Arguing on the Internet.

Maybe it was a brush-with-mortality that gave me the perspective to see more clearly something that had been lurking around on the edge of my consciousness. Here it is, do with it what you want.

So much of the debate on the Internet seems aimed to so thoroughly discredit (or humiliate?) someone so that everyone will instantly stop listening to that person. I saw it in a new way when I saw Scott Rosenberg confronted by one of his detractors. Sheez, don't they know how hard it is being Scott? He does it cheerfully and honestly, oozing integrity, holding up far more of the Internet than he probably ever bargained for.

Such a position leaves no room for subtlety or complexity.

No one is so devoid of intelligence or soul. Not even a serial murderer, convicted and sentenced to death, has as little grace as the fools who argue this way say.

Greg Hranek explained this to me in an email last night when he raised the issue of honor, in re discourse on the Internet.

Aha! How come I never viewed it that way. A good retort to a flamer.

You have no honor.

Heh.

[Scripting News]

I've kept three things in mind while discussing things on the internet,

1. Imagine the person is sitting next to you as you're talking to them. Phrase accordingly.
2. Imagine they know where you live.
3. What you way will be recorded for the ages, and a quick check of IP adresses shows who you really are. I had a friend who was a third generation hacker, and he specialized in pinpointing people and sending them emails with satellite photos of their house telling them to knock it off. Never threatening them, just usually replying to the "You'll never find me!" trolls.

This "no honor" thing works as well, and makes for a good fourth rule.

11:47:24 AM