posted
I wonder if the replacement of the human face with a computer screen makes people more cynical.
I say this because I see much more cynicism on the internet (not just or even primarily on Hatrack) than I ever have in real life.
Of course, I have never met a Randian (which I consider to be the most cynical of all philosophies) in real life either.
The question is, do you think that your posting style on the internet is more cynical than in real life?
As for myself, I fear that I err in the opposite direction, being overly idealistic in attempt to counteract all the cynicism I see. Needless to say, this doesn't work and is often counter productive.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the internet just attracts a more cynical breed. Or maybe you're just going to the more cynical parts of the internet.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does it matter anyway? Humans are just inconsequential little insects living out their pointless little lives, sometimes going on the internet, sometimes walking in the rain alone. There's no point to anything...even this question.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm about as cynical here as I am in real life. I vary between my very cynical moments amd my very idealistic moments in both realms.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teenagers who would like to be taken seriously tend to write cynically, even if they aren't especially so in real life. I base this theory on the consistently sarcastic tone of the editorial column of my old student newspaper, and my experiences with e-mail and a variety of message boards.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
Of course, I have never met a Randian (which I consider to be the most cynical of all philosophies) in real life either.
You say that you've never met one, but choose to make an off-hand generalisation about them. What have you been reading online?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, his generalization was about the philosophy, not the people, and is doubtless based on the writings of Randians about their own philosophy.
-o-
I believe that cynicism may be in the eye of the beholder. Think about the threads you go into. (I'm not trying to insult you, so my apologies if it comes across that way.) Based on a cursory examination of your last fifty posts (as well as my own perception, before I bothered to verify), you post primarily in politically charged threads, at least half of which are threads started by you. I don't see you posting in the hug thread, or in threads where people talk about their loved ones having cancer, or about their deepest fears, or where people make puns, or plan get-togethers. Are you participating in the gift exchange? Have you ever met a Hatracker (whom you did not already know before joining this site)? (With the up-front caveat that, because you are a minor, I don't want to be perceived as encouraging you to do anything without first taking precautions to keep yourself safe, let me say that I think it would be a fantastic idea for you to meet other Hatrackers.) Have you posted in threads about people's weddings? The births of their children?
Again, this is not a criticism: we all gravitate to the discussions that interest us. I've posted in the past about my observations of my own particular "turf" on more than one occasion. But I think your interests lead you to the threads that are most debate-like, and most combative, and so this is why forums seem so cynical to you. If you had witnessed Hatrackers coming together to form new families, and Hatrackers coming together to celebrate good times and help out in times of need, I don't think you would see it quite the same way. I remember when Hatrackers chipped in to buy a laptop for another Hatracker. I also remember all the encouragement that some Hatrackers have received when changing careers. I remember the support Hatrackers have gotten when going through unbelievably difficult times. I remember many different Hatrackers who have found places to stay while travelling. I remember the various charity drives we have had over the years, and the "free store" thread that was around for a little while. So while I can't speak for the rest of the internet, I wouldn't describe this group of people as particularly cynical, but it really depends on how you interact with us/them.
Speaking for myself, since you and I have had our run-ins in the past, it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that you think of me in this way. (A minor criticism here: when you get angry/frustrated, you tend to start these threads that appear to be very thinly veiled criticisms of the people you have recently argued with. At least, I can think of four recent threads that have immediately followed and been loosely related to other threads.) Getting back to my point: you have described me, in the past, as a bully and as someone who does not give any respect whatsoever to the opinions of people younger than myself, and I'm sure you honestly perceive things that way. But I don't perceive myself that way, and I know that this is not how most people around here, including the young ones, perceive me. But you haven't played with me. You haven't supported me or come to me for support. You haven't "hugged" me or received a "hug" from me. You haven't shared much of your life with me, or, as far as I can tell, been around when I've shared much of mine. And again, that's not at all a criticism, but, again, an observation that your perception of me is limited to the political and pedagogical issues we disagree on, and I suspect that that can be generalized to your relationships with most people online.
So, no, I don't observe it as a fact that people are more cynical on the internet; I believe that is your perception because of how you relate to the internet.
posted
People are more cynical and arrogant on the internet.
In addition, they know everything.
Part of it is the internet's common formats. In-person conversations and arguments are full of interjection, intimidation, posturing, and disparate levels of volume and attention. In comparison, you cannot interrupt or contradict a post in-progress, you can only tackle its end form.
