on the question of discourse (of course one can say that any attempt at communication constitutes activism). Bush who did at least as much (vastly more in my view) damage than Nixon was (and still is) subject to online attacks but that didn’t much change the situation. But whom are we going to convince ? It’s all about the small section of undecideds, and vicious attacks appear to be ineffective in convincing those.
@Peter Wicks: Completely agree with your message, but I’d like to point out the role of learning. Some years ago when factual as well as opinion pages started admitting comments and “discussions” I suddenly found the privacy of my home to be invaded by inane utterings of the morons that I always knew are out there, if only because I let them (after all in the physical realm I wouldn’t expose myself to tea party gatherings unless I had a sado-maso personality). So initially I found myself responding to some of these with derision and contempt, before the realization sank in that that was a complete waste of time and energy. I still engage in discussions on news sites, but only with people whose contributions I find worth considering andor correcting. As I’m a stickler for precision in verbal [removed]without which meaningful dialogue is impossible) there’s always the temptation to criticize people for their language, as many do (along the lines of “you can’t be taken serious as you don’t even know spelling andor grammar”). That of course is way off base given that these days probably a majority of English speaker are, like myself, not native. Another thing I had to learn was not only recognizing but also accepting and acknowledging that others were right where I was wrong. These days I try to make a point of explicitly thanking them for corrections. But I don’t sacrifice clarity for politeness. Recently in response to an opinion I expressed on g+ someone (who for all I know maybe smarter and better informed than I) simply wrote “Hell no !”, to which I responded “An unenlightening response is worse than none”. So while far from perfect over the years I have gotten much better at engaging sensibly in online dialogue. I agree with your assessment that this site is among the most sophisticated forums I know (hey I almost wrote fora before I realized that the impulse was based on the desire to display my knowledge of Latin to impress people many of whom probably wouldn’t even know what I mean, an exercise in vanity and futility). But even here I find a lot of talking past each other mainly because terms and concepts are not defined but assumed. Another problem with online discourse is that it usually tapers off before any meaningful agreement, even to disagree, is achieved. This may be a consequence of the current weakness of these media (even after working with computers for 30 years I’m still a 3-finger typist). It’s just (still) not the same to discuss issues online as working them out during allnighters over a few beers andor joints.
Posted by René Milan on 09/13 at 01:15 PM
Plus technical malfunction isn’t exactly helping. When reviewing the above I find the phrase “precision in verbal [removed]without which” while I wrote
“precision in verbal [removed]without which”. Why and by whom or what “[removed]” was removed is unclear to me, but what’s clear is that this sort of thing diminishing clarity.
Posted by René Milan on 09/13 at 01:23 PM
godammit, why can’t it display what I enter ? Tech alert ! I’ll try one more time:
precision in verbal expression.
Expression.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/13 at 07:12 PM
@René
Yes, I think I agree with all of that, it also reflects my own experience. I’m especially interested in your point about the tendency of online discussions to taper out before any meaningful agreement, “even to disagree,” is achieved. That’s very well put, and it’s something that actually frustrates me more than the vitriolic attacks. I guess it comes down to motivation, and chemistry. Perhaps we’re just not wired to take online discussions seriously enough to be willing to substantially change our viewsat least not there and then. But in the long run I do believe we influence each other…and to pick up on another of your points, vicious attacks are not the most effective way for that to happen. (When well timed they can help to sway voters on election day, but in the long run they are just…off-putting.)
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/14 at 06:00 PM
@ Pete:
“Intomorrow, there is a wealth of empirical psychology addressing the question of what people want, and as far as I know…’ ”
Not people—not women and children—in general, but, rather,
men want power more than anything; I’m 100 percent convinced of it and don’t care what statisticians or anyone else thinks.
@Rene: “Bush who did at least as much (vastly more in my view) damage than Nixon was (and still is) subject to online attacks but that didn’t much change the situation…”
Perhaps we were not vituperative, ridiculing and denunciative enough during the last decade?
Posted by René Milan on 09/15 at 06:22 AM
Agreed. And I think another reason for losing interest/motivation before closure is the immense number of choices in regard to relevant subjects. Come to think of it, at least for me, there is no loss of interest, the problem is more letting myself be distracted by other, equally interesting, topics. Of course once the number of others partaking in a discourse fades toward zero. one can easily feel justified in losing motivation. A negative feedback cycle.
Posted by René Milan on 09/15 at 09:56 AM
Sorry, my last one was @Peter.
@Intomorrow - I doubt it. We’ve seen in 2000 (and before and after) how the plutocrats behind Bush and (still?) behind Romney have no hesitation to do anything, even to buy and use the judicial system to subvert the “democratic” process. I’d be happy to think you’re right and all we need to do is mobilize a substantial and eloquent online “community” to end the deterioration of the democratic process in the u.s. and elsewhere. That will take a more profound and general enlightenment of the people, or the delegation of political power to suitable artilects. And by democratic I don’t mean by the people, but for the people, which has never been the same. The process cannot be left to be run by Artificial Idiocy much longer without leading to disaster.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/15 at 03:04 PM
Not encouraging, Rene. Pete has had a running conversation to encourage me to get more involved but then countless others are telling me there’s no hope, the Sununus and Roves more or less manipulate us as if we were puppets.
And now someone will write to not be so concerned with what others think, Just Do What Has To Be Done even if there’s no consensus on what needs to be done.
Even if optimistic people themselves often waver and hide their own wavering between defeatism and optimism.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/15 at 03:16 PM
... ‘double-bind’ is one way of expressing it, Rene:
in one ear tell someone “be involved and optimistic”
In the other ear tell them there is no hope.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/15 at 08:10 PM
@Intomorrow
René is not saying there is no hope, only that online vitriol is unlikely to prove an effective weapon. And I’m inclined to agree with him. Where the Internet obviously can play a role, as witnessed during the Arab Spring, is in providing a forum for movements to self-organise. But this is not the same thing as just venting. Even the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t mind people venting, precisely because they know it doesn’t generally lead to effective action.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/16 at 06:07 PM
“Even the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t mind people venting, precisely because they know it doesn’t generally lead to effective action.”
Plus the CP can let a hundred flowers bloom and then yank out certain flowers by the roots. They needn’t imprison them, they can merely take their dwellngs and health care away.
“...only that online vitriol is unlikely to prove an effective weapon.”
Then what is likely to prove an effective weapon? No one knows at this time, correct? It’s the blind leading the blind, right?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/17 at 02:50 AM
What the CP here fears, and what is always the most effective weapon, is people self-organising around positive visions and concrete proposals for action.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/17 at 01:27 PM
For once will stay on-topic: very few who would be inclined to be trolls on the Web are going to consider Right Speech; and conversely very few already inclined towards Right Speech are likely to become vitriolic because of what an outsider tells them. Now family and friends can change a troll—but then naturally you first have to change the family and friends and that goes back to: very few who would be inclined to be trolls on the Web are going to consider Right Speech. The way people think is stuck in old comfortable patterns both positive and negative.
For better and worse.
Posted by René Milan on 09/17 at 04:19 PM
I’m glad to see that this thread is still alive, even though the topic has slightly shifted. I have never understood if this, to the owners, is permissible, desirable, frowned upon or verboten; i assume it varies among sites. Personally i welcome it, as it reflects my above mentioned experience with allnighters where the topic is always life, the universe and everything.
To clarify my position, as a transhumanist i am an optimist by (my) definition. Unless we succumb to existential risks that have been considered and described elsewhere, and some of which have begun to be addressed in various projects, or to unanticipated ones, I foresee a range of possible trans- and posthumanist futures in various locations within and beyond our solar system playing out. Even long before that, say 40 years from now, we will look back on today’s problems as sad yet slightly amusing memories.
Back to our current conundrum: all of our basically solid ideas, from democracy to capitalism to communism have failed on one account: the infamous “human nature” which i like to reduce to shortcomings in human understanding. Better minds than mine have been pondering this issue but I have yet to see suggestions for currently viable and quickly effective solutions.
The main task is to somehow improve the capacity for mentation. This may sound beside the point as greed for power and wealth, the most prominent spoilers of human community, are emotions. But advanced ability to think can help to (can’t help but) resolve emotional issues. Obviously I’m not talking here about the highly educated and sophisticated Hannibal Lecter types, who simply enjoy throwing spanners in the works and satisfying their whims, and who are currently a negligible problem. (In fact I consider it immoral to force change or “upgrades” upon entities that have to be considered more advanced than any of today’s governments that might enforce such a policy, but I anticipate them to be interested in gathering in separate (cosmic) locations where they can compete against each other and enjoy a real challenge).
The traditional approach to the problem has been and is education, with mixed results at best. I exclude stupidifying efforts masquerading as educational institutions such as madrasas and falwell type ”universities” from this discussion. But even those based on more or less good intentions fall way short of what’s needed today.
Here’s a brief account of what i considered a shocking experience at the time: having happily lived in the u.s. for 12 years during the 80s and 90s (mostly in the Bay Area and 3 years in urban PA and OH) i returned 10 years ago for a 3-months assignment in Charlotte NC (my first lengthy stay in the bible belt) to work among a group of highly educated and skilled IT engineers (in fact i had come to learn from them). Among themselves during any break (even between breaks) they talked about nothing but the “second coming”, how and when exactly it will happen, how one should, and they already did, best prepare for it, as well as the most literal and correct interpretation of the word of god and the prophets in “the bible” (as if there was only one and it was a coherent and verifiable piece of writing). The worst part was their bragging about having successfully indoctrinated their children with this nonsense. Kinder people than me might see this as “intellectual” choice protected by the first amendment, but i can’t see it as anything but mental dysfunction in need of repair.
I do not belittle the accomplishments of the centuries of educational efforts that have led to the remarkable achievements of current science and to a reduction of worldwide illiteracy to below 20%. But very much more (effort and funding) is needed to enable more (ultimately all) to master scientific thinking and have the majority move beyond basic reading, writing, ‘rithmetic. Many attempts are underway to reform and improve educational systems worldwide, most of them failing but some promising.
What can be done now? I agree with you Peter about “people self-organising around positive visions and concrete proposals for action”. There must be and are other effective and short term approaches to improving the human condition and it is our challenge to find and develop them. In the meantime i agree with Savolescu’s imperative for human enhancement.
Posted by Intomorrow on 09/17 at 04:50 PM
Rene’, you covered so much, there’s little to add.
So will continue on-topic while addressing a tiny bit of what you went into above:
say there are two sides on the Web; not
Right v. Left, or conservative (wich no longer exists) v liberal (often illiberal).
But, rather, those who want change v those who want
stasis.
Both ‘sides’ have to tone down the vitriol.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 09/17 at 08:07 PM
Hi René,
Regarding the permissibilityof threads straying off-topic, we don’t have hard and fast rules on this; what we do have is a commitment to respecting the Buddhist concept of Right Speech (I can explain the background to that decision if you like; in short, we had been arguing about religion and the debates had got out of hand). In a nutshell, this bans speech that is (knowingly) false, (unnecessarily) divisive or offensive, and “idle chatter”. Writing about what your dog ate for breakfast might be considered off-topic to the point of “idle chatter”, but reflections on the future of our species, even of only loosely inspired by the article, are not IMO.
Other than that…once again I think I agree with everything you’ve written. I will only add my pet hobby-horse, namely that mindfulness techniques - as adapted from Buddhism and other Eastern (and to a lesser extent Western) religions by Western psychology - also seem to me to be an essential part of the solution, particularly in the short term while we are still having to work with our unenhacned stone age brains.
Also, given my decade and a half working in environmental policy, I would like to see more consideration in transhumanist circles of environmental degradation and resource scarcity issues. This is of course related to your reference to “existential risks”, but it’s not only about whether we make it to our Glorious Psothuman Future or not; it’s also about whether the path we take to get there involves more or less pain and suffering for this generation and the next. Now that economic development has started to go global, and people look to emerging economies to provide the much-craved “growth”, the failure of traditional economic theory and practice to take proper account of these aspects is becoming even more dangerously flagrant than before.
Posted by René Milan on 09/25 at 12:04 PM
@Peter - Yes, “Know Thyself” is the essence of the Great Work that has to be undertaken by all, especially by those interested in and supportive of transhumanist goals. This can be done in more or less ritualized ways (as you said both eastern and western “esoteric” traditions offer lots of proven technologies) or in an ad-hoc manner, processing experience as it occurs. This implies understanding what is happening and why, as well as exploring and evaluating options of responding. This is how I understand mindfulness.
I’m glad you brought up environmental degradation. Like presumably most THers i believe that once we learn how to control environments better, it will be possible to restore healthy biospheres, create park planets and planetary biolabs etc. I suspect this knowledge tempts too many of us to ignore the current problems which cause disease, hunger and death to millions each year.
There are lots of issues that sit squarely on the royal road to our goals of power, love and wisdom, and that can and must be addressed now. Just two that i came across in the last couple days: the failure of the kidney delivery system in the u.s. and the perennial struggle of the “right to die” movement in the u.k. (and elsewhere). But i see very little discussion of these in TH circles.
Instead we seem to spend a lot of time thinking about issues that will not be relevant until years or decades from now if ever, discussing the singularity (whose main characteristic is unpredictability), or how much eternal fun can be had at the bar at the end of time. On a bad day i suspect that one of the main attractions of TH is that it offers the opportunity to effectively escape from the problems of the present by dreaming of the future.
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog