Not every devotee of reason is himself reasonable: that is a lesson that the convinced, indeed militant, atheist, Richard Dawkins, has recently learned. It would, perhaps, be an exaggeration to say that he has learned it the hard way, for what he has suffered hardly compares with, say, what foreign communists suffered when, exiling themselves to Moscow in the 1920s and 30s, they learnt the hard way that barbarism did not spring mainly, let alone only, from the profit motive; but he has nevertheless learned it by unpleasant experience. more>>>
I suspect that he had that contrarian mindset that supposes that the truth must be the opposite of what everyone thinks, instead of the judicious mindset that supposes that the truth might be the opposite of what everyone thinks.
One thinks?
To correct, to nitpick, is such a superior putdown. Feel my smug smile Dalrymple.
Thank you for another thought-provoking essay on self-expression and reasonableness.
Perhaps a contributing factor to 'net rage' is not only the almost-instant expression, nor the effort to seize attention by any means possible in an attention-based economy; but also the virtual anonymity of correspondents, even perhaps of essayists with a public byline and identity that is not "really" themselves considered as private persons. Abusers could see the opening provided by an annoying article or persona as an opportunity to vent in an entirely un-normal or self-identifying way. It looks like the impersonal rage of the mob, condensed into a single blog comment.
A parallel here in my opinion is road rage, which seems to take place mostly when participants are moving and jostling to get ahead, get home, or get that parking space before the next competitor. Often when cars are stationary, and one can therefore inspect the other driver's face - the whites of their eyes, so to speak - everyone behaves more politely, as for example allowing another car room to merge from a side street into stalled traffic. If that car were suddenly to cut in while the stream was already moving, the response would be entirely different: the players are their cars now, not the person behind the wheel, and the conflict is impersonal and thus brutal.
2 Mar 2010 NMcC
That's what I admire about jounalists, very few allow the truth to harm a good yarn.
The comments you quote were NOT made about Richard Dawkins, a fact that is easily discerned from reading his piece Outrage.
And the comments were NOT made on Dawkins' website.
A whole article hung on 2 'facts' - and both of them completely false.
Mr. Dalyrmple, may i humbly suggest that before writting your next essay, you spend a small amount of time checking into the topic.
You have misattributed the quotes upon which you base your arguments. A small amount of research would've helped you spot the error before it made you look foolish.
Toby
2 Mar 2010 SoberHorseThief
I grew up in a household in which some participants were always determined to "clear the air," so the fighting never ceased. I'm with you, doc.
Justifiable anger may be the dubious pleasure of other men, but I have to pass.
3 Mar 2010 John Sace
I think TD is wrong on this. The web is not creating the hatred, the hatred has always been there. The web has just made it easier to show that hatred. People didn't post a letter not because of reflection, but because it was simply too much work. Some probably DID write the letter but weren't motivated enough to post it, most probably would have written the letter, but were put off thinking about having to find the address, find the paper, and well, what was that about short attentions?
Now I will say that hatred had been growing, however that has been happening for several hundred years, and has little to do with technology (outside of it providing time and comfort to indulge in hatred). Chalk it up more to the expansion of ego and self-righteousness than to the WWW.
3 Mar 2010 Irfan Khawaja
If hypocrisy is the tribute that Vice pays to Virtue, then Virtue should regard itself as well-compensated by this mawkish and self-pitying homily—one to which the best rebuttal would perhaps be a mirror held to the author’s face, not a verbal response to his “arguments.” In one breath we are told that the Internet has given voice to vile and hysterical denunciation beyond the pale of civility; in the next breath the author’s interlocutors are likened toan “abcess waiting to burst.” Not exactly an exemplification of self-consciousness or consistency, I'd say. But having read him for years, I “rather doubt” that anyone reads Theodore Dalrymple—or Anthony Daniels—or whatever identity the author has chosen to try on today—for either quality.
I haven’t read what Dalrymple has written about Virginia Woolf or Bernard Shaw, and don’t much care in either instance. But as he well knows, the most recent controversy over his writing concerns his claims about Ayn Rand at The New Criterion. Consider a few specimens of the sort of writing that Dalrymple regards as perfectly within the pale of civil discourse as he conceives of it:
"Human sympathy is, as Adam Smith himself pointed out, implanted by nature in the human breast, but Ayn Rand, to a greater extent even than Pharaoh, hardened her heart and expunged sympathy from it utterly."
"Like any Stalinist despot, Ayn Rand considered herself to be totally unprecedented and quite without parallel. Like Kim Il-Sung and Howard Roark, she sprang into the world with her philosophical genius fully formed, not needing any support from any other thinker, despite the fact that (in fact) no element of her thought was entirely original."
In other words, so long as one expresses it in that passive-aggressive British style of which Dalrymple is an uncontested master, morally wild comparisons are perfectly cricket. Granted, Rand was not in fact a pharoanic slave driver or a mass murdering communist dictator, but in the Dalrympian universe, such facts are no obstacle to likening her to such things. If this innuendo cements the association in the reader’s mind between “Ayn Rand,” “slaves,” and “mass death,” well, perhaps that was just the point. A comparison needn’t be true to be rhetorically expedient.
By Dalrympian standards, of course, it should be unproblematic for me to begin a sentence as follows: “Like many anti-Semites, Dalrymple seems uncomfortable with being associated with the name ‘Daniels’...”Or: “Like many a voyeur, Dalrymple has a habit of exploiting people’s private lives for his own and others’ amusement...” I hasten to add that I’m asserting neither comparison—whether to anti-Semites or to voyeurs. I merely offer the author a small indication of what it would be like to pay him back in his own coin.
Before the rest of you jump to defend your hero, ask yourself what sense his prescriptions could possibly make on a site like this, whose raison d’etre is nothing less than the abuse of Islam and of Muslims. I make no judgment on that activity per se. I merely ask: how consistent is the manner of criticizing Islam and Muslims at New English Review with Dr Dalrymple’s exalted rhetorical standards?
Here (one of literally thousands of examples) is Hugh Fitzgerald describing the Arabs of Palestine in an article on this site. What he says is no different in tone from things that have been asserted thousands of times here. Again, I make no judgment on the truth or falsity of his evaluation. I merely ask: how consistent with Dalrympian civility are his claims?
"The Masri clan and the Kafarneh clan and the Hilles clan and so many others show that Gazan Arabs are tribes with a would-be flag. And the “West Bank” Arabs are the same, but this time it is the old landowning families, the Husseinis and the Khalidis, who are the “tribes with flags.” The Slow Jihadists and the Fast Jihadists fight, but fight over loot, over who will have the power to control the loot. That’s the real disagreement between Fatah and Hamas. It’s simply a matter of warlords and retinues, the warlord who wants, for example, a particular plot of land for his own villa, the building to be paid by money from Western taxpayers, and a rival warlord, who wants the same site, possibly for himself, or possibly for some son-in-law. Sects, tribes, families fighting and squabbling.