Look at the written transcriptions of dialogue on debate shows -- when you compare them to forum debates in side-by-side text form, the differences are stark and the forum's transcript is usually more meaningful.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A) I'm not sure that establishes that the forum is more cynical, and 2) you are only addressing the debating side of things, which, as I pointed out, is not actually the only thing that goes on around here, though it may be the only thing that some individuals participate in.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Actually, his generalization was about the philosophy, not the people, and is doubtless based on the writings of Randians about their own philosophy.
I stand corrected; I read 'philosophers', not 'philosophies'.
Still Pelegius, I'm not sure that's true.
Webster takes 'cynical' to mean either "captious and peevish" or
quote:a : contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives
b : based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest
Out of those three definitions, Objectivism only fits the last. In fact, one could argue that Objectivism doesn't fit any of them. It's a philosophy which claims that self-interest and the ego should be a primary motive, but often isn't (humility, sacrifice, fear, altruism).
Is Objectivism dismissive of religion? Certainly. Was Rand obstinately certain that she was correct? Yes. Is Objectivism a cynical philosophy? Hardly.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm as cynical IRL as I am online.
Ah, yes. I know when I think of a hard-bitten, world-weary, cynical soul, I think ketchupqueen.
After I've thought of just about every other member of the board, including the irregular posters, Mr. Card, and myself.
By which point I've probably fallen asleep, long before coming anywhere near ketchupqueen.
If you're cynical, regina catsupia, it sure doesn't come across in most of your writing. I mean that as a compliment.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm cynical online, but only because I am fairly certain that most of the other posts are made by heartless robots bent on the destruction of humanity.
posted
I'm actual less cynical on here than IRL. I suppose that's because I don't really know anyone here- so if I was making fun of them- I'd just be mean. And if I pulled out my usual self-deprecatory facetiousness- well I'd probably get someone telling me that it's bad to have low self-esteem.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the problem is not the internet, but my peers IRL. Don't get me wrong, I love my friends, bu I think that teenagers often have a paralyzing fear of seriousness, perhaps because they fear that they will not be taken seriously.
A case and point, for as long as anyone can remember, my school has required that every senior give a speech, officially described as a "moral valediction" but more often as "a chance to share whatever wisdom you've learned." For my first year, most of the talks were basically comedic with a moral hastily thrown on. They have since become more serious, as students talk about family problems, drug abuse and other somber issues.
In response to this, and especially in response to the fact that my one friend with whom I could be equally silly and serious left the country, I began to seek out places for serious discussion. So began my ill-fated experiment with Ornery and my only slightly more successful one with Hatrack. But, whereas person to person discussions on serious subjects always seemed amicable, internet discussions often have a mean streak. In person, we forgive mistakes (at least I assume others do), on the internet we are often less likely to do so.
Ornery is perhaps one of the hardest-fighting boards on the internet, and my time there was a baptism of fire. So, when I came here, I wrote as was my custom on Ornery, only to discover that Hatrack was marginally less vicious, certain posters aside.
I have never known how to act on the most personal threads, and generally read them without saying anything, unless the poster asks for advice and I feel I can give some (as it was with Jonathan Howard's recent thread.) Threads about books and films are far more comfortable to me, but are generally short-lived as people only post once.
I came to Hatrack not seeking a second life but a surrogate for part of my life. Thus, I feel as if Pelegius is only a part of me, not always the best part. Sometimes the distance between Pelegius and the real me is slight, sometimes it is an abyss.
quote: Hatrack was marginally less viscous, certain posters aside.
I totally know what posters you're referring to. They're relentlessly adhesive! Those gelatinous jerks.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hatrack was marginally less viscous, certain posters aside.
I totally know what posters you're referring to. They're relentlessly adhesive! Those gelatinous jerks.
Ha!
For my part, I do not consider myself very cynical. It try to convey in my posts as close to what I would say IRL as possible.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
But I don't perceive myself that way, and I know that this is not how most people around here, including the young ones, perceive me.
I'm a young one, and you're definitely one of my favorite posters (even though I killed you off in the mafia game that time ) and I've never seen you write off someone's opinion because they're younger then you. Great post.
"There are certain boards you should avoid, then, lest your head asplode."
Can you link some of those boards? Now I'm curious.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |