Slashdot Mirror
"Please Die": Freedom From Speech
"Please die," a Slashdot reader urged a few weeks ago after reading - and apparently disliking -- a column I'd written.
I didn't take it as a literal threat. Messages like that are uncommon via e-mail, but they aren't unheard of, either. I e-mailed back, curious as to why the guy expressed himself so aggressively, when he could simply have disagreed or, even more logically, just stopped reading. "You're not a Linux geek," he jeered. "It took you months just to install a Linux system."
This was all true, I wrote back, but hardly explained his blast. He blew me off, saying something lame about my not controlling what he said. In fairness, I doubt he knew why he'd responded that way. It was probably instinctive.
Electronic communities mirror the outside world. They face tensions, growing pains, political differences and the other usual evolutions.
E-communities are fluid. As they grow, they bring in newcomers who have different values, languages and customs, sometimes even different goals.
In all but the most restricted e-communities, hostility, anger and pressure are the by-products, a process as inevitable as it is unpleasant. It tends to create what are, to varying degrees, hostile environments, especially when it comes to public postings and discussions.
All over the Net, communities confront the same choice: freedom or civility. For anybody writing online, this is a familiar experience. Truly dangerous people aren't likely to post anonymous insults or send nasty e-mail. They have more effective weapons. Online flaming - not to be confused with disagreement - is almost by definition an act of social cowardice.
There are good arguments in support of flaming. Flamers can deflate the pompous, correct the inaccurate, educate the ignorant, level the communications playing field.
"Flaming is an equalizer," wrote an anonymous flamer on this site. "It puts me on a level with people like you, and keeps me there."
Flaming can even be an effective communications tool: "There's a style of argument I see practiced on the Net and almost nowhere else," wrote Ken, "a very precise, defensive style. I like it because it's based on scrupulously differentiating what you 'think' from what you 'know.' Flaming forces people to think about their opinions, he argued.
Ken has a point, but his is a benign interpretation of this new kind of social aggression and brutality. On this and other sites that encourage open discussion, online hostility is a significant problem, especially at a time when the need for open discussion about technology (Y2K comes to mind) becomes even more urgent.
The Net has been a hostile environment almost from the first; hostility is nearly a cherished tradition. The geek/nerd/programmer culture is probably statistically one of the least violent in the world, yet on the Net and the Web it's generated a consistently abusive atmosphere.
One of the most striking things about nasty e-mail and vicious public postings is that they're almost always rooted in surreal distance: the sender rarely thinks of his target as a human being. He's sending words to a remote computer system, unsure they'll even be read.
Once there's contact, the flamer is often amazed by a response. He almost always apologizes - 90 per cent of the time would be my guess, or replies in a more civil tone, or flees.
I get an average of 200 personal messages after a column appears here, sometimes more, sometimes less. About a fourth are written in disagreement, but usually only three or four are personal or hostile. There are typically even more public postings about my columns, and a dramatically larger proportion - between a quarter and half - are either sharply critical or pointedly hostile.
This bewildering dichotomy is expected by anybody who expresses an opinion regularly on a website. It was the same when I wrote for Hotwired and other websites. In fact, many of the e-mails I get constitute apologies for or laments about the sometimes vicious nature of public messaging online.
Not only does this odd reality, unique to electronic communication, create a hostile environment, it distorts reality since civil communications are rarely made public while attacks are often seen publicly. People reading columns, stories and commentary rush to defend the target or apologize for the assaults, rarely realizing that the attackers are a small minority though they appear to be dominant.
This misperception triggers a series of off-base notions about ideas, opinions and reactions that play off of one another, often inaccurately. Ideas that seem to be unpopular are sometimes popular; arguments that win widespread approval can seem widely condemned. There's no way for the reader to accurately or realistically gauge mood, temperament or perspective. Ideas aren't really tested in this way; they're aborted.
Worse, the ferocity of the environment discourages all but the most confident or determined posters. Flaming, like skateboarding, seems overwhelmingly an adolescent form of recreation. Whole segments of the human population - women, the elderly, those who speak foreign languages, newcomers, children - are excluded from the conversation or choose to avoid it.
Some are too vulnerable too join in; many are tough enough but they don't see much reason to bother.
So flamers discourage free speech, prey on the weak and dominate discussion. They have a "chilling effect" on the movement of opinions and ideas, a phrase more often associated with First Amendment law than the Net. Yet to silence or curb them is unacceptable, as it limits the inherently free nature - and information flow - of the best sites on the Web. There is no simple solution to this intensifying problem, or anything like a consensus.
To complicate the issue further, the great majority of visitors to most websites - certainly this one - are lurkers, information foragers who want news and information but are loathe to censor anyone, and are unwilling or unable to challenge the small cadre of flamers who've seized control of public discussions.
All of which presents a series of increasingly complex choices for people designing and running websites as well as for those working and posting on them. (Though truthfully, it's pretty hard to take seriously a message that says in its entirety, "You suck.")
Many public websites try to modify hostility by requiring posters to join and identify themselves. People who write anonymously are far more likely to post ugly sentiments than people who identify themselves and therefore assume at least theoretically responsibility for what they've said.
On this site, however, anonymity is seen as a cherished right - the only way for all posters, especially for those working for companies or government agencies, to weigh in without fear of reprisal.
Nameless posters - here called Anonymous Cowards - are considered sources as well as equalizers. Barrier-free sites have the freest information flow of any on the Web, and they're sometimes the most informative and newsworthy. The tradeoff is that they're also the most hostile.
On some sites, vicious posts get removed and vicious posters eventually ejected. Some provide hosts to steer conversations.
Slashdot's response has been to deploy one of the most elaborate self-policing systems on the Internet, with members of the site encouraged to join the process, act as moderators and and trigger software that automatically removes the most offensive posts from the screens of people who don't want to see them. A new system to discourage excessive hostility in public discussions has been in place for six months now. Posts never get deleted, but some are removed from mainstream view.
Although the moderation system gives users choices about just how much verbal aggression they want to encounter, it hasn't really curbed the site's overall hostility, just given users more ways to avoid it. Moderating systems ultimately can't hold people responsible for what they say, and don't take into account that the hostility isn't a side-show for many people, but the point.
This moderating is sometimes called "steering" or "over-steering," part of a broad movement on the Net that allows sites and individual users to limit their own horizons. Sometimes this is a response to the sheer volume of information, sometimes an effort to screen out unwanted points of view.
While flamers keep their right to assault, individuals - entirely voluntarily - create personal insulated zones where they can block anything unplelasant, challenging or disturbing.
The dangers are obvious. One of the Net's most significant contributions is to bring all sorts of people together. But the growing "freedom from speech" movement is spawning communities in which people will find only opinions they already agree with.
But more restrictive approaches pose an obvious tradeoff: less information, fewer public posts, no protective or leveling role for the posters.
As one who posts regularly and is on the receiving end of positive as well as snarky feedback, I'd go with preserving anonymity over advancing civility, if those were the only options.
Fortunately, there are more.
Tomorrow: Breeding Creative Jerks
Jon, get over it. This is an open forum. There's gonna be about 50 posts on this thread alone we call "trolls" who will say that you're naked and petrified. What's worse, some of them will even say "you suck!" a dozen or so times. Veterans of the internet get used to this - especially those that also post in places like Usenet.
This community is very critical of the technical correctness of one's work. We also don't happen to have an incredibly huge interest in politics or the little tedious things other people seem to find so interesting (like politics and the oh-so-common "I'm right and you're wrong" syndrome). We're going to flame you. Often, and in depth. Some of our more outspoken members might keep it more impartial and just point out the flaws, but we're human and there are still some of us with these so-called "emotions" that come into play. You're not the first, and you won't be the last. Now can you PLEASE stop saying "oh poor me" and just get on with the article? If you wonder why you're so hated, it's because you disregard our feedback and then expect us to like you! People hate being ignored.
** END RANT **
Sheesh. We turned that into an art form at Clarkson U. Had a while local newsgroup where a bunch of us would just attack each other without mercy. We didn't know each other at the time (except by reputation) but we've all become good friends since. Most of the posts were written so well, I had many a good laugh, even at my own expense.
I worked hard to find the right buttons to press (or keys in this case) to get someone riled, and it's usually more than a simple "you're an idiot, please die." It's more subtle than that.
Now I use my skills for the good of humanity. I don't flame anyone. It isn't fun anymore.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
And please don't moderate this down if you don't like it! Reply with a logical list of reasons you don't like it instead.
Visit
Kooks on Usenet have been protesting for years that the email they get is overwhelmingly in favor of whatever halfwitted notion they're spouting today, and that the flames they've taken in public are not representative of all the supportive lurkers. They never seem to be able to substantiate the claim, either. The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
Flamers... funny how you'll never meet one in person. They are oh so safe behind their keyboards, snug in the knowledge that that will not get a black eye for their efforts.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
However, I don't think its a problem. In fact, its probably the only thing that keeps the online communities from spiraling down into pure demagoguery. People who are not willing to take the heat for their opinions probably don't have opinions worth hearing. I post often (especially on religious topics) and have taken my share of ad hominem attacks and flame. I have survived, and don't see why others cannot do the same. I think flame has made me a better poster.
Gark, you say! What about freedom of speech? What about it? This isn't prior restraint -- and the only legal right to free speech you have (at least in the US) is that congress may not pass laws prohibiting it. I am so sick of people who think that the first amendment (which they've never read) grants them some magical right to say any kind of idiocy that crosses their mind with impunity.
Also, I would hardly say that flame is something new, or unique to the net. Ever read the arguments of the sophists?
-- Slashdot sucks.
Nameless posters - here called Anonymous Cowards - are considered sources as well as equalizers. Barrier-free sites have the freest information flow of any on the Web, and they're sometimes the most informative and newsworthy. The tradeoff is that they're also the most hostile. On some sites, vicious posts get removed and vicious posters eventually ejected. Some provide hosts to steer conversations.
Let's hear it for AC. Jon is on the mark here. For the most part I agree with his thoughts. The one area I differ greatly is that he states
The tradeoff is that they're also the most hostile"
I disagree. Even with all the flames hidden behind the mask of AC, most here are productive and thoughtful, most are trying to respond with a differeing point of view. Although /. can be rough at times, consider the audience, this place has the most intellect of any site on the net, And if you state a comment without forethought , the flames are inevitable. The freedom to post what you feel/think is in no way restricted, if you can handle the falmes of your peers.
Way to go Jon!
.
Take all good things in moderation, including moderation.
This is probably the first time that I agree with you Jon. Poeple that flame should try and realize however that most people put on an auto ignore when ignorant flaming starts. If you have a legimate criticism then make it, otherwise keep silent. Nobody pays too much attention to the LOUD SUPID REMARKS that are made anyhow. Flamers are a lot like telemarketers it only takes a couple of seconds to spot them and you can then you can hang up.
Jon claims that the Net has been hostile from (nearly) its start. I disagree, for various values of the word hostile.
Maybe I sound like I long for the good old days of Netiquette (before 1994-1995), but I didn't get here until shortly before that point. Still, I look at places like comp.lang.perl.misc and realize that though there are heated debates, and though even the regulars and the experts have their mistakes corrected quickly and thoroughly, it's the soi disant experts, the nouveau intelligentsia who cause the most problems.
Consider the strange case of a new poster who jumps on the first question answered in the FAQ and gives an incomplete or incorrect answer. Certainly he intended to help, but evidence through the years has shown that the common practice in clpm is the best practice. He'll be corrected for that. Some people take it well ("Thanks for the information; I'm here to learn." and others take it poorly ("Why do you hate me? Why are you arrogant? I have a right to post to this 'web sight' [sic]!").
I don't mean to say that there aren't roving gangs of troublemakers who want to get a reaction however they can, but there's also a strong pull toward correcting misinformation. Perhaps some of the 'hostility' Jon detects is simply curt and terse corrections to his errors. (Of course, there are plenty of the former as well. Plenty indicating volume, not necessarily numbers.)
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
I think the real problem is that subtle emotional content is difficult to communicate electronically. The reaction to this is to use stronger words than necessary, in order to give the message some personality. So a post that supports someone's point will say "You rule, dude! You should be in charge," instead of something bland like "I agree with your point." Similarly, instead of saying "I think you are wrong, here's why:" becomes "You clueless loser! Don't you know:" and comes across as a flame.
:-) to mean "I'm joking," the convention is to use "Die, you moron!" to mean "I disagree."
Just like we have to use
I'm sorry but as much as you may like to make it out that way Flaming someone is not 'Assault', it's comepletely non-harmful. There is no way you can hurt someone by writing them a nasty e-mail, or posting a nasty note about them to a message board. If I recieve an e-mail full of swearing and misspelled invectives I'm just going to delete it after the third or fourth word. I can easily ignore a post that I find offensive. There is NO WAY someone can force you to read a flame. In person someone can scream at you, make you listen to them by using physical force, but there is no way to do anything even REMOTELY like that on the 'net. It takes no 'courage' or 'strength' to stand up to flames, you just have to use one finger on the mouse to delete, skip, or otherwise ignore them. It's NOT HARD.
As for you getting more flames in the forum than in e-mail, how about asking all of your e-mail supporters to actually post to the threads? Maybe some of us would like to have meaningful discussions with them...
Or maybe we'd like to flame them.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Most flaming I have seen is not meant to educate but to "rub someone's nose in it". People who flame others have been around long before computers. When it's done in person, it's called "being a jerk". The net has simply allowed that inner jerk in each of us to come out. You simply see more truly what is in a person's character when you read their posts/e-mails. Imagine a society where everyone says exactly what it on their mind, so matter how abusive or abrasive it is. That's the online world.
Having a wonderful tool like the Internet opens the flood gates for communication for everyone, regardless of age, life experience, or education level. Ideas can be offered, traded and people have the oportunity to learn from one another.
Unfortunately the process makes it obvious to everyone we are a few common sequences of grunts away from sniffing each others butts for information.
We are not taught to communicate as children for the most part (children being better seen than heard), most of us feel alienated as adults, which is one of the resons we sought out people on to communicate with over the Internet in the first place.
We have a bunch of frustrated, alienated, people who are trying to express themselves in a "crowded room" senerio, where there are obviously a few cliques who run the place. So they start yelling and throwing temper-tantrums.
Well that is one possibility. I used to flame people because it made me feel macho.
-Little Sister
"The future masters of technology must be light-hearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the
Makes you feel a bit better.
Maybe not a good thing when you take others in consideration but I prefer being rude to ppl I don't know.
Flaming is my safety vault and when you are in a dark and cynical mood it's not even flaming. It's pointing out the thruth to all these naive and stupid ppl (which is wrong I know!).
About a fourth are written in disagreement, but usually only three or four are personal or hostile
Since I make a point of sending at least six death threats to Katz for every article he posts, either this is a lie, or my email account has been suspended again.
...why so many people expend the time and energy to post so many angry replies here every time Jon Katz does an article.
;)
I mean, you can turn Katz off completely if you wish, it's in the Preferences. You don't even have to know he exists!
But no, it seems that some folks on here would rather get rid of Katz completely, and deny him any right to post on Slashdot. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I never get angry over it.
Perhaps some people are imbibing too much caffeine?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Anybody check out John C. Dvorak's column last week? That was whining; he just used his column to strike back at the groups he perceived as picking on him. Katz's article may have incorporated a bit of whining, but it was a lot more thoughtful than Dvorak's. Katz talked more about the effects of flamage, and even considered the possibility that flames do serve a purpose. Above all, he tried to calm things down with his plea for civility, as opposed to fanning the flames like Dvorak.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Stop giving me a litany about how you suck... We still like you Johnny Boy..., But you suck nonetheless...
A lot of people argue that flaming is a way to make people think, which is true, but in a case where both sides simply view things differently, flaming won't do any good.
PLEASE DIE.
As a 'computing old-timer', I once was a frequent participant in on-line discussions. However, entanglements in flame-fests has caused me to become more of a lurker than participant. I don't regard my speech as being curtailed, however. Instead, I tend to think more carefully before posting. Typically, many people will make very similar responses to a post, and there's no real reason for me to provide a "me too" comment (albeit in different words). Now I post only when I have particularly strong feelings on a subject, when I feel I have something to contribute, or in the rare case when a technical question to which I have the answer goes unanswered. -- Dumb sig follows -- "Whoa, ho, ho, ho, Powdered Milk Man! Whoa, ho, ho, ho, you must die!" The Aquabats
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" -- Marx (Groucho, not Karl)
I've long been of the opinion that if someone can't defend themselves from a hostile response, they shouldn't be speaking in public. I think that flamers are actually a *good* thing, as they insure that the people in the discussion are thinking and confident about their opinions.
But the problem is when a flamer becomes a kook. A hostile response is something everyone needs to learn how to accept, and 'Please Die' isn't a credible threat. But I have gotten death threats from a person who went on to hire a private investigator to find my address, phone me at 3AM, and write letters to my employer in an attempt to get me fired. Kooks like *that* cause a chilling effect on free speech. And because you never know when a normal flamer will turn out to be a real kook, people tend to be more afraid of flamers than they probably should be.
The right to flame on the internet should be preserved. But true kooks should be eradicated. How do you do both? Not sure.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Is it that surprising that anyone with the near guarantee of anonymity that the net provides behaves in a hostile manner? I think not. Our lives are spent occuping our place in societies many heirarchies, as emplyees, as citizens, in social settings. Not so on the net. Anyone and communicate uninhibited, exaggerated, and safe from retribution. Social norms and courtesies are unnecessary and discarded. I, a long time gadfly on slashdot, prefer sarcasm to threats. So beware Jon Katz! If you dangle flaimbait in front of a readership known to be trigger happy to begin with don't be surprised if you get exaggerated responses.
As one who posts regularly and is on the receiving end of positive as well as snarky feedback, I'd go with preserving anonymity over advancing civility, if those were the only options.
/. and comment on them. You've obviously got the language skills to do so. Jump in. I think you'll find that it can be even more rewarding then coming up with the perfect story in your basement. (On other conferencing systems, I've seen real reporters post, and respond, and the results were very rewarding for both sides.)
/.s structure avoids the worst flamewars. Not so much the moderations system as the short lifespan of the topics. It is hard to keep the grand-mal flame-fest going when everybody leaves the topic after two hours.
This statement caught me off-guard, because I've never actually seen a Jan Katz post. I've seen stories submitted by him, but I've never seen any other sort of commentary. I suspect that this is the true source of most of the flames that he gets. He doesn't appear as a member of this community. He appears as someone submitting stories from on-high, thinking himself too good to come join the common fray. (I'm not saying that is true. That is just the appearance.) I suspect that he'd get a lot less flack from people here if he were to do that.
Jon, why not post here, is response to people's comments? Better yet, read other stories on
Personally, I've found that it is possible, with practice, to avoid most flamewars. (Through painful experience, believe me.) It is mostly a matter of learning not to respond to trolls, learning how to use diplomacy in posting, and mostly, learning not to take it all too seriously.
And one thing always to remember: you will never "prove yourself right" to the point where everyone agrees. Don't bother trying. Once you've stated your case appropriately, it is counterproductive to say any more.
Just remembering that will avoid a lot of flaming.
I also think it interesting that this story is posted here as it seems to me that
The cake is a pie
Sometimes this is a response to the sheer volume of information, sometimes an effort to screen out unwanted points of view.
Jon, please remember that moderation serves two purposes: screening out junk and raising the profile of good posts. I've read a lot of really thoughtful posts that I would have missed were it not for up-moderation. Sometimes, someone makes a good point deeper within a thread than I would have dug on my own. Other times, when comments overflow my thresholds, I can at least get some idea of the discussion from the highly-rated posts.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
I don't ever remember posting to a Katz article, but I'll start now.
;-) It doesn't stop me from expressing my ideas.
What's the big deal about flamers? I read them, laugh then continue. I never take one seriously. Only a few AC do I take serious and then even with skepticism. If an AC is an AC because they are too lazy to login, then ok, but at least write who you are, of course this can easily be forged. If an AC is an AC because it could get them in trouble, for example, someone posting something about their company. This is ok, but I'm still skeptical.
It's been discussed before that some think it is stupid to post your name. I do all the time, since I believe that it makes you think twice about posting. But at least it shows that you are serious and will stand by you post. I would like it if a potential employer would look at my prior posts. So I post accordingly.
If you are confident about you ideas, then use your real name. Otherwise I can't trust you completely. I don't buy people not posting because they are afraid of the flamers, because they can always post anonymous. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact you can post anonymous, and I even travel at a -1 rating. It's easy to see the true flamers and I just laugh it off
So go ahead, flame away >:*}
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
You suck.
Yeah, okay, but you know what? No one's compelled to read anything on Slashdot anyway. The very point of it all -- for me, at least, and I suspect many others -- is that I do see so many different view points that I wouldn't otherwise see.
If someone is truly interested in finding "only opinions they already agree with," I think they can go to great lengths to do this with or without the voluntary mechanisms for narrowing one's horizons online. I mean, they don't have to use the internet at all: it seems like complete abdication is one of the narrowest responses, and certainly easy for anyone to exercise. Getting people on Slashdot at all is a good step, whether or not they choose to read absolutely EVERYTHING when they're here.
It was not another "the world is ending", "the sky is falling", etc. article.
But please tell me how a few words from someone in response to your words restrict free speech? It seems that the irrational world many people on the 'net make for themselves becomes their "real" world. They seem to think that mere words actually are some sort of action. In practice, words to your face are the ones to think about, stupid nastygrams might as well be ignored.
Granted, they may fortell SOME action, but you sure can not prove it from the history of the 'net (if only a small fraction of the threats of violence on the net were carried out, every programmer, webmaster, newscaster and activist would be in their grave by now).
No matter what you believe in or know or think, someone sending you a nastygram should not stop you from continuing to speak as you wish. If it does then you should seek psyciatric help.
BTW, I do like your sloppy writing style perhaps I can create a Katzbot similar to the Mattbot on my drudge report perody site.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
One thing that I expect will improve as a result of this sort of thing is the level of tolerance people have for dissenting opinions. This is because the Internet opens communications channels between enemies. For example, there was a protest in front of the Australian embassy in New Delhi by sadhus because a flyer for a major gay event in Sydney had depicted Hindu gods behaving in a way they considered to be offensive. We will see a bit of this for a few years, but after the ten zillionth time somebody says something "offensive" on the Net, the users will realize- shocker- that no matter who you are, somebody out there doesn't respect you. Once people realize that that's life, we'll all be a lot happier.
About seven years ago I entered the world of BBSses and was confronted with the digital world of flamewars and mailbombing...
Even back then when the Internet was young in Europe the BBS-era already showed what problems could be encountered when you put a couple of people anonymously on a computer system.
People started flame wars about Gravis Ultrasound versus Soundblaster, Assembler programming versus C++, DOS programming versus Windows (Linux wasn't wide spread back then!), protected mode versus real mode, Future Crew versus Triton, and so on...
Back then I was still in democoding and I encountered many flamewars since my demogroup couldn't fit in the ideology of demos (can't you guys take a joke??) and our BBS was struck a few times with a couple of virusses (newly written) and mailbombs (remember, attatchment of a few hundred megs of one character textfiles zipped and attatched, kaboom when the mail programs scans for virusses!)
Since you can't really fight fysically online people start to search for an alternative which might hurt the victim (overloads, spams, etc), I think that's soooo lame...
If only the people who do these things think up something original or program their own tools or invent their own ways to strike somebody... But no, 98% of the time those people just download tools to hack/crack/whack people... Boring.
I've learned a couple of things from all this, most of the times I'm prepared against attacks and strike back! Most of those people just don't know what they are doing and even don't protect themselves against counterstrikes. (H3y, 100k, 1 d0wn10ad3d 7h15 c00l pr09913! Huh? Th15 wa5n'7 5upp053d 70 happ3n!)
F#ck off, don't be a lamer!
- Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity -
It's been my experience that *geeks* tend to be very opinionated and combative people. However they typically choose to be intellectually (is that a word) and verbally combative instead of physically combative.
Geeks take things very personal when it comes to their intellect. If you cross some imaginary line with them then they see flaming as a perfectly "okay" response. The truth is that some of the times I've been flamed on usenet were the times I've learned the most. I don't really mind being flamed if your going to offer helpfull information as to why I'm a jerk. I'm willing to learn from anybody.
I think that the obvious thing to do is to not take anything personal when it comes from usenet or slashdot.
Now, why am I being so hard on Katz? There is one big reason: I don't want /. to slide further down the same path as Usenet. Slashdot is not and never was a free-for-all forum. It is editing in two ways: by Rob & Co. chosing what and what not to post, and by those arbitrarily chosen for moderatorial duties. Without effective editorial control, any forum rapidly sinks to the level of lowest common denominator. In some ways, slashdot has gone as far as is possible to counteract this tendency, with moderation and meta-moderation supplmenting the editorial team; only to throw these advantages away by promoting a vapid windbag as part of the team, effectively both writer and editor -- for who believes Katz's slashdot posts are subject to the same controls as ordinary contributions?
It used to be different. Slashdot was made up mainly of submitted stories: that is, slashdot readers were also slashdot columnists: a "story by RobLimo" or or CmdrTaco or whoever was normally a posting of something a /. reader had sent in, with the powers that were at slashdot functioning as editors of a kind. Now, it's different. Now, ironically, it is "old media" with a vengeance. Know-it-all journalists decide what slashdot will cover: setting the agenda, then graciously allowing the unwashed masses to comment on their wisdom -- though, never, you'll note, getting seriously involved in the discussion.
This article immediatly made me think about some stats which I recently read in some newspaper: when people are driving cars, they easily get nervous hiding behind the anonymity provided by the speed and vehicle. Actually, I believe that a lot of people undergo the social pressure when they are clearly identified and therefore react according to their social background within the limits of their own censorship. But we the same people are hidden, then the social pressure cannot apply any longer, there is no fear to be judged or misjudged. And therefore, they act (or react) closer to their guts than to their brain. Another aspect is that people who are shy, complexed or who do not have a strong personality in real life tend to turn to the anonymity to create either the character they would like to be or to make their inner pressure or aggressivity gush out using words which would relieve them quickly, in short overreact. Though this may sound like 2-cent psychology, I believe that this can explain the majority of the flamings in the context of anonymity. And it has its good and bad sides.
I think obscurity is one of the key things of online communication that gives way to flaming. A lot of the things said in flamewars would never be said to somebody's face. It's easier to shoot somebody down if one doesn't have to think of the other as a real person. It's easier to tell someone to die, if you can't see the look of hurt on their face, or the look of anger that tells you they're going to kick your ass.
This holds true offline too, in a way--people talking behind the backs of others, people seeing each other as a category, not a person (as just a race, a gender, a sexual preference, etc.). But for some reason it's easir online because there really aren't going to be any major reprecussions. One can flame another and walk away. The online life is still very detached from offline life for most.
But this obscurity also helps people deal with the receipt of flame posts. If somebody you know--somebody with a face--comes to you with an attack, it's something you have to deal with. If you work in the same office, or study at the same school, or whatever, then that conflict is something you're going to have to deal with. But online, one can just step away from the computer or scroll down.
> saying something lame about my not controlling
> what he said.
The thing is, it's very easy to control what someone says, all you have to do, is make them think that they are saying it independently of you. A mailing list I spent a lot of time on, I could tailor my comments for specific people to get to say the things I wanted them to say, but they never realised it.
(Yes, the mailing list was a general no-fixed-topic type one)
Anytime that you communicate through a medium which permits one or more parties to seem as though they are not a human being, something akin to flaming will ensue.
Demonisation, dehumanisation and so forth are old tricks of orators and leaders. The net has simply facillitated this by not requiring the process leading up to the effect.
Anyone who has subscribed to a counter-cultural movement at any time in their youth -- and how many haven't -- will tell you that they're often treated poorly by their peers. Katz should be quite familiar with this, as he seems to write more than a few pieces that revolve around it. When someone is seen as being even subtly 'different' (difference, of course, being completely subjective) they will suffer more abuse. It will not generally come to the levels of our lovely Internet, but it will occur.
This is a facet of existance, not a phenomena of the Internet that needs to be altered. At the very least, the Internet gives everybody equal footing. There are few enough human beings here, and those that are have earned their stripes. Everybody started out the same, though: anonymously. Knowing a name and knowing a person are two completely different things.
Flaming has never managed to bother me. "U DIE FUCK!" hardly fits my perception of threatening. This may not be true for everybody. But then, nothing is. I'm certain that it's shocking for some. Ultimately, though, the Internet does comprise a distinct culture. Call it culture shock, if you will. My mother, who hooked up last year with a DSL package, has managed to adapt to flaming, pornography advertisements and 'Save my baby from the well' forwards. Like it or not, these are all a part of our community. They're those quirky cousins in the hills, bringing no menace with them but reminding us of those days during childhood when they terrified us with their shotguns and muddy breeches. Now, they've done their bit. They are repetitive. They are ever-dwindling shades of their original incarnation, and cannot possibly recover what they were. If you've seen one mindless flame, you've seen them all. And if that fancy lawyer uncle of yours from New York shivers in their shadow, he can pack his bags and get the next bus home.
The 'critical' flames are a bit different. I don't consider a strongly worded response to be a flame. Assuming it contains criticism, it should be addressed. A reply is not necessary, but one should read over what is contained within them. When something slips beyond the 'FUCK UD IE FUCK!' phase, and manages to expand into a pedantic rant regarding subordinate clauses, at least it informs me that my grammar has slipped.
Flames have been around since the dawn of man, when Grog laid the smack down on an albino. They are not unique to the internet, nor did they originate here. At one time, though, we should remember that these flames were kindled by those who held sway. The orations to decide power in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch hunts all sprung up from personal motives shifted to dehumanisation. Once de-humanised, the mindless hatreds and actions were flames, no?
The internet is a mass of non-entities with the occasional cluster of human beings: the people you know. If anything, this sort of non-identity -- from which springs the incessant flaming -- is an advance, not a regression.
-l
Apologies for lack of clarity, I've no time to proof.
if you want to put out flames, pour grits on them. but it isn't as good as pouring them down your pants. thank you.
Just be quiet and do your math instead of volleying semantics and crappy constructs.
One thing the comes to mind while discussing the issue of violent remarks and flaming is that most violent and aggressive posters seem to be (although this is quite difficult to determine in alot of cases) male.
Of course this isn't suprising seen in the context of tech/geek culture which has been for sometime male dominated.
The online world ofers the protection and anonymity that you could say promotes anti social behaviour that would be frowned on or even outright dangerous in the real world.
Of course you could say the exact oposite (that anonymity promotes speach and sociability) and it would still be true.
The point here is that the violent outbursts online are mostly tell tale signs of the darker side of the male psyche and that the promotion of the endurance, ability and the highly focused/restricted skills of the geek coder in geek culture only help perpetuate the idea that unrecontructed masculinity is an acceptable social value.
-----
Of course hoping to explain in a few lines what history has spent centuries constructing is of course pure madness, but here I go anyway.
I used to have a sig but I left it on a bus
die please ;)
One would assume that if reading a Jon Katz article results in such venom, that the article itself has caused the flamer a good deal of personal pain. This is a situation I don't understand, as personally, I have never been insulted by a message or article that was not directed at me. I have seen uninformed, off-topic posts, but none of these feel like a personal attack against me.
But to some it does. So much so, it causes them to lash out in anger. No hostages taken, no feelings spared, it is the singular goal to return this pain and anguish to the one who caused it. Does this feel good? Frankly, I've participated in a flame war or two, and it just makes me feel empty. There is no reward, there is no catharsis, only futility.
I wonder why one would subject himself to such torment, especially in an environment where I can go to my preferences page, press a button, and never see another Jon Katz article again. Ever. Personally, I like Jon's writing, because I can see the value in stating the obvious when necessary, and more often than not, he puts words to thoughts I have had myself, that am grasping to understand. But I digress. Why would anyone choose to be tormented by Jon Katz? I can only think of two possibilities:
- The thrill of combat. It is clear that many people attack merely for the joy of battle. If you can craft your words into a weapon, and use them to strike out across the ether, it indicates your prowess with the langauge, your tool of battle. ``Look at how clever and cruel I am!''
- A sense of belonging. Let's face it. Hating Jon Katz does not make you stand out in a crowd. If you don't feel like part of the slashdot ``in crowd,'' because you don't like Linux or the GPL or something, it can be difficult. Especially if slashdot is your only connection to intellectual peers, to be separated by ideological differences is painful. I suspect that half or more of the anti-Katz camp really has no problem with Jon Katz at all! But by joining in the ``Please die'' bandwagon, they join a community whose only admission fee is a nastygram. Not bad, if you have a need to belong.
Now much of this might be bogus, and I will probably be flamed, too. I look forward to it, because constructive flames will help me continue to form my opinion on the matter, help me see parts of the argument I have ignored. I look forward to it, because destructive flames will make me laugh. Certainly it will not prevent me from posting again, as it will not prevent Mr. Katz.Jon, write on!
My Freakin Blog
Either your in a cave, or not in America. People get all haughty, bent out of shape, and right into your face all the time around here (California). Screaming and cursing, it doesn't matter if you're in public, doesn't matter if your in a business meeting/call, people just can't control themselves anymore. They all act like their ass is on fire and your standing between them and a bucket of water.
... speaking of cursing and swearing in business, when did that become acceptable?? Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't notice because I've never needed to do any business before this year. It's mind boggling to me. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. *shrug*
I think so many things get tied into flaming whereas it is actually quite a diverse thing. On the one hand it is a tool to bully people into conforming to the rules of a certain forum. On the other it is a tool of to try to beat down an arguement without formulating a well thought out discource. In many ways it is an emotional response when used as a one off with people often typing before they really think about it, in many ways flaming is the net's equivilent of a bar room brawl where people have no reason just focus and a need to hit out at someone. I have been thinking about this a bit as I tend to be pretty attractive to general purpose flamers as I don't pull punches in arguement and came to a number of hypotheses. As has been stated this form of discourse is pretty unique to the net. Could one of these reasons be that the people who participate in these forums tend to be those who in general used their minds rather than their fists whilst growing up and were often on the losing side through school, etc and now there is an environment where the mind is all and therefore they can vent some of their anger and frustration on others. This would also account for the age of the people involved as they either mature out of it or just get the frustration out of their system. Or maybe it is the extension of what we all do when we are pissed off, wishing and often saying 'just FOAD' although now this mutter becomes a broadcastable signal, often sent on the spur of the moment? Anyway, I ramble and probably digress. Maybe I will hit the books tonight to see what they say... Social Science Geek MkII
Working for the (other) man
Supporting flamers, in *any* constructive debate, is wrong.
/. could probably write a script that will flame for them. Rational beings, however, don't need that. They can state their positions in clear, concise language, and defend them in clear, concise language. Finally, they can admit that they are wrong at times.
Flamers are the conversation equivalent of terrorists. Rather than offer reasonable explanations of why they are right, or more often, rather than thinking about the statements presented in case they might be wrong, they simple resort to bombast, ad hominem attacks, or the insult direct. By doing so, they are simply trying to avoid any discussion that *might* impinge on some cherished belief.
If you resort to flames, you *lose*. You are showing that you are not mature enough to accept criticism, or your are not confident enough in your position to defend it. Instead, you whip out the "You suck, Microserf" and chuckle at the enormity of your own wit. Of course, everyone else watching knows that you are just another doltish member of the human race that can't be bothered to state disagreements in a conversational tone, and won't be bothered with defending them with facts and logic.
Anyone can flame someone. Most people who read
Think about it. If something somebody writes pisses you off, ask yourself "Why? Why do a few words on a computer screen anger me?" Then craft a reply. If the guy is wrong, prove it. "You SUCK!" is *not* proof. Futhermore, don't even resort to straw men. Simply state why the guy is wrong, give cites/proof, and walk away. If he flames back, you'll both know who lost.
If your lucky, that person will respond back in clear, lucid tones, and you can have a discussion. This betters both of you, and you might walk away from the computer that day a little wiser, and with one more person to count as a acquaintance, a colleague, or maybe even as a friend. That's the power of communication. That's the power of internetworking. It's another tool of interaction, and flamers want to control that. Don't let them. Don't play thier game. Just calmly state your position, and walk away.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I am the flamer that Katz misquoted. I'm sure it was far too difficult for him to click on his "Deleted" folder and read it again for the sake of posting an exact quote. He'd rather just type what he thought he read. I like you even less now, Katz.
Katz wrote:
"You're not a Linux geek," he jeered. "It took you months just to install a Linux system."
I did not type that. What I did type is:
"Stop implying that you are a geek. You aren't nearly intelligent enough. You couldn't even build your own Linux box when given MONTHS to do so. You suck on every level. Please die."
This is reason enough for me to never read this asswipe's columns again. There was NO REASON to misquote me, aside from him trying to make himself sound better.
"It took you months just to install a Linux system.", he wrote.
That leaves the reader with the impression that he eventually figured it out, but that wasn't the case, was it Katz? The last I read you had someone else set it up for you.
Psssst. Dumbass. That doesn't count.
He has a hard copy of what was written. I wonder how many other columns contained misquotations due to his laziness or lack of commitment to accuracy.
You get worse by the article, Katz. What makes you think that a person who doesn't understand technology can be a competent writer in the technology field? It took me 9 hours to build my first Linux box. (It was Slackware for those that are curious.) I had not 1 minute of experience with Linux/UNIX before I began the project. Not only did I log in as root on this correctly configured alien OS in 9 hours, but I had it setup in a triple-boot configuration on a Windows NT/Win95 box and this was in 1997, long before they had idiot-proof boot managers.
I detest you now because you, as far as I can tell, purposely misquoted me. That is borderline criminal for a journalist.
You've gotten your wish. I will be ignoring your worthless columns from this point forward.
For those curious, the entire e-mail is posted below:
"If you post one more story about Columbine, I will first vomit, then never read Slashdot as long as I live.
You are such a weak writer it is pathetic. How many times can your lame ass milk the same fucking cow?
SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
B. *immons
P.S. Stop implying that you are a geek. You aren't nearly intelligent enough. You couldn't even build your own Linux box when given MONTHS to do so. You suck on every level. Please die."
I will admit that it is harshly worded, but that is just my style. No matter how this article was worded it wouldn't have made any difference to Katzhole because here is a paraphrased version of his response:
(I deleted his e-mail or else I would post the exact quote. See how easy it is to be responsible, Katz? Drop me an e-mail and I'll explain what a paraphrase is used for.)
'I will keep writing about Columbine again and again and I will keep getting hundreds (or did he say thousands?) of responses to the articles.'
Katz doesn't seem to understand that if you write about a hot topic, Columbine for example, people are going to respond in droves, no matter who the author is.
Buzzword using, misquoting non-journalist. Yuck. Slashdot, lose this prick. There are other, better writers to be had.
Let the flames begin.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Man get over it. Discussions (in general) have always been volatile regardless of the topic. The sheer nature of humans to take everything so fucking personally whether you are talking about fucking plants or the ramifications of artificial intelligance always steer toward some level of hostility, even among friends. How many times have we gotten into a (drunken) debate about something that in the long run probably does not mean shit? On Line forums amplify the general human nature for arguing because it is so hard to identify whom you are talking to, plus, they can change their identity if they feel they should. I have been called all sorts of names my entire life, for the most part, good ones, but on occasion I have been intellectually attacked and rightfully so, but I did not make such a big deal out of it as to write a (bad) paper (if you want to call it that) on the topic. In reality when I was wrong I learned something. It has nothing to do with the online world, it is human nature in general.
I have to be honest, the way things are going I am going to have to setup my own personal slashdot. After the apologies about the GNU license hole and this piece of crap article my apathy has reached a whole new (run) level. Stop being such a bunch of pansies and just take it.
" -- ow my brain hurts again -- "
It seems like half the people posting comments have some sort of blind rage when it comes to anything John Katz posts...
Anyway, I would have to disagree with anyone who thinks that flaming forces people to think about their opinion. In most cases, the flames aren't good enough for that. I think that inducing blind rage in someone is not likely to get them to sit down and reanalyze their opinion.
I think it's misleading for Amphigory to state that because the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't mean it "grants them some magical right to say any kind of idiocy that crosses their mind." In fact the constitution does not grant this right to us because we already have it. The Bill of Rights are those that are absolute (at least in theory). However, we also have implicit rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." One of those implicit rights is that of saying whatever you like to society as long as you are willing to take the consequences when society reacts.
It used to be that if you insulted someone, they had the option of calling out out for a duel. They got the chance to shoot (or cut) at you, and you at them. Of course that doesn't happen anymore, and sometimes I think mores the pity. =)
There are some people who have a real problem with "feeling threatened." These people, for whatever reason, equate "feeling bad" because they said something stupid with "assault." I think that these people have taken a lesson from the "harrassment" issue in the U.S. (harrassment is in the eye of the harrassed) and applied it to "assault."
Those people that I personnally know who feel this way have generally led such sheltered lives that they are unable to see the difference between hurt feelings and physical hurt, as hurt feelings are the worst thing they've ever encountered. Nice life, but it makes them unable to really deal with issues (like the fact that they might make a dumb comment online) without an incredible internal emotional overreaction.
Flame away, I can take it.
Am I the only person who, after reading a somewhat extensive column, scrolled to the bottom of the comments (sorted by score) to see who flamed him over the flaming discussion ;-)
/. posts for flames. Similar to slowing down at the scene of an accident.
I hope I've coined a new net saying:
"Cyber Rubbernecking" - Intentionally scanning
I've been a "lurker" for some time, and this article is my chance to make a series of broad generalizations. Here is a profile of the typical flamer (take it with a grain of salt):
1. This person is actually very knowledgable in their area of expertise. Uses this vast knowledge, however, to belittle and humiliate rather that to correct opposing viewpoints in a rational manner.
2. Game personalities: In Quake, this person is a taunt killer (i.e. "u suck! HA HA"). In Unreal Tournament, this person always has auto-taunt enabled. In Ultima Online (and EQ, AC, etc), this person is a PK, and more specifically, a twink.
3. In real life, this is the person who does some extremely hurtful thing and then says, "Hey can't you take a joke!?"
4. Most important: Doesn't realize they are a flamer! You could come straight out and tell the person, "You are a flamer", but it would not register. They always wonder why people are attacking them.
Yes, I do realize that *this* is a flame in some respects. I was hoping to inject a little levity into the situation, though. =)
"The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
Hey, I get flamed per submitted comment as often as anyone I know. My political/social views are not in sync with all readers and moderators. Occasionally, I will answer with a snyde remark or off-handed comment, but I always try to remain civil about the process. Of course, there are pompous jerks who deserve a flame now and then as well. Personally, I don't write anything I wouldn't say to the person's face.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
It seems to me that things like these loathsome flames are a product of irrationality. I would like to see people give their reasons to force them to state a rational argument, but that often doesn't happen.
Furthermore, it seems that rationality is in short supply. On Slashdot, for instance, there is an overwhelming bias in favor of Linux and like of everything free, and a not so good to evil bias of everything that costs money. Technical mertits are only secondary. For instance, Windows has some nice ideas in its GUI, like its ability to handle printing so that any program that can draw with the GUI can print to a printer -- no completely dissimilar GUI and printer code required (less code, less complexity, less time needed to make printing work, etc). Yet, when I mention this in a discusion about GUIs and X on Slashdot, I get flamed. Flamed for mentioning some wonderful technical benfits of another API probably because no one here likes the API so they aren't willing to acknowledge a few benifits it has that X doesn't.
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
This subject has interested me for a long time. Why is it that so many people completely lose thier civility once they access online discussion? As Katz touched on, I think that the reason is lack of consequence for what you say. I am NOT proposing that there be consequence but I do find it interesting that many of the people that are active flame writers wouldn't say anything insulting if the same discussion were to take place on the street or at a bar. In general as a culture we are uncomfortable with events that put us at odds with other people in social situations. The internet has changed that attitude because there is no price to pay for being a jerk. There is absolutely no chance that I will punch you in the nose for insulting me when you do it over the internet. This of course creates even more insulting flames as the faux courage of the flamer rises after each successful rant.
The internet is not the culprit for this phenomenon, however. It is simply the release mechanism. People in general are put in situations where they are not able to vent out frustrations as they need to. At work with the boss, at home with a spouse/sibling. In social situations with friends. Most people are not willing to address their problems with other people because they don't want to cause a scene. More importantly they rarely do it rationally when they finally have too. This all being said you can see why internet discussions are a release valve for frustrations. You can vent your anger for free. I personally would rather not subject other unrelated people to my pent up anger but whatever floats your boat.
Sure not all flames fall into the frustration venting category. As was once said in The Simpsons: "Well Mrs Simpson, some elephants,like people, are just jerks."
The Grand Poo-Bah
I try to do this in R/L (real life) too, as well as V/L (virtual life). If something upsets me, I grab my coat and go for a nice walk. I have found this has helped me greatly being of Irish temperment and "Deaf" (grounds for being misunderstood / misinterpreted in the first place).
I find that as I am getting older, I have less to say. The thought process is still there, gears turning and the like, just ask my wife about me being unable to sleep at all sometimes when working something over in me head.
Sorry if this is off-topic, I just thought I'd share a rare reflection from the "real world".
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
Two points:
1) I rarely see adolescents flame as much or as viciously as the 'old, ugly, and bitter', so its little wonder you receive death wishes given use of such rhetoric. Check with reality before opening mouth.
2) The fact that this [electro-violence] is happening is simply reflective of the state of humanity. Cry all you want. IMO it's an ugly species and won't last, so don't sweat it.
Try this for size: Usenet, 1993
I -would- disagree with the idea that flaming is ever necessary or useful. Yes, it makes the other person stop and think. Unfortunately, it often makes the other person stop, think and take whatever useful contribution they could have made elsewhere.
IMHO, constructive critisism, suggestions, patience, tolerence and a good user-controlled filtering system are more effective and more valuable than any flame will ever be.
I've said some shitty stuff on the Internet, that I've come to regret. Did I regret it because I was flamed? No! That provoked an infinitely nastier response from me, and the whole thing would go in a vicious cycle, sometimes for weeks. No. I've regretted my behaviour, when I remembered that the person on the other side of the screen was a human being, like me, with feelings. Feelings I was busy trampling over, for no better reason than I was being an idiot.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that I'm "all better" and some kind of saint. I'm not. On the other hand, I've a decent karma (in the 400's), through writing how I feel, rather than directing any venom at people.
THAT is the key, I think. We all get angry, or upset, over all sorts of things. If you aim it at people, though, how different are you from the gunmen at Columbine? Sure, no-one gets killed, but they -CAN- and -DO- get emotionally hurt. Yes, even those too thick-skinned to admit it! You're shooting with words, sure, but the words inflict emotional injuries, every bit as real as a bullet will inflict a real one.
To make matters worse, what do you achieve by shooting the messenger? It doesn't change the message. It doesn't even change what you're upset about. All you have is the same mess you started off with, and one less person to solve it. Oh Whoopee! It must make people proud, to make things harder on themselves, like that! A Real Tough Guy. A Real He-Man, to not admit that the problem is never the person, to hide their head in the sand. And, yes, if you think I'm being a bit sarcastic, you're 100% right. It's what flamers need to hear and understand. I know, from bitter experience.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
not only that, but if you have a problem, supposedly the newsgroups are your first port of call. so you'll write a long letter carefully detailing what version etc you're using, what steps you took before it went wrong, and then one person will reply saying "have you typed the name in correctly" -- AND THAT WILL BE THE ONLY POST! Duh! Do you think, like, I might have tried that?! If I took the time to write such a long description of the problem, maybe I might have spent a little while trying to figure out what was going wrong.
For all everyone talks of community spirit in the Unix world, I'd say there is very little help available in some areas (okay, I'm obviously not a Linux user) and whilst this is the case, you're better off using a more mainstream product for which you can get advice (free) or even buy advice.
All the newsgroups I read seem to have people trying to take potshots at one another. Recently on comp.security.unix there was a flamewar between one person who wrote "LOL!!! Knot head!! I've had 27 years experience in this field!!! Don't tell me I'm wrong because you're so obviously stupid!! LOL!!!" (or similar) in every one of his 15 odd paragraphs, in reply to a person who was basically laughing at his ideas. If someone has a go at you, you instantly backlash (hence AC flaming threads on Slashdot), because you have to defend yourself otherwise you feel bad and angry for a day. After you've flamed, you still feel angry but you've calmed down a bit. Then you wait with anticipation for the reply ... it can be quite exciting, and will always take precedence over what you are doing because so many of these "flames" are personal and emotional assaults. If you were to take them, you'd end up battered like an old ship wreck, or something.
---
My opinions are not in any way related to my empoyers'.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that... /. space. He never says anything even remotely interesting or radical enough to grab -my- interest. I of course can't speak for everyone else, but I'm assuming I'm not alone. Though... I'm almost rather glad he does still insist upon posting his meaningless bable. (Maybe not meaningless, but his posts are always similar to: "The sky is blue, usually." and "Water is wet, often.") I have alot of fun reading the slew of replies that follow his comments.
Back to the post that spawned all of this, it's not that we hate JonKatz, it's that it's wasted
Jon, please don't die, just think of something interesting to say. prreease.
I disagree with Katz's assesment that the geek/nerd culture is more violent and provokes this type of behavior either online or in the real world. If you want to think about the real cause, look to our society and the way it builds expectations.
Ask yourself this, how many times have you felt the _only_ solution available to get satisfaction as a customer for X-mart was to pitch a fit until they give in? People are tired of feeling screwed by what they get.
Then ask why do I feel screwed by them? Is it because the product was really a POS or is it because they hyped it to the Nth degree and it couldn't possibly live up to that? Quite possibly the latter.
This happens in every aspect of my life. I grew up believing my parents that I needed a degree to get a decent job. Sure, the B.S. I have lends me some credibility but the degree was in Biology, not computers or Linux where my job is. Even high school gets hyped as the "best times of our lives" by parents trying to console their kids. The reality is the kid doesn't have much chance of a life because the school is so huge they can't give the kid the individual treatment he/she needs.
So the next time you feel frustrated at life and the "cards you've been delt" look at what you were expecting, why you expected it, and then decide if it is really worth getting so worked up over.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Just wanted to give you a hats off for being a man/woman. You could have just stayed anonymous, and had fun with all the comments... While I am not a flamer myself, I do support FREEDOM of speech, no matter what! I too dislike Katz, and found this quite amusing. Keep speaking your mind. It makes me laugh...
"Most of my heros won't appear on no stamps..." Chuck D from Fight the Power
And who do you have for second period.
BTW, I loved your article "I'm better than Katz because I installed Linux in 9 hours".
A warning though, your articles are getting as long as Katz, who you admire so much. Your lucky I was able to read far enough in to find the plot of your story.
Thanks Taliswoman,
and keep up the good work!
It is really common for cultures to think they invented everything and no one used to live like they did. Well, that's a flaw. You want to see a wicked example of flaming, see James Joyce's letter to his publishers when he was trying to get Dubliners published. (Sorry no URL for that one.) What you will find is a subtle blend of insult, mockery, and intellectual superiority. Which of course is the substance of the perfect flame.
Flaming isn't unique to the net. Watch British Parliment. It's a real hoot. Of course, flaming gets magnified on the web for three reasons:
1. There is no risk of getting the sh*t kicked out of you.
2. Everyone can see it, and it just stays there taunting you, so you feel the urge to flame back.
3. The remote aspect of the net can make people exasperated. Ever have problems with a remote server which relied on someone else's system? By the time you get in touch with them, you're burning. On the net, you expect things to happen instantly. This breeds impatience.
Please show me where I can turn off posts from "paul.dunne" in my preferences.
There is a difference between being able to filter out Katz and ignoring you. Once the preference to remove Katz is set, I never see his articles again. Slashdot currently does not have a filter system that allows me to never see posts from paul.dunne, unless I raise my threshold.
But there are others I want to read at a theshold of 1. Thus, I am forced to see your posts, at least long enough to recognize you as the author of a post.
So your argument makes little sense because of how Slashdot is setup. If this was the Usenet, I could filter you accordingly at the same level as Katz. On Slashdot, I can't filter you but I can Katz.
So bitching about you is worthwhile, maybe I'll get the feature to block your posts. But I already have the ability to block Katz, so I don't need to bitch about him.
Note that I have nothing against paul.dunne personally -- I would like the ability to filter anyone though.
So this begs the question: are the majority of flamers just blowing off steam and spewing nonsense that can be safely ignored? Or are they trying to make valid points with valid evidence even though their message gets lost in the hostility? If this is the case, I feel saddened because I'm apparently missing out on much interesting debate, simply because I don't feel like reading immature (and sometimes incomprehensible) drivel.
For all those flamers here and elsewhere, please try to keep this in mind. Even if you have the Right Idea, you'll never convince anyone to change their thinking by insulting them. I (and many others) just might LISTEN to you if you simply refrain from polluting your argument with such unwitty words and phrases as "asshole," "moron," "MicroTool," "M4c Uz1ng m0th3rfux0r," and "bat-eyed monkey homo," to list a few of the more recent ones to pass through my mailboxen.
Long live REASON and RATIONALITY. And yes, long live the FLAMERS, bless them. May they live long enough to actually get a point across.
--Scott
Can anyone comment on the differences - Do americans flame more when they are allowed anonymity, or do Europeans flame more as that's how they natural discuss things?
N.B. sorry for spelling - English is my first language so I never bothered learning it :)
ok jonny boy, maybe some people have a good reason to be pissed off. "i have a right to blow my top over injustice" like louis armstrong said. the problem is not 'new people with different values'.. the only shift there has been to people such as yourself who want to commercialize the internet.. the biggest change is the concentration of net power in the hands of a few 'moderators' who claim some kind of divine right to 'civilize' cyberspace...im sick of being banned off irc for merely stating my opinion, im sick of moderators on slashdot who abuse their power, im sick of /. and other web sites who print false stories and screw thing up and then scream they shouldnt have any accountability... the net doesnt need civilizing it needs further democratization. maybe if i had my own T1 i wouldnt come to slashdot so often.. but as it costs as much as it did back in 1995 when the 'businesses were going to improve the internet' , well, in short, hostility doesnt come out of nowhere. you are part of the new power elite. so shut up.
Jon, your answer as to why the hostility is VERY simple. These people DO, for the most part, realize that they are talking to real people. The difference is the almost TOTAL freedom from reprisal that the Internet brings. Things that would get you punched out or you eardrums ringing in person or on the phone, get you nothing more that a nasty note which you can freely ignore if you wish. I personally believe that until dire consequences can be applied to such pains in the neck for their rude behavior, these [censored] will continue being their rude selves. An Internet equivalent of a slap or punch is needed, something which will cause these people to pause before foaming at the mouth. I know I'm letting myself in for a lot of fuss from free-speech types, but to quote, "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins!" Actually, a foot or so away, in practice. Fulminate at will, I can take it. (you'll notice that I'M not "anonymous coward".
Don't try to KNOW everything, just know how to FIND it.
IMO, "flaming" is a very simple problem with the Inet. Anyone with access to the Inet can throw around their flame-bait.
Luckily, this simple problem has a simple solution. Moderate yourself. You have no control over what the next person does or how they react, but you have ultimate control over how you respond to others' opinions.
When you post an intelligent response, you are setting an example. Flamers will eventually turn off their computer in frustration, or better yet, realize that popping off the first nasty comment in mind is a completely frivolous activity, and will be ignored by persons of even minor scrutiny.
BTW, I am somewhat offended by the article's position that flaming is mainly launched by adolescents. I'm 19, so I'm out of that stage (I like to think), but an overwhelming amount of talent can be found in the "adolescent" arena. Why go around and discourage my slightly younger cohorts by calling them trolls? We need to cultivate them, not insult them.
A lot of ISPs do censor their users from flaming. The one I work for now doesn't -- we have some of our favorite user flames sent in by their recipients on our walls. OTOH, another ISP in town is known for shutting off users that criticize it in Newsgroups.
/dev/null.
Interestingly, I found an example of the important of flames recently through this job as well. We received a complaint from another ISP -- it seems one of our users had repeatedly reported a spammer on their system and gotten no response. The response finally came when they resorted to harsh language and flaming. Until then, they were being dropped in
-- 'As it all washes away you know -- as it all is one, no one is alone.' -Cosmic Disorder
I used to post to comp.lang.perl.misc, but I got sooooooo friggin' tired to dealing with the recalcitrant flamers there that I gave up. If you gave a bit of advice to the shunned (i.e. a script kiddie or someone having problems with a Matt Wright CGI) you were pounced upon with venom unabated. If you retorted, you were killfiled. Now I know that such newsgroups are not necessarily help discussions, but if the answer is readily apparent, then why not shoot back some help? The party line is this: "If you help, then they will come back." This stance is anathema to good discussion, good didacticism, and good taste. It also dehumanizes the poster by telling them that their problem is not as important as a very, very dry discussion on the merits of derefencing arrays with backslashes or with interpolation. If I were to post this exact message in comp.lang.misc.perl or another elitist newsgroup I would be killfiled by the old hands and flamed mercilessly by others, and, even, put on automailers by the really nasty.( Don't deny it, I've seen you.) I once did a quick little script that pulled the weekly posts of every participant in the discussion on a few newsgroups and determined that given the number of posts by each person, the number of words on average in each post and the average rate of a modern typist, certain participants in the group had to spend at least three hours of their day posting to the group if they typed at a (conservative estimate) 35 words per minute. A lot of these replies comprised of: "RTFM" "perldoc -q" which is self-defeating, since people who are a bit ignorant of how perl works, for example, wouldn't know what this means. (Wait a minute, it's recursive. Just another example of why some of us need to come out of our holes.) "Get Lost, newbie" I'd fire them so quick their heads would spin. (BTW, this was written on break and the workplace, at least mine, is not a democracy). So if they were spending so much time posting to these groups, what was their motivation? To help? No, flamers amply display with their actions that help is not their motivation. To hurt? Yep, and a nasty pathology it is to practice this kind of hurt, because you must devote so much time to doing it. To get their ego stroked? More likely than any other reason. The end result: total silence, lack of free speech, lack of understanding, lack of caring. Let me say it for you *ploink*
Jon may be posting in reference to his own articles, and on other articles as well, but to protect himself from additional flame, he may post under a pseudonym or as AC.
Further, Jon's articles are typically a posting of his own opinions on the way he sees the world. He may be trying to get people to open up their minds a bit to look at a particular issue from another angle. By posting followups to his own piece, the article would lose quite a bit of potency. It would appear Jon is trying to push his opinions instead of just presenting them. This tends to piss people off.
These are my opinions and observations from my particular angle. If you flame me, give me a warning first - I'll get the marshmallows ready.
:)
-NYFreddie
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
But no, it seems that some folks on here would rather get rid of Katz completely, and deny him any right to post on Slashdot.
;), but I'm getting more than a little tired of this opinion being stated over and over. There IS a difference between kicking Katz off and simply not reading his posts, and it IS significant.
Let's be very clear on this, no one here has a "right to post". Any privileges are solely granted by the administrators of the site, and can be taken away at any time for any reason.
You want a reason why Katz should be removed? Sure, the regular readers of Slashdot can avoid reading him, but when people first come to the site, they see Katz along with everyone else, and it contributes to their opinion of the site. For a simple news site, Slashdot is one of the most visible and well-known facades of the Open Source/Geek/Unix/Whatever community. As such, its content is often associated with that community, if unfairly. Witness the articles on other "reputable" sites that, when doing an article on Slashdot, or mentioning it, almost always pick the most inane AC posts to quote from. Without Katz, there's less content to reflect poorly on the community.
Now, I personally don't necessarily advocate Katz being barred from Slashdot (I more advocate him censoring himself
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
There are two ways to respond to the premise put forward by several posters on the subject of "Well, so-and-so wouldn't flame me to my facr IRL!"
;-). Or maybe it's because I make it clear that I'm going to be consistent, regardless of medium, and my opinions are more palatable when heard but not seen.
Well now, that makes two serious assumptions: One, that what incited the flame wasn't so abuse-worthy that whomever said it wouldn't get ridiculed if they said it among real humans in meatspace, and Two, that I have enough respect for them as an entity to avoid laying into them for Item One.
Having met literally hundreds of online acquantences (does this make me an expert? Maybe. Does it give me a substantial baseline from which to draw my conclusions? I like to think so. You may disagree at your leisure. 8-) in meatspace, there are some who translated so accurately from pixel to person that the reaction of those around them was utterly consistent between type and talk. . . for both the beloved and the reviled.
There are people who pissed me off digitally that I simply -cannot- be civil to them, regardless of medium. This seems to surprise a lot of people, not the least of which are the subjects of my derision. . . they assume that, "Hey, It Was Only Online," is a justifiable excuse.
No, a$$hole, it's a copout.
Then again, there have been people who, despite a preponderance for making nothing but noise online actually have cogent and insightful (and funny) comments to share when among other real humans. Perhaps they don't take things as seriously ("It's not real life, it's only ones and zeroes.") as other folks. It's easy to get your knickers twisted. And some people make knicker-twisting a hobby, mission, or just plain are twits.
Some people tend to like me much more in person than they do online. Maybe it's because I'm cute. Maybe it's because I'm more polite and charming (or at least more overtly trying to get into their pants
I couldn't count the number of times people have said, "I thought you'd be this big ogre in person." It surprises me that people assume that being outspoken online translates into an imposing physique in meatspace.
Or maybe it is consistent after a fashion -- you wield your words a certain way, and that's all people have to see of you.
Big words + Big opinions = Big persona ?
Or maybe I take my online time too seriously. Who knows? But I'm not changing. I will still flame lusers, I will still agree to disagree with people whose views are irreconcilable with my own (on the basis of logic, evidence, or plain old gut feelings), and I will remain the same grouchy curmudgeon I've been since stumbling to a VAX terminal in 1992.
This particular collection of synapses and pixels has seen itself threatened by lawsuits from semiliterate, clueless morons (Gary, if you're still online and know how to read, vox vampiri, vox dei *smirk*), been kick-banned from IRC channels for simply disagreeing with a ChanOP over a song title, and, frankly, I enjoy being myself more than I enjoy making the majority of other people happy.
Ayn Rand called it The Virtue of Selfishness, which is as good a name for "looking out for #1" as any other.
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
Sigh. Another non-article as far as I'm concerned. Katz needs to try to accept the fact that Slashdot will never be the perfect launchpad for his career that he has always dreamed it would be. He can't just post one patronizing article after another in the hope of gaining status and credibility without having at least a few people see through his ploy. He wants the folks at Rolling Stone to see him riding high on the techno forefront here at Slashdot, with all the 'geeks' around him saying "Yeah! he's our spokesman! Talk to him if you want to know what's really cool!" A worthy, but presumptuous dream. This ploy has always failed because of the 'flames', some of which are childish and rude, and others of which shine the harsh, cold light of reality on his sensational literary joyrides.
Nobody Rides For Free, Mr. Katz. Get over it or don't. You get in the pit and 'mosh' with everyone else or don't. It's that simple.
I can't help but think that you grew up with a very domineering mother to have such a thin skin. Sorry, I'm getting personal there, I guess! But you're a writer, or at least you say you are. So you should have a witty and/or insightful reposte, instead of a mere, "My Gawd! You guys are mean! Something has to be done about this!"
Sheesh.
talisman you are a cock eating maggot but i would never censor your post unless you made a direct threat, like 'im gonna kill you' and even thing i would uhh like keep the process transparent and have a vote on it because a small minority of 'moderators' acting like they are better than everyone else is just a crock of shit and goes against every civilized principle of humanity.
Thank you, Chuck. Personally I enjoy these articles - Mr. Katz discusses the issues and values that are important to me, and does it very well. I always look forward to reading his work - and at the same time, I dread reading the posts that follow it. I continue to wade through the posts, however, looking for users with reasonable objections or additional insights. They are few and far between. I echo the same question that Mr. Katz posed in the beginning of his article - "Why haven't they stopped reading?!" I'd like to add a couple more possibilities to Chuck's 'Why Hate Katz?' list:
/., (thus they keep reading,) but for someone else to get the credit for thinking them is intolerable.
/. gave you a Preferences page.
1. Jealousy. The readers opinions don't get the attention that the articles do. The sentiment "I've always said/thought that myself - why should he get recognition for an idea that I had?" is a prevalent one (usually expressed more simply by the words "that's not news.") It's validatiing to read your own thoughts echoed here on
2. Resentment toward a spokesman who is not 'one of their own,' or the "who the hell is he to speak for me?" notion. Jon Katz does his best to speak for a demographic group to which he does not belong - kids. So perhaps some of the hostility derives from the fact that Jon Katz is not in highschool, is not a proficient Linux user, is simply not experiencing the causes that he champions, and he is therefore (by some people's logic) unqualified to write about people who are.
Jon Katz is good at what he does. I wish him the best and I hope he continues writing, championing any cause he damn well pleases, because the man lends some clarity and simplicity to some very complicated subjects. I'm glad he's out there stirring things up. If you're not, then as Chuck pointed out above, those clever folks at
*Bah! 9 hours to get a linux box going? and in 1997? What a lamer, I did my first years before that, took as long as reading the diskettes on the the newly repartioned HDD on my 95 preview box. Oh, and you logged in as root, how novel of you. Let me ask, when you first set up a linux box what other account might you login with the first time! Doh! Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black!*
:-), I have noticed in recent years an almost complete vanishing of public politeness. People in cars cut you off on the highway, people on the street push in front of you to get on a bus.Somehow our sense of community has gotten seriously skewed. It is as if everyone is one of "them", and it's just me who is one of "us". I wish I could put it into better words, but I sense aggression/competition in even the mildest of social situations. I am not sure if it aired in the US, but last year there was an ad for a SUV which states "in the game of life winning is everything" and, unspoken are the words winning at all costs, have no heart, take no prisoners, beat on them before they beat you, sue them before they sue you, kill them before they kill you. I find it very sad, and am more and more sure I will never get my christmas wish...Peace on Earth ;-)
Seems some people look for any excuse to lash out at others. In the paragraph above, all the points are valid, my experience is true, but what is the use of berating this poor sod over his experience, or the way he related it? Is anything gained? Knowledge of value shared?
Being a bit older than many of those who frequent these pages (or so I think
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Jon,
Instead of replying to the stupid responses, why not respond to any of the valid criticisms that people have about your articles? E.G. Your series of "WTO = BAD" articles that show that you had not read any of the economic arguments in favour of free trade, but just swallowed the point of view of the demonstraters.
If you're going to post articles of a political nature, then a) do more research than reading protestors leaflets, and b) make your political afflications public, so that everyone can see where you're coming from. Don't pose as impartial when you're obviously not.
Mark
He responded that way because he thought that was the cool, geek thing to do. Much the way that some /. "community" members think that slamming anything non-open-source is the cool, geek thing to do. From the declining quality of reader contributions here, I suspect that a relatively small percentage of current /. readership are true geeks. Much-less techno-geeks. I suspect a vanishingly small percentage have ever authored a line of real code in their lives. And wouldn't know a Real Programming Language if it came up and bit 'em on the ass.
Slashdot used to be a community mostly of real geeks and nerds. Then it became cool to join the /. community when it became cool to be a nerd. How did that song go? "I was country before country was cool."? Same thing.
I don't like most of your articles, Jon. It isn't because you had such a tough time installing Linux. It isn't because I don't think you're "nerd enough." It isn't because you probably can't code anything but VB. I just don't like your writing style. And to be completely honest: I'm of the opinion that the appearance of your columns in /. are a symptom of, and contribute to the decline of /. as a truly useful place for techno-geeks to hang out.
But that means that I usually simply don't read your creations. And even more rarely comment on them.
Slashdot is suffering from the same disease that any community will as its spirit becomes diluted. (Ham Radio is an example noted a couple of weeks ago.) The core of people that make up the true community, and that once celebrated it for what it was, will slowly abandon it and move on. Likely being a bit more cautious next time about celebrating their beloved community too vocally--lest it again become polluted with clueless wannabes.
Frankly, I am disgusted by the lot of you. Your all tearing his article apart because:
a) You think it's funny and ironic
b) becuase you are one of the people that he is pointing out behave like children in disemination your thoughts.
I for one agree with Jon, because it's clear that OUR community has a large problem with respect.
Does anyone here wonder why many companies and goverments have trouble taking US seriously? That may be changing, but the fact of the matter is that it's time we start seeing the mutual respect that people normally show when communicating with each other.
I repsect all of your views, but I strongly disagree that this is some kind of joke. Jon has written a number of wonderful articles exposing and intelligently discussing the problems plauging our community and society in general.
I am sure there was a time when this comment system was a bastion of wonder ideas and communication, but frankly you all might as well be AOLers!
The problem is that people like me don't bother to read or post comments 99% of the time, because I fully expect to be torn apart, insulted, etc.
And attacking his grammar because you didn't like the content? That is the lowest form of insult.
Every single article and comment is written by a real live person. You wouldn't go into a conference or meeting, and tell a perfect stranger "please die" becaause you disagreed with his or her ideas, would you? It's socially unacceptable IRL, and it's just as unacceptable here.
No-one is going to stop you, or take away your precious right to free speech. But with exercising that right, you accept the responsibility of determining how others see you and our community.
Like our mothers have taught us,
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Nice doesn't mean agreeing, but please show some respect for the PEOPLE that make our community what it is.
--Colin Peart
More Caffeine. NOW
OK, so in the red corner we have science and engineering in which "there's one right answer-- it can be tested for correctness"
Where do you get this "one right answer" stuff for science and enigineering? Like there's only one way to build a bridge. Didn't you realize that in most of your intro courses back in school you were taught completely different things than your advanced classes?
Let's see. The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Witches are made of wood. The Ether connects everything. Read the "100 years ago" section of Scientific American if you're looking for right answers.
'terrorist' is a very political term... when the US tries to assasinate castro its not 'terrorism'... when the US blows up factories in third world countries because it 'thinks chemical weapons are there' it is not "terrorism" .. when the US bankrolled Osama bin Laden in the 80s he wasnt a "terrorist"... but if other people do these things they are "terrorists.." well ,,, im sick of it... when i flame somebody, i am not restricting them from saying anything. i am hurting their feelings and maybe i shouldnt.. but i am not in any shape or form keeping them from talking. they have every ability and right to reply to me in any way they want to, including ignoring me. however if someone bans your speech simply because they disagree with it, and it is not a specific threat, then they are practicing terrorism of the state. counter flaming or ignoring is preferable.
When is your damn stock going to go up?!?!?!?
his hatred filters through the language, and is why i never learned perl. go on #Perl efnet anytime say anything, he will ban you. i dont want to hear a bunch of justifications and excuses for his behavior.. if he flamed me id be cool with it because i can flame him back no problem. he just bans people for no reason... and it filters down to the rest of the perl community.
moderation serves two purposes: screening out junk and raising the profile of good posts.
Actually, I'd say it serves a third purpose as well. It reduces the number of messages I have to wade through. I read Slashdot several times a day, but if I had to skim through all of the messages, I'd either have to stop reading or stop working. I do miss some good comments now and again, but this is the price I pay to keep things manageable, and keep food on the table.
The only time I drop to -1 is when moderating, which is infrequent enough not to be a problem. Actually, it's nice to do it now and again. Flames can be entertaining, sometimes through their creativity, sometimes through unbelievable ego/ignorance.
Katz wrote: "You're not a Linux geek," he jeered. "It took you months just to install a Linux system."
