I was just sent this meme and it annoyed the hell out of me. Instead of debating or discussing Abby’s points regarding this contentious issue, Robert goes straight to character assassination in an effort to delegitimize her views and those of many who agree with her. I see this syndrome all the time, whereby people think that by accusing another of arguing from a disingenuous position they are somehow gaining some credibility or leverage over the wider issue. It stifles debate and mires the internet in bitter, angry mudslinging. Why is this nonsensical tactic so effective? Why isn’t it laughed out of firefox every time it’s used?
The internet is an inherently disingenuous place: nobody is arguing from their “real beliefs” or “real position”. For a start we usually only have a name and avatar to go by, which totally removes the reference points that provide context. For instance in reality a man’s sharp suit will tell you of the class position that informs his political beliefs, or a woman’s level of attractiveness and materialism will go some way to explaining her support for third wave feminism over other strands. NOBODY has this presense on the internet, and yet a whole people expect some sort of mythical “good-faith”, “legitimate” debate to occur and feel that the mere fact an opposing person is not ‘genuine’ enough can undermine their entire argument.
So my question is: Can this be fixed? Can the internet fulfill it’s promise as a place where ideas can be discussed freely and openly, unburdened from the suspicions and straightjackets of arcane meatspace tautologies? Or are we destined to drive it down to the same worthless circular arguments and petty judgements of a school debating club in a misguided quest for an authenticity that simply does not and can not exist.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:I was just sent this meme and it annoyed the hell out of me. Instead of debating or discussing Abby’s points regarding this contentious issue, Robert goes straight to character assassination in an effort to delegitimize her views and those of many who agree with her.
the medium is the message. next thread.
swampman posted:the medium is the message. next thread.
can you expand on this
HenryKrinkle posted:
I was paying homage to the charismatic black oratory tradition, “preach it brother!”, “soulja boy tell ‘em”, that sort of thing,
Ironicwarcriminal posted:So my question is: Can this be fixed? Can the internet fulfill it’s promise as a place where ideas can be discussed freely and openly, unburdened from the suspicions and straightjackets of arcane meatspace tautologies? Or are we destined to drive it down to the same worthless circular arguments and petty judgements of a school debating club in a misguided quest for an authenticity that simply does not and can not exist.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:So my question is: Can this be fixed? Can the internet fulfill it’s promise as a place where ideas can be discussed freely and openly, unburdened from the suspicions and straightjackets of arcane meatspace tautologies? Or are we destined to drive it down to the same worthless circular arguments and petty judgements of a school debating club in a misguided quest for an authenticity that simply does not and can not exist.
end internet freedom and create infrastructure for the same about of privacy which can be afforded in real life (your own space though hopefully with a bit more non power focused ability to control its creation and utilization)
reintegrate the communication tool into society and although it will take on the contradictions from that it will also lose all the contradictions its already developed to mean its been given some magical place in life which it doesn't deserve and which seem largely more reactionary then real life
also ban fun and dancing
getfiscal posted:we need a troll foundation to teach trolls that they don't have to troll to be happy
i appreciate the sentiment but “trolling” as a term and definition is about as useful or legitimate as “political capital”, this is my point.
Everyone is inherently trolling, accusing someone of such is like trying to score points with “oh yeah? Well you’re a human!”
Extending the argument for understanding the medium as the message itself, he proposed that the “content of any medium is always another medium” – thus, the content of writing is speech, print is that of writing and print itself is the content of the telegraph.
McLuhan understood "medium" in a broad sense. He identified the light bulb as a clear demonstration of the concept of “the medium is the message”. A light bulb does not have content in the way that a newspaper has articles or a television has programs, yet it is a medium that has a social effect; that is, a light bulb enables people to create spaces during nighttime that would otherwise be enveloped by darkness. He describes the light bulb as a medium without any content. McLuhan states that "a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence."
Likewise, the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself — the content — and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner.
Hence in Understanding Media, McLuhan describes the "content" of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind. This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As society's values, norms and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions that we are not aware of.
Interestingly, McLuhan interpreted Cubism as announcing clearly that the medium is the message – this is because for him, Cubist art required “instant sensory awareness of the whole” rather than perspective alone. In other words, with Cubism one could not ask what the artwork was about (content), but rather consider it in its entirety.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Everyone is inherently trolling, accusing someone of such is like trying to score points with “oh yeah? Well you’re a human!”
isn't this a more a sign of your personal pathology? the corrupt politician who holds everyone in disregard?
swampman posted:Um, For McLuhan, it was the medium itself that shaped and controlled “the scale and form of human association and action”. Taking the movie as an example, he argued that the way this medium played with conceptions of speed and time, transformed “the world of sequence and connections into the world of creative configuration and structure.” Therefore the message of the movie medium is this transition from “lineal connections” to “configurations”.
Extending the argument for understanding the medium as the message itself, he proposed that the “content of any medium is always another medium” – thus, the content of writing is speech, print is that of writing and print itself is the content of the telegraph.
McLuhan understood "medium" in a broad sense. He identified the light bulb as a clear demonstration of the concept of “the medium is the message”. A light bulb does not have content in the way that a newspaper has articles or a television has programs, yet it is a medium that has a social effect; that is, a light bulb enables people to create spaces during nighttime that would otherwise be enveloped by darkness. He describes the light bulb as a medium without any content. McLuhan states that "a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence."
Likewise, the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself — the content — and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner.
Hence in Understanding Media, McLuhan describes the "content" of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind. This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As society's values, norms and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions that we are not aware of.
Interestingly, McLuhan interpreted Cubism as announcing clearly that the medium is the message – this is because for him, Cubist art required “instant sensory awareness of the whole” rather than perspective alone. In other words, with Cubism one could not ask what the artwork was about (content), but rather consider it in its entirety.
cheers and ty, interesting stuff and begs the question how what the internet's fundamental medium is....maybe some curious mixture of argument and narcissistic introspective thought
elemennop posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Everyone is inherently trolling, accusing someone of such is like trying to score points with “oh yeah? Well you’re a human!”
isn't this a more a sign of your personal pathology? the corrupt politician who holds everyone in disregard?
No I’m not that contemptuous of human behavior nor projecting my own patterns onto others. I’m saying that regardless of peoples motives (and many are relatively ‘pure’), the simple act of projecting their views through the medium of the internet renders them disingenuous. If nothing else they are lying-through-omission because their complexity and formative experiences and social position is completely removed and replaced by a false objectivity.
This is about function, not misanthropy on my part.
thirdplace posted:arguing on the internet is a lot of work for no reward its not shocking that people take whatever shortcuts they can
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics……….a good-natured and rewarding competition rooted in an egalitarian tradition that validates people just for taking part
First of all, Lowtax is almost exactly like Illuvitar. In the beginning, there was nothing. Then Lowtax/Illuvitar came forth from the dark voids of the Internet/chaos and forged their creation from the aether. They each have their own dominion, and they hover it like the creator-gods that they are. Both are legendary, and although they have an omnipresent persona, few people have directly interacted with them.
Now, in the world of Middle-Earth, Illuvitar is aided by an order of powerful holy spirits called the Valar. They are his first creations, and they help him maintain Middle-Earth. Here at SA, we have the admins to fill that role. They are second in the heirarchy, and together with Lowtax they keep SA working. Updates, changes, all are in their jurisdiction. Right below the Valar are the Maiar, which are less powerful, and act as intermediaries between the heavenly beings and the denizens of Middle-Earth. The mods of SA fill this role. They interact with the posters all the time, to a greater extent than the admins and Lowtax. The mods have lesser power, just as the Maiar have lesser power, but they have their own sort of authority that can be truly wrathful to behold!
Both Middle-Earth and Something Awful are populated with an array of beings. It is astounding to see just how closely they coincide with one another. At SA, posters can be ranked accordingly: Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Orcs. Elves are the oldest and wisest of all posters. These are the posters who have reg dates that go back to 2000 or early 2001, and perhaps 2002 as well. These posters are incredibly popular, and generally well-liked. Although they have no official authority, the Elves carry a lot of weight, and people listen to them, even the higher-ups. People marvel at them, because they are so beautiful and wonderful. Even if they somehow get banned (an incredibly rare occurance), the Elves seem to come back, good as new. Even their avatars are unaffected.
Below the Elves are the Men and Dwarves, who are of equal rank, but differ in their habits and mannerisms. Men are posters who have been around a good while, and know the ropes of SA pretty well. They fit in, they don't call attention to themselves too often. As far as anyone is concerned, they are normal people. Dwarves are crankier, grouchier, and may or may not be older than Men. They sometimes get in scuffles with Elves, and are a bit more inclined to flame others.
Newbies also come into two distinct types. But unlike the above example, the two types discussed here are drastically different. The first type are the Hobbits. Hobbits are newbies who are innocent and kind. They don't want any trouble from anyone, and are curious little things. They genuinely want to be a part of SA, but for the most part they are horrendously naive and clueless. Bless 'em. Now, the second type of newbie are the Orcs. Orcs are horrible creatures. These n00bs shit up every thread they appear in, and they vastly outnumber just about every other demographic. Lowtax and the others try to curb their numbers by banning, and the other posters flame and bash them at every opportunity, but the Orcs are relentless. More are created everyday, and they multiply like rabbits. Orcs usually wage large-scale assault on threads by using trolls and trolling tactics. Unlike Hobbits, not all Orcs are necessarily "new". In fact, some of them may have old reg dates. The vast majority of Orcs reside in Mordor, which is FYAD.
Finally, you have the Nazgul. There really isn't much to say about the Nazgul, except that these are the notorious posters who everyone has heard of, and HATES. They are few in number, and everyone knows who they are. They are old beings, and far more horrible than the Orcs. They shit up every thread they appear in, but for reasons unknown they have avoided being banned. Everytime a Nazgul appears, everyone covers their ears and screams because they don't want to here what the Nazgul has to say, because undoubtedly it will bring only madness.
With this scutinous analysis of the SA forums, valuable information can surely be gleaned.
drwhat posted:iwc you write a post called "obfuscation and the myth of authenticity" and sincerely you've never heard of mcluhan before or "the medium is the message"?
tbf that's only because we had the mcluhan heritage minute
honestly they are funny as heck. possibly because i'm canadian.
drwhat posted:iwc you write a post called "obfuscation and the myth of authenticity" and sincerely you've never heard of mcluhan before or "the medium is the message"? i'm an uneducated scumbag and i've heard it about a million times before. where do you come from? where are you coming from??
i feel like reading respected people on topics that interest me is cheating, i'd much rather come to similar (but perhaps more contemporary) positions through observation of the world.
getfiscal posted:please watch every heritage minute
honestly they are funny as heck. possibly because i'm canadian.
most likely because your canadian yeah, it isn't a very funny culture.
it's a dry humour but a colourless, parched dry humour that doesn't sit well with me at all
getfiscal posted:canada is probably the funniest culture in the world outside the jewish diaspora.
just to note i wouldnt call your posting a culture, not that it would even be in the running for 'funniest' if it was one