"May it go on forever."
Put less circuitiously, Fitzgerald wants the Palestinian Arabs—most of them, many of them, all of them; he doesn’t specify—to commit collective suicide. Let us suppose, ex hypothesi, that he is utterly, damnably right. He's uttering that hard truth that few of us have the nerve to accept. OK. Simply ask yourself, then: does expressing this particular sentiment truly exemplify the spirit of conversational sweetness and light that Theodore Dalrymple has recently discovered, and now urges on us? Some things, we are piously told, ought not to be put in print, for doing so poisons the well of discourse. How about invitations to mass killing? Should they be said aloud? If self-censorship is such a great idea, should it not, like charity, begin at home?
Alas, I "rather doubt" that those questions have clear answers. Dalrymple’s lugubrious defense of moral standards is obviously reserved for everyone but the select few to whom Dalrymple would rather that they not apply. Naturally, that includes Theodore Dalrymple himself, in all of his various pseudonymic incarnations (and any new ones he manages to dream up), plus a few of his favorite friends and colleagues. To look here for a principle is to look in vain.
A piece of advice for Dalrymple and anyone who agrees with him: Spare us the pretense of your fraudulent impostures at “civility.” If you want to insult people, go ahead. No one is censoring you—and frankly, I’d be sooner to condemn anyone who tried than most of you would be in the reverse situation. But don’t expect those insulted by you to sit back passively and be insulted, or only to respond in a Christ-like spirit of charity, reconciliation, understanding, and self-sacrifice. If you insult others, prepare to be insulted in turn. And if you find that you can’t handle this sort of bilateral exchange, may I suggest that you find another line of work—or another retirement hobby, if that’s what it is for you. In that case, as you thank us for “not expressing ourselves,” we might, in a spirit of generous reciprocity, thank you for doing the same.
6 Mar 2010 ScottLoar
Internet anonymity allows false bravado.
6 Mar 2010 John
hate hate hate hate hate hate hate
6 Mar 2010 Andrew Levin
i notice that the comments are generally hostile, but i agree with the sentiments of the article
theres a vast unwashed out there and it includes the university arts departments
its a known phenomena, the politicising and dumbing down of the universities
so
you are a university professor, a reputation, revered and TENURE and someone on the web can write a better article than you
"Moreover, the fact that one can vituperate using a virtual rather than a real address promotes such verbal intemperance."
I implemented on my blog the same solution to this problem as New English Review does: approve the comments before publishing them. The result was a sharp decrease in the number of comments I received. The less the better, in fact.
6 Mar 2010 John Ashton
I am writing this comment simply because of the mild irony involved in writing a internet comment about an essay about internet comments.
6 Mar 2010 ANTIPODES
There certainly appears to be more hatred about and some of this can undoubtedly be rationalized by technological opportunity as you note. However, I would postulate another reason for the hate expressed by some, particularly by leftish academics. I believe that the American saying "Liberals think that Conservatives are evil, Conservatives think that Liberals are stupid" is largely correct. Hatred is an obvious response to perceived evil, just as the obvipus response to perceived stupidity is contempt.
Sloganized hatred is not restricted to Internet comments or internet technology. Speed is sacred in secular devotion so using few words to express simple emotions serves a higher purpose. What I find more insidious is dismissive kindness. It attempts to set aside my right to reply to the obvious insult. Ugly comments are not so much the problem as the emotions driving them. For many, balancing between being told you are a celebrated and deserving person and the reality of having to earn a living as a commodity can create tension. In the case of professors frozen in the spotlights of their students and other defenders of the faith they have taken on many of the characteristics of seventeenth century priests. That is just unfortunate.
6 Mar 2010 amkell
Perhaps the only criticism that can be leveled consistently and reasonably against the writing of Dalrymple is its almost unbearable stuffiness, its audible Oxbridge drawl. Those congealments of dependent clauses. The puffball diction. I would say the same in print, I would say the same in an "old-fashion" letter: Dalrymple sounds like a self-important gasbag.
6 Mar 2010 Franklin D. Lomax Sr
WastingtonDC: Whilst enduring the minor corrections, and differing points of view voiced by one's peers, students, and readers is a blessing, as is having readers, uncivil commentary is not part of that conversation. There is no censorship in deleting uncivil speech, as there is no joy in reading even the most withering insult not couched so perfectly in civil language that the unwashed would generally be unable to determine why they hate the author quite so much. With the advent of barely refereed, and perfectly archived 5000 character commentary at potentially internet surviving publications, such as WSJ, MW, MSNBC, et al. one learns to savor those few articles worth joining a bare knuckle, civil, conversation about, since the permanent nature of net publishing tends, itsself, to exact the revenge of history. If history doesn't prove one fair or foul, then, one can expect at least, some long memoried detractors correcting ones ideas, selecting the most appropriate viewpoint, etc. Censorship as moderation has kept sapient conservative commentary out of NYT, WP, and many other's among our most liberal media sources for all our lives, but now we see them opening their sealed echo chambers ever so slightly, as the stock prices of biased media producers emulate the NYT swoon from $50 Plus before the first time it printed my name, without my permission, to $3.51 last February about the time I sold my -Zhomb NYT $10 Jan 2010 Puts, for over 600 percent profits. History corrects us best, and poetic justice is the most pleasurable sort, but baldfaced censorship will always help to sort out the content producer's profit expectations. I expect CBS, a Lame Stream Media source that greets my every comment with (User #followed by many more digits than CBS has readers, is banned), to do less well in the scrum that now comprises the production and presentation of content, it's enjoyment, and the conversation that exists around it, if they survive in any form.
Sir Rupert Murdoch's destruction of American network television's failed business model will, I hope, be follwed by his adaption, with Google, PayPal, et al, of a micro payment scheme allowing all content consumers to pay a fair two cents, for the author's two cents worth, if the consumer chooses to click on the pay author now line, and read the entire piece. This Lomax Micro Payment approach will allow book authors to be paid without killing our trees, and cluttering our roads, our landfills, and our homes with physical publications that have allowed the enslavement of authors and consumers of their products, since the monastary days, and invention of the printing press.
Those authors willing to have their work provided by Google World Free Library to every poor child on the earth, in their own language, in return for two cents per read for articles, and twenty five cents per read for books, from those billions of us able to afford it, will prosper. Those publishers with an agenda, or a bias, or a failed business model reckoned in numbers of trees killed, or tons of books not returned, will find other pursuits. Those practicing censorship will have to enforce that censorship at unbearable expense in forgone profits. Those writing uncivil commentary will be less read or printed, if at all.
You miss the primary dynamic driving the verbal aggression of which you speak. It is no accident that you, and Dawkins, eg, received hostile responses--after all, Dawkins has earned his fifteen minutes of fame by an allout, irrational attack on religion(Not, as he would flatter himself, on the existence of God, btw). You instigate defensive retaliation from the miniscule circle of Shavians by attacking their hero. You have attacked first-- and despite your conceit about your own rationality, have no right to expect anything but reciprocation.
What did you expect in return-- gratitude? You need to get out of the academic bell jar and sample the real world. And by the way, if this essay is any measure, your own writing sucks.
6 Mar 2010 Michele
What passes for discourse on the Internet is appalling and if one truly believes that people are as vile in real life as they appear in cyberprint, it would be frightening, as well. The real story here, in my mind, is what factors related to Internet discourse versus face-to-face discourse encourage people to adopt the persona of defensive 'expert' on every single subject that comes to their attention? In face-to-face conversation, they would be unlikely to claim expertise they don't have and certainly (under normal circumstances) would be less willing to spew ill-conceived thought bombs at one another. Is it the vicarious and often anonymous thrill of 'trolling?' Is it the comforting illusion of distance created by a virtual world that separates the commenter from the writer? Is it that civil discourse in general has broken down (and did the advent of uncivil Internet discourse help facilitate this breakdown)?
I am surprised social interactions via the Internet have not been a topic of more interest to sociologists. I know for myself that I am much more likely to respond inappropriately in an online format than I would in person, although certainly not in as ugly a manner as I often see. But there have been numerous times, while in the midst of typing a reply, I wonder why I am even bothering to put the effort into pontificating on something I don't particularly care about and that does not have any real impact on my life. It's almost like we are operating on Pavlovian principles and feel required to respond to every Internet stimulus presented to us. In this age of information overload, that is bound to become exhausting.
I turned off the Comment section on my blog. Comments it seems were of little or slight merit or abusive. What I have noticed is that comments on the net allow anyone anywhere to say anything and get "printed." In the Letters section of magazines or newspapers, editors select those comments sent them to print or to ignore. Alas, on the net, to recall a song, anything goes.
The question now arises as to whether it is a good thing that people should be able now so easily to express their rage, irritation, frustration and hatred. Here, I think, we come to a disagreement between those of classical, and those of romantic, disposition.
You are overlooking something. While it is never good to express hatred, expressing rage, irritation or frustration might be a quite appropriate thing to do depending, of course, on the subject of the rage, irritation or frustration.
And while the immediacy of the internet makes vileness all the more likely, it also makes legitimate criiticism and correction more likely as well as provide a medium for necessary information that would never otherwise been unveiled.
Just imagine where we'd be in the global warming debate without the web. As it stands now, I think the neo-pagan followers of Al Gore have been foiled.
6 Mar 2010 Jonathan Allen
In defense (sort of) of internet vileness: I suspect that in any culture, there is going to be violence, hatred, and a certain level of vileness. Actually, I am quite certain that every culture present and past that I have any knowledge of has these things. What changes across cultures is how and where these nastier impulses of humanity are expressed. For instance, in polemical debates- whether over ideologies, religious doctrines, cultural mores- there is going to be violence. These things matter very strongly to many of us, especially those of us who make it our business to be especially concerned with them.
So there is likely going to be strong language, verbal violence, and so on, over these things, and people are not to be expected to abide in calm rationality at all times over them. The life of the mind always intersects with the bodily passions, if you will, and it always has. But to make things more concrete: my field of study encompasses Christian and Islamic religious history in both Late Antiquity and the MIddle Ages. A great deal of what goes on in all the various milieus, East and West, of the 'monotheist world' is religious polemic. It can get very, very nasty. As in calling down fire from God- verbally and literally (within the stories anyway)- upon one's doctrinal enemies. Sometimes this fire gets transmitted into literal fires or other forms of out-and-out violence, and people die. However, most of the time, polemical violence is largely confined to texts, or to divisions between different groups. This is especially true within the Islamic world, where both Muslims and Christians generally have less recourse to state power than in the Byzantine Empire. Christian groups in particular must express their disagreements through texts, disputations, stories, and so on- without having recourse to violence (very often anyway). Ditto for Jewish groups I shoud add, who had their own polemical back-and-forths and in-betweens.
My point in all that is to say: in these polemical, 'intellectual' milieus with which I am familiar, there was always potential for literal violence. However, much of this violence gets 'moved' into a textual setting, or into disputations, letter-writing, anti-heretical treatises, and so on. The violence is contained, so to speak, within textuality. This is far superior, I think you would agree, to people slugigng it out in the streets. And, I suspect, the fact that such violence can be textually contained is part of the reason people of sharply differing viewpoints can avoid slugging it out in the streets, and can even live alongside each other and cooperate- as Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities of various stances did on a regular basis, even while calling down anathemas from heaven on each other.
Does internet 'violence' function in a similar way? I somewhat suspect it does. Being able to rant and rave and call down anathemas here might very well enable people to tie their polemical violence to the rather impersonal world of the internet, and to get along with people in the 'real world.' If the violence is contained within particular polemical environments, perhaps it becomes safer, less likely to explode in real-world confrontations. I don't know for sure, and none of this means I like the tone of much of what goes on in the internet. I try to avoid being nasty and polemical, for the good of my own soul if nothing else- but it might be that the violence and nastiness here is a of a lesser order than the violence and nastiness that might occur otherwise.
6 Mar 2010 Max
The hatred is so intense beause there's so very little at stake. Petty minds getting fired up over petty things. I occasonally follow a jazz guitar newsgroup - you should hear the flaming over which chord to play pover which scale. Same thing. Not to mention the fact that it's easy to be a bullying thug from behind the safety of a laptop.
6 Mar 2010 emansnas
Clearly the Internet facilitates ease of and rapidity of response along with a perceived guarantee of anonymity. It's also a highly accessible medium whereby one can broadcast to a large audience of strangers many of whom may hold views antithetical to one's own beliefs and values. It's almost as if it were designed to disinhibit self expression. Given the world zeitgeist and that we all feel the need to vent from time to time along with that ever present group of the chronically angry, the degree of Internet incivility actually seems about right.
You point to a real problem. Abusive vile language that aims to insult and humiliate another is commonplace these days as Internet postings. You point to relatively trivial issues that occasion it. But it is even worse, if that can be imagined, when it comes to political questions. Here we meet another troubling aspect of this universal freedom of expression. The worst that is in mankind easily come out, in fact finds collaborators and community on the Net.
As someone who frequently posts on Israel- related matters and tries always to make my comments relevant and respectful I am dismayed at how Haters of the Extreme Right or Extreme Left rant on maliciously, and most often ignorantly.
I believe every responsible site should be monitored for the worst kind of abuses.
6 Mar 2010 Patrick Crawford
Are you sure I can reply?
Thank you for speaking out on this curse of the Internet. More power to those who will edit out the venom. Let those who want to condemn be instead condemned to stew in their own private hells and leave the rest of us alone.
- Patrick Crawford, Kansas City MO
6 Mar 2010 Jon
I think the argument that anonymity promotes rudeness is overdone. Probably the mere opportunity to express an opinion is sufficient to get the results we've seen. What provokes the rage and rudeness is more likely regular 'ol resentment for the author's position and the contrast between the author's merits, real or imagined, and their own (also real or imagined). It's human nature. We have to live with it, graciously wherever possible, and with an occasional rant just to clear the pipes.
6 Mar 2010 Charlie Broadway
I have found that the easiest way to avoid the problems of expressive types is to do the opposite of Dawkins and declare zero censorship except for spam. For some strange reason, people on my blog are much nicer than they would otherwise be. In person, I am very self-deprecating which neutralizes any and all insults. In order to get anywhere with me or my audience, people resort to intelligence and wit.
I am libertarian in my politics, so I'm willing to let order emerge in a Hayekian fashion rather than impose it from above in the fashion of the left wing. I have always been pleasantly surprised by the results.
What an erudite and insightful response to the article.
I haven't a clue who Dalrymple is. I only viewed this article from Arts and Letters because it looked interesting. But what he has written is/would be the typical complaint of all columnists who have been given the privilege of publishing their views in widely read in newspapers and magazines. They think they have the right to insult whoever they choose, but........they also don't like being insulted back.
Before freedom of expression on the internet they were cushioned from retaliatory insults by the censorship of letters by the outfits who employed them. Well those days are nearly over....some net publications still severely censor comments.
However I would agree with him on one thing, ie, People should not be allowed to comment completely anonymously on the web. Real names and addresses should be available.
6 Mar 2010 Eitan
I've noticed that unlike most websites, comments on Facebook tend to be rather tame. I think that's likely becuase commenters on Facebook know that their friends and family will read the comments and censor themselves appropriately.
Not unlike Congressional chickenhawks, academics and others of their ilk lack the simple physical courage to say things anonomously over the internet that they would not dare say to you from the next barstool.
We are teaching our dog to be "Quiet". He obeys the command, but there is a bark just bursting to get out. Similarly, stupid people (most of humanity, I fear) have so much disappointment and hatred simmering just under the surface that Out. It. Comes.
N.B.
Thank you Dr. Dawkins; I enjoy Mr. Dalrymple's work, so thank you too. Other correspondents take note: a bunch of dots to signal thoughts or phrases… omitted are not a punctuation mark. Hit option-comma to get the appropriate one.
The net can accommodate different venues for different purposes. An entire industry thrives offering various drugs and financial schemes involving relatives of late Nigerian political leaders, for example. Fortunately, technology provides tools to keep the volume of spam to tolerable levels so that the really important drivel can get through.
The net can, and should, have a place for vituperation and for anonymity. They just don't have to be the same. So, here's a simple protocol--anonymous comments on unsigned articles and verified identity comments (only) in response to signed articles. The comments become part of a permanent online identity to establish whatever reputation is deserved. A commentator's prospective employers, in-laws and other interested parties can observe the degree to which common decency is part of the package. This won't work, of course, in the case of tenured fools for whom a different deterrent must be devised.
I was shocked, SHOCKED to find that the comment link from this article led anywhere but to a black hole of some kind.
I, who am surely guilty of at least some of the verbal transgressions mentioned by Mr. Dalrymple, find that I agree with him. Still, my own invective is rarely directed at the author of a given article, but rather at others who comment on it. I love to enrage and deflate smug fools, and I never criticize their spelling or grammar. The recent return of comments on the Yahoo! news site is a wonderful thing indeed!
6 Mar 2010 emansnas
There seems an ongoing trend toward moderation of blog comments. Theoretically this sounds ok, no one wants spam and who needs exposure to vapid incivility. However, there is a tendency for such moderation to become over zealous, even corrupt - I have witnessed such first hand, when legitimate thoughtful posts are removed under the guise that they would offend some group or are simply distasteful. In such context, trivial ineffective comments are often allowed but at greatest risk of censure is the well reasoned or fact laden post that may actually persuade, but is also antithetical to the moderator's dearly held beliefs. Very few people use newsgroups anymore or even know what they are, instead we post our comments on the web to sites with commercial underpinnings and/or a vested interest of one form or another. Thus our views are published at the discretion of a third party, and you'll never know what you've missed.
So true. "Motive-mongering" or character assassination seems to be the only mode of argument of many people, especially (sorry, it's true) on the left. You could accumulate reams, LIBRARIES of vitriolic, illiterate, nasty abuse online.
I appreciated Mr. Dalrymple's highlighting the humorous aspects of the situation, pointing out the ironies of receiving abuse over "what George Bernard Shaw thought of the germ theory of disease."
And picturesque, gruesomely accurate descriptions like this: "It was as if the writers had had an abscess waiting to burst, and it had burst over me." That ranks right up there with Churchill's observation, "The honourable gentleman should not generate more indignation than he can conveniently contain."
Some of these people have far more hatred and "righteous" indignation than their limited intelligence enables them to express.
7 Mar 2010 Jiri Kubicka
"shallow, dishonest, resentful, envious, snobbish, self-absorbed, trivial, philistine, and ultimately brutal". These words were not adressed to Mr. Dalrymple by an enraged talkbacker, he wrote them himself in his article on Virginia Woolf.
7 Mar 2010 Luke G.
I thought the article wasn't too bad. The media seems to be covering web 2.0 and its ill effects quite a lot lately. Oh, and not to be a SNOOT or anything, but 'Internet' is always capitalized
Theodore, thanks for the article; surely verbal effluent is unpleasant, however, it can get even more exciting. Through my practicing life (happily I am now retired) like all surgeons at some point I was sworn at in numerous languages in private and public. Was at times defecated on, spit on, coughed on, menstruated on, vomited on, kicked and scratched. The verbal excrement was stimulating; the effluent itself provided an even more vivid experience. Although, with everything else, how can we loose? Paul Mouchon
Well put Mr. Dalyrmple, and I might also add: it's first piece of yours that I ever read and actually agreed with; and which did not make me so mad that I wanted to shove a #(#(&*(^^ up your #*#*#* and ram a@(@*&@(_ down your #*#*#* (Just kidding--about the violence part, not the disagreement).
You have more than touched on what I believe is a significant cultural issue, which grows more serious by the day--as seen most clearly in America (of course), by the rash of violence perpetrated by right-wing lunatics and the crass professional inciters who are undoubtedly helping to fuel their dangerous, irrational/sub-literate, MORONIC rage. (All Hail: Palin for Pres. in 2012.)
Your piece was beyond "okay" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that it showed me that I have a strong classical disposition (a revelation of sorts).
If this piece is any evidence, it seems that your humanity is growing along with your humanity, and you have found/are finding a way through the darkness of conservative benightedness to the light of real wisdom.
thank you for expressing many "selves" so fleetingly ...
7 Mar 2010 David Knapp
Exactly what did the nasty people say? Not a word quoted of what was directed at Mr. Dalrymple, just a tame jab at Richard Dawkins. I am troubled by the suspicion that Mr. Dalrymple has elevated to hatred what was only intemperate frustration with his long-winded vapidity.
True, the Internet lets a lot of people feel vent coarse and violent spleen they would otherwise keep to themselves. It also opens up a space where small ideas spawn an infinity of words. Smothered in the miasma of Mr. Dalrymple's comma-cluttered maunderings, the exasperated reader is provoked. Anger and vulgarity carry him away. He says rude and stupid things. Mr. Dalrymple carries on, sniffing a little louder than before. The joke is on all of us looking for something worth thinking about.
7 Mar 2010 Squidlow
Hey Theo:
F*ck you, you f*cking f*ck.
Actually, good essay my man. I just read yr Our Culture, or What's Left of It. And your essays in favor of Prejudice.
Good stuff.
But you should at least give us samples of what you think these vile comments are. Also, I disagree with those who say you're long-winded. But I do think you're probably a prig. That's probably the most true criticism that can be offered. But there are, alas, worse things, I know....
7 Mar 2010 Hammar
Fool as I am I once was foolish enough to quote a Latin proverb in a periodical of intellectual reputation that also censured vile words. So the "Concordia minimae crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur" was unviled as "Concordia minimae cresc°°°°, etc. I Laughed for half an hour, made some contributions yet, until I was thrown out by the censor. I now generally do not react to censured sites anymore.
Instead of "…to say things anonomously…" I meant "…and say things anonomously…". I apologize for the error. Mr. Coleman: you are obviously a benighted PC user. On the Macontosh, a proper computer, keying the Option key (Alt on a PC) and the semicolon key inserts an ellipsis to indicate a "dramatic pause" or words omitted. I refer you to The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition), 11.51, pp. 458-464.
7 Mar 2010 dyertribe
I found this article very interesting. I have found the vitriol and personal maliciousness of responses to articles all over the web very disturbing. I don't understand this delight at bringing others down in whatever way possible.
PS to Theodore Dalrymple: ironically I don't generally express myself - this is my second comment ever!
I always use my name or some criteria-matching variation of it. That does little to identify me. It only indicates I am one of the horde of Jim Brennans (or Jim Brennan impostures so prevalent today). I sincerely doubt anyone conjures up the memory of an actual being if they notice the name. The Internet trades in anonymity so obvious in social networking portfolios, it is not an ungoverned side effect.
7 Mar 2010 Metapenguin
[Notice:The following comment is certified bile-free.]
> Better to strangle a new-born babe and all that.
“And all that”?Usually one appends that phrase to what is excessively well-known -- “1066 and all that”, and all that.Yet here my learning fails me -- and here Google, Ouroboros-fashion, leads back only to this very quote.What is the reference, please?
Q: How many online commenters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: What are you driving at, you &!### f***ing little a**hole?
7 Mar 2010 J. Porter Regardless of whether Mr. Dalrymple's citations concerning Dawkins and Shaw are correct, the point he is making is.
One needs only look at the comments following almost any Internet news item or article to see that a substantial number of respondents are not so much trying to express rational ideas either for or against a given position as they are "venting." And, no doubt, the anonymity afforded by the Internet (such posts rarely seem to be attributed to someone's given name, but rather to someone's clever idea of a pseudonym) contributes to the freedom one feels to give vent - especially when it is negative.
But that is too simple an explanation, and addresses a particular (and peculiar) feature of the Internet as a medium. There is something much more sinister involved in the idea that one can use unrestrained vehemence in place of reasoned argument: the idea that we all are entitled to an opinion, and that that opinion (and our "entitlement" to it) must be respected.
I am frustrated by what I once referred to as the "Oprah-fication" of dialogue when discussing student attitudes in the classroom. I coined the term to reflect what I thought to be endemic to television talk shows, such as Oprah Winfrey's, Sally Jesse Raphael's, and Jerry Springer's. "Ordinary" people found themselves confronted with an avenue for releasing both their beliefs and their feelings, with no care to distinguishing the one from the other.
But beliefs and feelings are significantly different types of mental phenomena: beliefs can be challenged, analyzed and refuted, where feelings cannot. Given the few seconds one had on talk shows (or the few lines one can effectively use in making an Internet comment), it is much more satisfying to focus on the feelings one has than on one's beliefs, since the beliefs take much longer to examine than the feelings do, and - like it or not - examination might reveal the beliefs to be mistaken, while one cannot be "mistaken" about one's emotions.
As a result, we "feel" entitled to express our feelings as if they were legitimate beliefs/opinions, and any attempt to challenge one's feelings is bound to become (or be perceived as) more of a personal attack, than rational argumentation. However, since our feelings are less likely to be based on reason than are our beliefs and opinions, people are left quite vulnerable and helpless in the face of a challenge, and consequently respond with greater vehemence - it's as if our personal identity were being challenged.
We need to examine this vanity we have with respect to our beliefs (and feelings), and realize that, however we might feel about something, we cannot validate a belief system on the basis of emotion.
7 Mar 2010 David Watson
Thanks for a great email. Its a sentiment I now really share (I have recently started blogging). However, I must admit to having been a spitter of venom upon occasion so I realize how easy it is to fall into this pit.
7 Mar 2010 John Savag
The problem with Richard Dawkins is, presumably, that his frontal lobes have not yet fully developed; unless there is another explanation for such an extreme form of narcissism being displayed.
Infact a mere go through of the comments for this article proves the facts provided by the article itself.
The defenders vs the offenders, the offenders are severely punished in the article itself,Cheers to TD.
7 Mar 2010 Gruntlefuttock
As ever, Mr Dalrymple is a brilliant observer of what is is we've gorn and done, but lacks any coherent suggestion of how we might ameliorate our mess.
Nevertheless, his perception of the internet as making our responses crasser and less civilised is no doubt correct. I say this as someone who enjoys Mr Dalrymple's work, but interprets his worldview as implying that our culture is a limp post-orgasmic cock, which wishes it hadn't shot its load so quickly in the name of pleasure.
7 Mar 2010 Doug Hayden
If I may suggest a 'blended' approach of sorts?
It has been suggested to me that sometimes it's wisest to commit the diatribe to some recording media (a la "Speak when you are angry & you will make the best speech you will ever forget").
Then commit it to an UN-distributed location for at least a week.
If, at the end of the week/fortnight/month/etc, you still feel obliged to publish it, then so be it.
Gives the benefit of getting it out, but not the downside of everybody else having to read the vituperation, at least immediately.
Great article, but the issue is more complex than it being just the ease and speed at which one can send online one's immediate reaction.
It has also to do with a phenomenon that can be called the criticism of the "virtual me". Also interesting is the fact that we are rather uncharitable when we guess others' intentions in the written medium.
I talk about it a bit more here (some info in comments as well):
I agree with Neville Stern regarding his views of road rage, for that is the same conclusion that I had (that is the question 2 on the referenced blog article).
I quit following "threads" in websites, even in photo sites where the topic was cameras and lenses. Totally harmless, but still people got rude, angry and irrational. How can you get angry because someone prefers his camera to yours or his car to yours or ....?
7 Mar 2010 John Gorentz
In case you haven't already heard this maximum (which I first heard in the early days of the internet, before the web):
"It's not enough to have nothing to say. You must also be unable to express it."
7 Mar 2010 Tim George
Thank you for writing eloquently about something that bothers many of us. I believe you are wrong on one point however; most of the venom IS spouted by people who otherwise would never have put pen to paper for the comment. That includes faculty. Civility has been fading for many years, but the internet has hastened its demise.
I regularly read Haaretz and find myself reading the Talkback section until I am so appalled by the sheer volume of hatred that I give Haaretz a miss for weeks!
I am to some extend relieved to read that comments/talkback sections generally suffer from this kind of thing and that not only people interested in Israel/Palestine who behave like this.
Every one who wrote on web some time received hate mail,I think that is natural tendency .Best solution is delete them with reading.On my one bog received 800 hate mail some were even not readable.I delete all of them without reading.
Excellant article by the good doctor, I saw Richard Dawkins on TV last night in Dateline, he seemed to have a slight nervous twich, poor man, now I know why!
I personally tend to avoid any public forum due to this tendency of attracting over the top agression from primates who feel this is a legitimate form of communication rather than engage in a civil debate.
Alas, I too have had outbursts of temper on the net, chiefly concering my area of passion, namely religion.
As to being a devotee to reason, I now hold that Man is irrational. Intelligence is not wisdom, and our endless wars and greed show the madness of Man. Reason is an unattainable goal, like moral perfection, and as a legalism is produces more hypocrisy than true attainment
However your piece is a fine counterbalance to the self indulgence of an age given to such outbursts by the opportunity for immediacy the internet offers.
With the expectation of immediate gratification patience dies and rage grows
Knowing this I have finally given up posting on theology sites for some months now.
Concerning Shaw, I am educated but singularly uninterested in the man or his work, but I have heard tell of people losing tempers over websites discussing gardening. I thought Martin Luther was more relevant, but each to his own causus belli, or to his own pacifism . . .
As to the question of romantic versus classical disposition, I think that expression of rage is harmful, for it feeds the beast; but also that starving of the rage is also harmful for it stirs up the beast. But I am both a classicist and a romantic, or perhaps neither
Yet my solution thereto may provoke some to Express Themselves, so I will respectfully decline to offer it here
8 Mar 2010 Bob Irving
I have noticed the effect the article refers to: discussions on quite innocuous subjects seem to be punctuated by outbursts of invenctive, often bearing little relationship to the subject.
I think a mix of fear, social constraint and lack of intestinal fortitude may cause the harbouring of resentments. In some people, these seem to accumulate in a 'pool' of general (non specific) resentment, which vents in 'safe' situations where there is unlikely to be any concrete retaliation.
Then, of course, there are the folk who just enjoy argument and abuse, again provide they themselves are 'safe'...
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
then he should not be surprised when they respond in kind.
Evolution, being a fact, is no more in need of defence than gravity. Nor is atheism necesarily so great a good that it is improved by the support of partisan hacks like Hitchens or rhetors like Dawkins.
For a thorough appreciation of Dawkins, one need only read Stove's Essay - Genetic Calvinism or Demons and Dawkins. The man has made himself famous on essentially specious grounds. He does not deserve our attention, much less our respect.
8 Mar 2010 Virginia's Lupis
Considering that the author's entire schtick consists of vigorously challenging what he imagines to be received opinion, methinks he protests a little too much. Plus, I don't recall ever reading anything of his which filled me with warm thoughts of hearth and home. I do recall bits like this particularly nasty sentence (which manages to slam both a dead economist and a sitting president in one go):
"Galbraith has come back into fashion: not only his ideas...but his aristocratic assumption of unchallengeable moral superiority, written in his prose as it appears to be written on President Obama’s face. How delightful to be so generous, so very right all the time, and yet make a fortune and stay at the Ritz!"
Written on President Obama's face, is it? You can disguise it with fancy sesquipedallianism, but it's still meant as an insult. He might as well have said that Obama's a bloody toff.
9 Mar 2010 John Walters
Dawkins wrote anti-Christian books that were tirades of intellectually dishonest abuse. However Dawkins *claimed* that he was an impartial teacher of objective reasoning.
This caused Dawkins to be the hero of many verbally abusive persons. Thus they flocked to his website - and at the first provocation, they verbally abused Dawkins.
Why is this surprising to Dalrymple?
9 Mar 2010 Kevin
You might enjoy the solution to nasty comments that the folks at landoverbaptist came up with. They print all their hate mail, including the names of the authors. Most of the poison pen crowd don't realize that the site is a joke, so they never get the punchline.
9 Mar 2010 sharaine ely
While I thought that the content of Mr. Dalrymple's comment was fairly anodyne, I can appreciate that there is something off-putting in the way that he writes, in his very tone, that many might find irritating in the extreme. It is rare that I read something that I am not offended by and still find within myself a niggling irritation at its author. I am not saying that this justifies any intemperate outburst ('intemperate' is so much better than the 'fouls' and 'viles' which Mr. Dalrymple seems to use to make himself sound as prissy as his name). I just have to wonder if the author's experience is not more extreme than that of many other writers. There really is something of the tethered goat in the way that he writes--it seems to invite vitriol.
I sympathize with GBS's POV. Germ theory of disease has led to the societal disease of causation confusion IMHO. Are the nasty bugs the genesis of disease or merely opportunistic invaders of a compromised immune-system? Ask any allopathic Doctor and contrast with a Naturopath. Why do we take so many vitamins, even against the advice of Big Pharma? Is the end game on the agenda of the Council of Rome and the WHO?
9 Mar 2010 Nick
Mr. Dalyrmple
Thank you for expressing yourself, especially for how you do it.
I pointed out that George Bernard Shaw never believed in the germ theory of disease (possibly the greatest advance in medical science ever made), regarded it as a delusion, and called Pasteur and Lister – two of the greatest benefactors of mankind, if one is prepared to admit that there can be such – impostors and frauds who had no idea of scientific method, unlike George Bernard Shaw, presumably. This was a preposterous, but not untypical, misjudgement of his, and one which he never recognised as such. Indeed, he went on re-publishing his libels on their memory until quite late in his life.
End Quote.
According to Mr. Lakshman Sharma, an Indian naturopath (now deceased):
1. Pasteur was no doctor, but a third-rate chemist. He was not a true scientist, because he was in a great haste to do something on lines similar to Edward jenner. At that time there was a real scientist, with the humility and patience to persevere in the quest for scintific truth, who devoted his hole life to the work he had taken in hand. This was Professor Antoine Béchamp). He conducted a series of experiments in fermentation of sugar solutions. He discovered, looking through a microscope, certaincreatures of minute size, later called germs, bacteria, bacilli, microbes etc. He wrote a memorandum describing his experiments and observations, to the French academy of science, of which he was a member. He was aware that he was at a starting point of a new science, later called bacteriology. Theories need a vast basis of facts, ascertained by a slow scientific process. pasteur saw this document and at once set to work to steal a march over his rival, by framing a theory of germs. He made some perfunctory experiments and arrived at a hasty guess, which was later called the germ theory of desease causation. At that time there was no basis of facts to support this theory. many questions were there, requiring patience to ascertain their significance. But Pasteur could not afford to wait. He prepared a memorandum, in which he announced that tere are germs floating in the air, which enter into the body and cuase desease, and that deseases can be dealt with on the basis of this theory. He had the support of the emperor Louis Napoleon. So the academy had to accept the theory. Whenasked for proof, he replied "Future Science will furnish the proof". It did not do that. It discovered facts that were contrary to the theory.
Béchamp discovered after pateint research that there were no germs in the air, but something more minute, which he called mycrozymas - the raw material of creation. Both body-cells and germs were the results of this creative activity. If the microzymas were cultured on a wholesome, natural and organic diet, they became body cells. If they were fed on decomposing matter, they became germs, which have afunction to fulfill in desease processes. So he came to the conclusion that hygienic living is the means of preventing disease, not medication. But he arrived at it in his last days, one or two years before his death.
Pasteur, on the other hand, followed Jenner. He invented vaccines andserums for inoculation against the desease. At an early stage of the controversy by his critics, he admitted that "in a state of health, the living body is shut against disease". In his dying days, he said "Claude bernard was right. The soil (body tissues) is everything, the germs are nothing". The germ theory was withdrawn. The complete refutation of Pasteur's theory was when it was discovered that in many cases the "causative" germwas absent at the onset of desease, but came into being later, or not at all.
Because of his unscientific haste in proclaiming this theory, he had to make a number of assumptions, which were later disproved. One of these was that there were as many species of germs as there were deseases, eahc causing a particular disease. But bacteriologists later discovered that germs do not belong to fixed species, but could undergo change in form and properties, according to the medium in which they are cultured.If fed blood, or contaminated food, they became virulent. If fed on clean food, they became non-virulent. These facts are taken from a book, "Béchamp or Pasteur", by Douglas Hume.
The germ theory was also vitiated by ignorance that prevailed about the true cause of desease. The ancient, well-established truth was that food is the chief factor in the maintenance of health or desease. The medics of that time did not know this. When Béchamp put forward this theory, it was summarily rejected, because Pasteur would not allow it to be discussed. The hygeinists who stared the nature-cure movement in the 19th century were fully aware of it, and advocated diet-reform as an integral part of the system. But the orthodox medics were uninfluenced by it.
2. Dr. Robert McCarrisson was serving as a medical officer of health in Gilgit, north-west Kashmir. About 60 miles from that place was the Hunza valley, where lived a small community, unaffected by western civilization. They were unbelieveably healthy, strong and long-lived. His scientific curiosity was aroused. he studied their food habits, and their agriculture. later he established the nutritionl research laboratory at Coonoor in the Nilgiri hills.
There he gathered thousands of white rats, divided them into seperate groups, each representing a particular human community, and gave the food that was regular to that community. Germs were excluded by the maintenance of perfect sanitation, including pure and open air, sunlight and frequent washing of the cages. The only difference was the food given. Otherwise the groups had the same living conditions.
One group represented the poor people of Britain, who lived on margarine and white bread. There was little difference in the food between these people and the Madrasis.
As a result of these elaborate experiments, the Hunza rats came out best. The British and Madrasi rats came out the worst. And all the rest were in between. The thesis was proved. No attempt was made to disprove it. So the pasteurian theory was invalidated for those with open minds.
Another community, The Maoris of polynesian islands also led lives similar to Hunza valley people and were as healthy as them.
Dr McCarrisson emphasized the need for fresh, unspoilt food. Fresh food is alive, and other food is dead and hence does not promote health, only desease.
The burden of proving the pre-existence of casuative germs lay on the Pasteurians, not their critics. But they dogmatically never asked the questions which these facts should have given rise to.
3. John B. Fraser of Toronto accidentally stumbled on evidence showing the absence of germ at the onset of desease. In an article in the Canadian Lancet, he wrote that "in many cases under his attention the usual germs were not present when the person first became ill, but appeared hours later. They could not have caused the desease" - quoted from "Immunity" by R.B. Pearson.
4. Dr. Beddow Bealy in his booklet on germ theory of desease tells the story of experiments he made. Swallowing of disease germs in large numbers without any disease occurring.
My humble (not really ;-) point is that G.B. Shaw may yet be proved right, one day! Is that hard for a non-specialist like Dalrymple to imagine?
A common logical fallacy is the automatic assumption that two events close in time must be cause and effect related -- that is why some primitive tribes employ rain dancing.
IMHOP the seeming rise in both invective and the the Internet falls within that fallacious conclusion as the Internet does NOT have the power to change individuals; but it DOES have the power to un-mask them. Thus, the Internet operates much like money and liquor -- it reduces inhibitions and reveals the tcharacter flaws that have always been there.
For what it is worth, unlike you I am NOT surprised by the hatred and invective coming from the academic sector. It has been my experience that the much touted "liberal tolerance" of the academic community is largely a self-serving myth. And that the most intolerant prejudicial members of our society are those that hide behind the halls of ivy -- feeling smugly fully entitled to their intolerance because "they know" what is best and true (shades of the Inquisition vs. Galileo).
Unfortunately, we live in a credential based society that rewards memory instead of thinking -- the majority of academics are merely those that have memorized everything and learned nothing. Thus they demonstrate the primitive fear-threat reaction and can neither read nor reason when presented with ideas that challenge their memorization based personal belief systems. Mores the pity...
Carl Street
9 Mar 2010 michael
I think that you ought to consider the emotional context of expression, the intention of what comments appear to have hurt you, and your emotional choice in psychological response.
In the case of some mindless insult born of a kind of compulsion rather than a genuine intention or emotion, you will find it self-propagating because it does not satisfy any actual desire or need (which emotions and intentions are tied to). However, I contend that genuine expression satisfies something internally and is bound to the context of the moment its emotion or intention were inspired.
I also contend that genuine expression, regardless of the existence of vulgarity will always be positive in an objective sense. As far as who can flawlessly tell the two kinds apart at any given moment: no one can.
What is it that you would want to control? People compulsively expressing their self-hatred (the professors you spoke of), or just those who would use vulgarity? I would be inclined to say that the former is more damaging overall, and if the latter upsets you it's your own emotional attachment to the vulgar words (which is something you could change if you wanted to).
Theodore -- ironically, there is ample evidence that Shaw was right about the germ theory of disease. It is not that germs are not involved in a diseased condition, but that they are always present, whether there are symtoms or not. The question to ask is why are so many asymtomatic while hosting the germs?
The reason is that lowered levels of immunity cause the disease. Therefore, the cause of disease is a weakened immune system, not the presence of germs. That is likely what Shaw was referring to in his criticisms. I have heard it reported that Pasteur recanted his theory shortly before his death for this very reason. Check it out.
9 Mar 2010 Desertrat
I have noticed the same pattern of abusive response, these last dozen or so years of my own Internet time. I moderate at a couple of RKBA/firearms websites; we do not allow such behavior.
The larger question, seems to me, is what are the social forces driving such frustrations? The actual style of the behavior is obvious; the anonymity of the keyboard allows the Walter Mittyesque grandeur of the Keyboard Kommando. It's safe. It's the same behavior as the PETA types who will yell at the leather of a little old lady's vest but who will avoid a biker bar like the plague.
While I see the particular behavior as cowardly, a fear of face to face confrontation, there has to be an underlying reason to be so hostile in the expressions. But what are the causes of all this frustration?
Just today a friend and I were discussing the negative effects on language skills of modern communications technology in the form of cellphones, Twitter and so forth combined with the deterioration of education and reduced appreciation or practice of precision in language in mainstream media. You have beautifully addressed its corollary here. Anonymity and readiness have given us in a world in which rage now substitutes for critical reasoning and cohesive argument.
With this in mind, I must give Dalrymple condign punishment. Some people consider his diatribes a necessary evil but the truth is that one of his protégés once said, "The majority of incomprehensible, irrational clods are heroes, if not saints." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that I have a problem with Dalrymple's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that he is cunctipotent; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, if we love the Earth and everything that flowers and crawls upon it then the sea of misoneism, on which he so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Mr. Theodore Dalrymple himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum.
I AM 68, RETIRED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST, AND THINK THAT THE CLASSICAL VIEW IS CORRECT - FREUD WAS WRONG - LETTING STEAM OUT DOES NOT REDUCE IT BUT INCREASE IT.
HOWEVER, VIOLENCE AND TV IS A SELF-SELECTION THING. KIDS WHO LIKE IT WILL WATCH AND VICE VERSA. SO NO CAUSE AND EFFECT THERE, I THINK.
OK. LET'S HEAR THE VICIOUS DISAGREEMENTS FROM THE BLANK SLATE PEOPLE.
The speed of the Internet and the ease of response can also demonstrate that as ideas dissipate into the grand collective, words rush in to fill the void; a eulogy of sorts I suppose.
11 Mar 2010 Reid
I wouldn't worry about the criticism of university professors. Honestly, if I was a professor, I'd be carrying around a lot of hate too: hate for people who are actually accomplishing things in life. You've been published more in a year than they ever will be in life, so there's much pent up anger.
Just be careful about denying them tenure. They might shoot you...
12 Mar 2010 peter monro
Mr Dalrymple is as fine a writer and dissector of the myriad imbecilities - and worse - of our time as George Orwell was of his.
Here's hoping it is not rude to say, in this piece, as in so many others of the last 25 years, he is:
absolutely dead right, spot on, and every other cliche.
Intriguing to hear that academe once relied on for intelligent debate is now as poisonous as the rest.
12 Mar 2010 Ray Ingles
If I may make a minor (but civil) complaint: there's a serious double-standard when it comes to the word 'militant'. It often seems that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant' atheist is write a book.
I'm quite aware that 'militant' can mean 'committed' and not 'violent' - but my point is that the 'committed' sense never seems to be applied to the religious. And it seems to me this leads to confusion when applied to atheists.
12 Mar 2010 Ivelin Sardamov
It’s a bit ironic that readers are invited to express themselves under this. But let me try to meet the standard of invective TD sets. I have spent years wondering how someone who writes in such magnificently subdued prose can be so deluded about the roots of the moral decline he decries. Blaming leftist or any counter-cultural propaganda gives too much credit to a bunch of clueless parasites. I would suspect there are some more credible culprits – for example, the countless companies whose business plans are premised on breaking down any resistance to impulses for instant gratification and self-aggrandizement. They might plausibly argue that they don’t have much of a choice. But, of course, we don’t want to blame some faceless social forces for the problems we know must be the deed of real, breathing human beings. So the technological deluge unleashed by the market maelstrom engulfing us is off the hook, too.
I'm tempted to go upstairs, scrabble around in the drawer of the desk to find some no doubt dogeared writing paper, and write a neat, well composed and thoughtful letter in response to this article. I would then have to find an envelope (equally dogeared), and a stamp, and remember to post the letter on my way to work tomorrow - assuming that I have a stamp and that I can find a postbox.
I resist the temptation. I'm embarrassed to say that I have been guilty of a hasty response by email (to the purchase by our local priest of a marble lecturn for a parish church populated by migrants and refugees), and regret that I didn't 'go upstairs ...." etc etc. I think I'll just enjoy the facility of instant response, saying nothing of any consequence, but having fun.
On the flip side, I have found that some of my comments, sweetly reasonable for the most part, have been attacked and bunched with that of lunatics and radicals by those who disagreed with me. This association with crazies and extremists was used instead of a specific response.
For example, I have long taken the position that there is no scientific study which demonstrates that global warming, if it exists at all, will be catastrophic. I have asked my recipients to show me such a scientific study. The response was to group me and my writing with major Luddites.
Nice piece. I agree with you also that there may not be a significant problem here. I suspect that time and maturity of the internet will deal with most of the issues.
I enjoyed the article, up until I thought, cencorship. Then as if by magic it appeared in the next paragraph. I must confess I am one of those uneducated people who often online vents my fury at what I consider ignorance or just sheer stupidity. Being uneducated is a great excuse for behaving like a t***t. Writing is extremely therapuetic. When I am raging at someone on line, by the time I have typed my reply, I feel calm and vindicated. The send button is the problem, because five minutes later, I have allowed the respondent to bloody well wind me up again! Vulgar language to me, makes me feel that I have got my point over clearly. Educated peope write logically, most of the time. I along with many, write emotionally, rapidly and , yes, incoherently at times, because I want to jam a fist-full of nails down some ones throat. Not in five minutes time, but now, instantly! If authors of essays or books get annoyed with oiks like me expressing their opinions, then stop bloody well writing nonsense! SIMPLES.
So. The hate filled elite are hate filled regardless of the subject! It doesn't matter if it s poltiics or a favorite author if you dare to disagree. Very interesting. Really.
When anonymous, people too often become scoundrels. Didn't Kierkegaard write somewhere about the evil in the anonymity of crowds and mobs? Well, on the internet, people are even more anonymous than in a crowd. The internet is like a crowd of people most of whom are in masks. And they can say whatever irresponsible lie or insult they want, because no one can punch out their lights.
But in a new age of self-censorship in response to death threats from the people of the Qur'an, internet anonymity perhaps helps keep free speech alive.
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