[I actually wrote]: "Stop implying that you are a geek. You aren't nearly intelligent enough. You couldn't even build your own Linux box when given MONTHS to do so. You suck on every level. Please die."
My God, you're right! Katz, you ignorant, mis-quoting, non-geek ass! You ought to hide your head in shame. Never mind: it is obviously already buried as a result of cranial-rectum inversion.
[For those that don't get the sarcasm: there is no hope for you. Bugger off. For the lamer: look up the word "paraphrase". Then bugger off.]
I've always thought that flames were usually negative, profane, cruel, etc. For example, those possibly thousands of emails recieved by Microsoft and Mindcraft back during the "Mindcraft Fiasco." Many of these were really uncalled for as they probably only suceeded in giving linux users an image of profane cracker teenagers. I suppose flame makes it's point but I personally feel that a nicely worded comment would be more effective than essentially mail-bombing someone with very negative comments.
Of course, I am wrong alot.
David
It isn't hyphenated. Also, I meant to say 'flamer'. As in, 'one who flames or has flamed'. It wasn't f + lamer.
As for the definition of paraphrase, here ya go:
par.a.phrase n. - a rewording of the meaning of something spoken or written.
Hrmmm... Sounds like exactly what Katz did, eh?
Next time, please have a point. Aside from the one over which your dunce cap snugly fits.
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
~~!~
I dunno, it seems to me we more need a "I'm not as angry as I may sound" emoticon, than one to make it more clear that we're pissed off.
...will work for Chick tracts...
First, verbal abuse: Ask anyone who grew up with a verbally abusive parent how they feel about it. Most put it pretty much on the same level as physical abuse. True, flames aren't verbal, but the concept is the same. Imagine little Billy being trashed by his out-of-state father via email on a regular basis. Second, brain washing: Somewhat similar to the frist. If I continuosly send you comments about a specific aspect of your personality, and do so intelligently and perceptively, it will eventually begin to affect you. Imagine Patty Hearst, still in the closet, but with only a CRT to communicate with her captors. End result will be the same. Third, pushing someone over the edge: Your flame could be written in just the right way as to be the last straw for someone who then does something drastic like unloading a few rounds at McDonalds. Not only did you abuse that person, but your abuse was amplified and effected others as well. Yes, these are all extreme examples, but Flame CAN == Assault. The written word can be very powerful.
> I've long been of the opinion that if someone can't defend themselves from a hostile response, they shouldn't be
> speaking in public. I think that flamers are actually a *good* thing, as they insure that the people in the
> discussion are thinking and confident about their opinions.
Interesting idea. I, however, think you overestimate the connection betweeen knowledge and confidence. You're forgetting/ignoring that some people aren't comfortable about speaking in public, no matter how well they know what they are talking about. Others seem too stupid to realize that they don't know what they're talking about... People should "fear" getting their ideas shot down by a good argument/counter example, and thus think about what they write--not because they want to avoid being called idiots.
Flames also get in the way of real arguemnts, thus only hinder a meaningful discussion.
Other than that, I agree with your excellent points.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Well, on the subject of authors responding to comments on their own work:
There is a certain school of writing that considers discussing or defending one's own work in public to be crass. I write both fiction and technical material, and in the past I wrote role-playing games. (If Katz thinks this flaming is bad, he should see some RPG fans dissecting one's work! :)
Among these people, the rule in these situations is: read the comments, consider them, and use them to improve your own work. Never defend your work, because you'll eventually wind up at either: "You misread what I wrote," or "I disagree."
If they didn't understand you, you need to investigate your published writing and find your error. The point of writing is not to write so you can be understood; it is to write so you cannot be misunderstood. If they disagree, you can either choose rational discussion, or consider their arguments privately. Either way, flames don't enter into it.
Obviously, you can take this too far. Salman Rushdie needed to speak out when the Iranian theocracy declared a fatwah on him; but nobody has put a price on Katz's head, either.
The Net makes it easy to update documents. It might be that the old-school "publish it and let it stand on its own" standard is obsolete, and that living, constantly-updating articles will soon be considered the norm. This attitude will not die before then.
I'm not saying that Katz is of this school, but it's certainly possible. I know more than one professional writer who believes this. After attempting to publicly defend my own work, I believe it also.
Fortunately, unlike a paper mag, Slashdot has options to let you never see posts by a columnist. If he annoys you that much, set your preferences to hide him.
If someone is willing to (verbally) treat another human being in the fashion he has treated Jon they are scum. Free speech or not, Talisman (or whever wrote it) was out to CAUSE PAIN. Your message was not about intelligent discussion. It's quite possible you had perfectly valid points, but the obnoxious flammage makes you seem like an intelligent jerk that never grew up...and that automatically makes your opinion questionable.
Katz was right about at least one thing in his article. Flamers squelch free speech. You keep others from expressing THEMSELVES by your little nasty-grams.
My suggestion: grow up a little, start replacing those harsh flames with intelligent discourse. Possibly even see someone about your anger problem.
In the past week or so I have been enjoying watching my Karma bounce up and down like a yoyo. It started out with An interview with Bill Gates where I attempted to express my opinion of Commander Taco's statement with humor rather than flaming. After immediately being hit with -1,troll it bounced back to 4, Funny (picking up an Insightful along the way). The support it received after being marked down as a troll let me know that although one anonymous reviewer didn't like it, the support was there. Since then I've been marked down as overrated and (I still can't figure this one out) (Score:3, Redundant). Somehow 2 people bounced me up and then it was decided that I was being redundant...
And this, my friends, is hostility.
I'll never know why a post is moderated both ways. I can understand a post being moderated up or down but when both actions happen to the same post than I can only assume I've hit a nerve. The difference is the moderator is a person who is even more of an enigma than the AC. At least the AC has to choose his words. You can decide for yourself on the merits of the AC's statement by reading it. Does the AC bring up good points? Does he back up his argument with facts? Does he cause me to think? Or does he just call me a #@$% S.O.B.?
The moderator on the other hand is much harder to figure out. While I may not disagree with him (the one post was Overated), there's very little I can do to understand the actions involved. Many people seem to feel the same way about the articles they submit. "Why was article X chosen instead of mine?" We have no way to know, and our assumptions are not always kind.
What I find amazing is the number of posts challenging the "slashdot status quo" that are moderated up. Apparently it is now part of the status quo to challenge the status quo, a concept that strikes me as very unusual. Unfortunately a number of these moderated up posts are downright insulting. The recent Roblimo Attack Sequence proves that the flames can be sent back and forth and it proved the sucess and failure of moderation. The posts that were moderated up were those critical of the article. They were not posts that were critcal of Rob. However, Rob's response back was not subject to moderation, and things began to get out of hand. At that point addition text was added at the top and posts crital of Rob began to be moderated up. These posts were critical of Rob's reply and although they were not written as flames or insults, this was the first time they began to appear at the 3 level and above.
But there is something to think about here. Not only did someone put their name down and let forth a criticism, but someone else made that critisism more visable without having to own up to it. No where is this more obvious than in this very article. No AC here. (Score:5, Insightful) by paul.dunne is an example of an article that starts off in an insulting manner. It makes it's points, but it makes them in a style that agressive at best. It could easily receive a (-1, rude) if such a thing existed. However, it is no longer the action of a single individual, but it is now an assualt by four different individuals on Jon Katz himself. All four of these individuals have the option of simply not reading his articles. All have chosen to do so and then openly complain about the quality of them. Only one of them was willing and able to admit he did it publicly.
Moderation not only helps prevent hostility. It also helps cause it. When a person is rewarded for behaving in a hostile manner, it can only increase the desire to behave that way.
-----
No Zen is good zen
I don't hate Katz. I am, however, extremely frustrated by his lack of insight, which imho reflects upon the entire Slashdot community.
/. got you at least one fan, how about giving back? Anyone else? Please?)
I come to Slashdot almost every day. I started coming here when I became overwhelmingly frustrated by seeing conventional media outlets pander to the masses. I would read a newspaper and see a statement by a politician or marketing exec, then do the math and find that he was talking out of his ass; on Slashdot, this behavior is immediately corrected by hundreds of posts explaining in excruciating detail why such and such is blatantly incorrect. I like to read posts by people who know what they are talking about; I have a couple of dozen user pages bookmarked just so I can see what they think on exciting issues. Since I happen to know things about some issues, and have imho well defined, rational arguments to support most of my political and social philosophies, I therefore enjoy posting when I see the opportunity; I can identify with what Jon must feel, because I have had some searing AC replies which have hurt me deeply while at the same time enjoying a greater number of buoying emails. From the relatively few negative emails I have received, and the emotional trauma associated with those particulars, I can tell you that if I received the hundreds of negative replies that Katz has received, I would have moved on long ago. For this he has my utmost respect.
Jon Katz' hellmouth series was initially a major point of interest to me; I had seen both sides of the high school popularity wars and was profoundly moved by some of the insights revealed there. He immediately jumped out at me as a "deep thinker", someone whose ideas were good and therefore someone whose opinion mattered. I cared what he said. After the first hellmouth, I waited impatiently for more wisdom, because I crave insight. I wanted to read the words of someone I respected, expand them and argue against them to achieve a higher level of comprehension. Unfortunately, such gems were rare. Not non-existent, but sporadic and inadequate.
In the months since his first posts, I have become abjectly bored with his work. I have not seen anything which really made me think, nothing which makes me run to the library and delve into the wisdom of the ages, the way posts by amphigory or kintanon or fable2112 or countless others routinely do. I have to say that Katz has neither challenged my beliefs nor caused me to think in anything other than a cursory manner in at lest several months- and if this is true for other Slashdot users, who possibly come here for the same reasons as me, then that could explain a lot of the hostility. When a smart person is expecting stimulating conversation, and receives nothing but shallow blather, hostility is a natural result.
I think that a lot of the hostility currently reserved for Katz would be reduced if he were really as profound of a thinker as he presumes himself to be. If he were Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell or Ayn Rand, people would respond differently--because regardless of whether or they agreed with what he was saying, the content which would come with the posting would provide fertile grounds for argument. As it is, people read a 3000 word essay and come away with only one thought: "What did I waste my time with that for? I could have received equally eloquent commentary from the editorial staff of the small town newspaper." The lack of intellectual substance leads to ad hominem attacks against the author due to sheer exasperation.
I think Katz could be better. I know he has written good stuff; I think he just needs to take a little bit more time preparing his work, making it truly profound instead of the mass of tepidity it is today. If he does this, then I think his problems will solve themselves. That is, if Slashdot would just do away with AC posting...
I guess another solution would be for someone better to start posting to Slashdot; that way we could get our intellectual fixes somewhere else and Katz could be our Spice Girls, good for a few minutes of entertainment but nothing requiring deep reflection. (You listening, David Brin? I doubt it; after the way Slashdot treated you the last time you posted something I wouldn't listen to us either... Neal?
Rev. Nehemiah
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Considering that an average /. Linux nerd is a shy, sexually represed, socially inept pencil neck it is not at all surprising that this forum is full of flames. This is your one opportunity to express something resembling strength or dominance in relation to another human being.
The content of the article on flaming aside (and actually, this is one of Katz's better articles) I found this opening comment interesting. The reader reacts not with "you suck" or "f*** off", but with a casual inference of death: "please die".
Katz then describes such an outbusrt as "probably instinctive" before moving on to the rest of the article. However, this set my antennae twitching immediately. Has our culture become so lost that wishing death on another person seems natural? Is this just one more symptom of the culture of death?
It starts off as rationalization -- this child will be too much of a burden, let's abort it. Then we expand that definition of a burden to cover elderly people who are a drain on people and medical resources, so we should euthanize them. Next, we change from burden to inconvenience -- that person is standing in your way or has something you want (like a pair of Air Jordan sneakers), so it's OK to kill him. And now we start moving from inconvience to annoyance, because someone has an opinion or writes some article that you take issue with, it's just "natural" to wish him dead.
Not that I believe that the person who wrote "please die" would actually do something to make that happen -- but there is that possibility. What is really scary, however, is the casualness of how this type of antisocial behavior has been allowed to flourish.
...about Mr. Katz, but his ability to take somethings as common and obnoxious as a pointless flame and turn it into a thought-provoking piece on freedom of speech _is_ the mark of a real writer. Agree with him or not, he performs a service.
Aint anything new, boys and girls. Usenet/UUCP
was full of it from the beginning. Do you think
people change that much because they have a
new toy?
I like Jon Katz. I dont always agree with him
but I rarely agree with the Leaf by Niggle people.
(Tolkien reference)
The English language is constantly evolving, if
you understood it enough to be outraged or annoyed,you still understood it.
(Please note that I am usually guilty of
compunded sentences, but that is a product of
my German upbringing)
I read all the posts and some are good, sharp and
disagreeing and others well....
My mother always said if you cant say anything
nice, dont say anything at all. For this email
I will listen to her.
I was not aware Geekdom only applied to techies and programmers.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Also, please try and make you flames more creative in the future... in other words, much more entertaining. Instead of "You suck on all levels. Please die. (Uh-Oh, I misquoted you, are you going to run screaming and crying?) Try something akin to: I hope you choke to death on your momma's pubic hair. Going on in detail is great.... but always remember to insult their mother.
If the flames do not get more creative here, I am going to be forced to finally set my threshold to a 0 or 1. That goes to all you first posters also.
The reason you don't see face-to-face flaming is fear of reprisals.
We, both as individuals and as a species, are largely "civil" from fear. A verbal assault on a stranger might result in the flamer himself being physically beaten or perhaps just publicly humiliated. Worst case: the stranger may return your abuse with gunfire.
So now we have the Internet. The flamer is in no danger of being assaulted due to geographical distance. And there's not even public humiliation to fear because of online handles ("Anonymous Coward") instead of real names.
I disagree that abusive behavior is caused by just sending a message to a computer, a message that might never even be read. I sure as hell wouldn't send my neighbor a "Please die!" message. After all, he knows where I live.
In my travails through Usenet and other discussion boards, I have found one common thread underlying most of the flames I have come across: a simple lack of communication skills.
Let me first say that I am not a psychologist or sociologist. My statements here are purely my opinion based on personal observation. They are in no way authoritative statements on the matter.
That said, I often find that many who partake in online flaming demonstrate a similar trait to those people I encounter in real life who use profanity. They all lack the ability to compose and communicate their ideas effectively. Online, many discussions degenerate into base name-calling and personal attacks. This downward spiral into flaming seems to begin at a point of frustration for one of the parties involved in the conversation. That is the point in which the poster cannot effectively either compose an argument, or clearly express an otherwise valid argument. This leads to either the use of strong language from sheer frustration, or the selection of inappropriate or inaccurate phrases to express and idea. Once the message is posted, the resulting misinterpretation of the message causes the receiver to go on the defensive. Once that happens, I have found that there is little hope in salvaging the thread of conversation.
I see the same sort of frustration and reaction in face-to-face encounters as well. Many people simply do not have the ability to express themselves adequately, instead choosing to use a string of explitives and other vulgar phrases. Clearly, this continually fails to get the intended ideas across. Many loud arguments, if not outright altercations, result from the frustration and misunderstandings that result.
What is the cause of this? I really can't say. I could easily blame the education systems or point to other societal factors. However, I have never seen any convincing evidence pointing to any one causal factor. Because I do not know the source of the problem, I treat the symptoms as I can. Among my friends and acquaitances, I try to put myself in the position of arbitrator, in the hopes of clarifying ideas between the people involved. I try to explicitly state assumed or implied ideas to avoid misinterpretations. Finally, I try to propose compromises and avenues for further civil discussions.
Can anyone suggest other means for resolving these problems?
OK, i think it's a given that there's no way to get everyone to stop flaming. There are always going to be people that flame. There will always be people that have nothing to say but need to post something to get attention anyway. There will always be people without enough balls to tell you what they think to your face. There will always be people that will cut you off in traffic. Do I let it ruin my day? NO.
I understand Jon's point about how this causes people that DO have something to say to remain silent. But the fact is, no matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who's going to have a problem with you or what you have to say. It's something you have to learn how to deal with. Not everyone is going to feel comfortable posting in a public forum. Not everyone feels comfortable with speaking in front of a large group of people in RL either.
Anyone who is a public figure has to deal with this stuff. And anyone that deals with public. Have you ever worked at McDonalds, a grocery store, or tech support hotline? There are people everywhere that just can't deal with their emotions in a civilized manner. Get used to it!
If you can't deal with it, learn to deal with it. Learn to meditate, read the Tao Te Ching a couple times (it's short enough,) learn to laugh or feel pity--whatever suits you. Don't take yourself too seriously, and don't take your detractors too seriously. And of course, if you burn easily, it's important to understand the importance of wearing sunscreen.
numb
Starting a post with such rude sarcasm is totally uncalled for. Being a regular /. reader, I've noticed many of your posts begin in a similar manner, Signal 11. The ironic part is that you succeed perfectly in becoming another example of the flamebait Jon is talking about. His article is totally worthy of our discussion, especially since it affects us all in one way or another. I'm underwhelmed by your immature dismissal of it.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I did not find Katz' article to be shameless self-promotion. Quite the contrary, I was reading an article about the hostile nature of the Net, a nature proven to any reasonable POV by this thread alone. After all, you've not asked that Katz improve. You've pointed out that he doesn't seem to join the forums on Slashdot (A point neither of us can confirm beyond doubt, as Katz could be posting anonymously in some threads. I don't read all of the stories on /., and I doubt you do either. For this argument, however, I'll concede that if Katz does post, he doesn't do it under his own name). But even though you "invited" him to enter into these discussions, it's clear from your tone that doing so will gain him nothing. It's not what Katz is saying that you don't like; you don't like him, and you want him to go away. That's hostile, period. And it's common on the Internet to have hostility in discussion threads.
That's the point I got from Katz article. I saw the comments he made regarding those who post negatively. I took those to be anecdotal evidence for his point, and personal experiences as such evidence is considered to be an excellent way to make such points. You'd learn that in any public speaking or argumentation class.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
They are incredibly quick to label any pro-Microsoft statement "pure FUD", yet continue to spout ridiculous pro-Linux FUD (such as "we have enough apps. We are ready for the desktop".)
/. moderates think "troll", "flamebait" and "redundant" are synonyms for "not rabid Linux zealotry".)
They protest at any censorship which is based on *disagreeing* views rather than *value* of views. i.e., if A doesnt *like* what B says, A censors it, thats bad! Yet any criticism of Linux, even fair ones, swiftly gets moderated to a (-1; troll). (In fact, it seems
They are incredibly quick to criticise the government for any threat on free speech, but want to deny Katz the right to post here (as you say).
Hypocrisy is a sad thing.
Except for every thread on "your rights on line" the discussion of open source as a movement, the legal debate around dvd cca, continous arguments about what makes a good movie, libertarian philosophy that comes up in every other thread, and of course, everything said in this discussion.
On a less flippant level, because Science and Engineering have produced an immense numbers of usefull things, while the humanities (soc. psych. etc...), Have yet to come up with anything practically usefull or valuable. Given this, empirically it seems reasonable to dismiss the field(s) as possessing little or no worth.
Less flipant? I hope you were being flipant, because otherwise (to stay in the "let'em know they're stupid, people like that sort of thing" mood of the day) you were being just plain dumb.
Does anyone actualy believe that, or is it something engeneering majors say because they like to see liberal arts types throw a rod? Do you beleive that Slavery was outlawed because an engineer came up with a more efficient machine so we had no more use for slaves or because people who read and wrote about history, culture and philosophy came to conslusions about keeping another human being as property? Do you beleive that we should get rid of all the history of the holocaust and just study their blueprints in case something of scientific worth comes out of them?
Are you so out of touch with the world today that you can make a comment like the humanities (soc. psych. etc...), Have yet to come up with anything practically usefull or valuable. and truely believe it? If so, get your head out of your computer and try to educate yourself a little. If not, what's wrong with your life that you need to piss people off to enjoy yourself? (note, the answer to that question would be best examined in the humanities rather than the hard sciences.)
...will work for Chick tracts...
When you wrote "those who speak foreign languages" I believe you meant to say "those who don't speak english". Since I might speak several foreign languages while I still speak english. Disclaimer: I might be foreign to you as in nationality but it seems I have better command of English.
One of the most striking things about nasty e-mail and vicious public postings is that they're almost always rooted in surreal distance: the sender rarely thinks of his target as a human being.
This is a great point, and one I've thought about quite a bit. I've experience rudeness online (deja forums, emails, feedback posts, slashdot, etc, etc.) that I've never seen in person. It's as if regular, decent people forget common sense and politness when they get online.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I have always considered "flaming" to be an out-of-proportion response to a comment, question, or answer posted in a public forum. Mr. Katz includes personal, "private" replies with public ones. I agree that both are "flames" in the traditional sense, but I think that one is very different from another in terms of scope and impact. I wll generally consider only public flames, although private flames can also be generally considered in the same boat.
First, though, I will do what Mr. Katz refused to do-- I will define what I consider to be a flame, versus what I consider to be a response. As I mentioned above, one of the key identifiers of a flame is that it is out-of-proportion response to an original comment. A second identifier of a flame would be a personal tone to the response that implies that the original poster is deficient in some manner. The second aspect is what I would consider the real crux of the flame-- a person with no knowledge of another other than online interaction expresses a judgement on his or her good (or, more likely, bad) points as a human being. These can often be very non-specific-- for instance: "You suck," or "Please Die." However, the personal aspect to the flame is the heart of the matter for Mr. Katz (although he does not state this very well) and I would have to agree.
Mr. Katz is also onto something when he attempts to relate flaming to the creation and lifetimes of electronic or virtual communities (hereafter e-communities). These relatively new groupings are vastly different from their real-world counterparts. There are a number of reasons for this, all relevant to the issue of flaming. One is the breadth of e-communities. These communities grow into enormous groups, with participants having very different levels of participation-- lurkers "participate" in these e-communities, as do frequent posters, moderators, and others. For instance, my /. user number is 98832, which I have always assumed is a number incrementing from 0 for each new user. This would mean that /. has a huge number of users, in excess of 100,000. I don't know of many communities that have that many active participants (and /. doesn't, I know, but the point is that an e-community is huge).
E-communities are also very fluid. People join and leave constantly. People change their level of involvement constantly (lurker to participant to lurker). In a huge community where people are constantly on the move, it is very hard to judge anyone other than a select few known participants.
Finally, e-communities divorce participants from most of the details that we use to evaluate people in our meatspace communities. All we see on /. or other forums are screen names/e-mail addresses and the words that the other person has chosen to share with the community. That sharing with the rest of the e-community is the primary method of interaction in e-communities. Sometimes this sharing is anonymous, or nearly so. Anonymous sharing is good and bad-- an anonymous poster doesn't own his or her own words, and therefore is less likely to consider their online reputation as they post either well-though comments or flames. This stripping of the actual human details from postings to /. or to mailing lists creates what Mr. Katz calls "surreal distance," a phenomenon that many have remarked upon where the flamer is believed not to think of the target as a human being. I disagree with this interpretation of the phenomenon. I believe that the flamer knows, in the abstract, that there is a person on the receiving end of flames. However, the stripping of human details from the words in the post creates a caricature human in the flamer's mind-- based on the words in the post. The person may have just posted something laughably wrong or perhaps unknowingly insulting. This person has no grounding in the flamer's real world and is therefore a prime target for, well, a flame.
Mr. Katz's personal experience is that there are a significant number of flames generated when one posts to a website, and that, when flames are responded to, the original flamer almost always apologizes, replies in a more civil tone, or flees. However, this is to be expected-- the reply by the recipient adds more details to the picture of the person/poster in the flamer's mind. The natural reaction is that the tone of the interaction will become more civil. However, Mr. Katz seems to indicate that this is a surprise when it is not-- remember that reports of starving children didn't lead to action in Somalia-- TV pictures, which humanized the suffering, did so.
Mr. Katz makes a larger point about flaming-- that it discourages free speech. His argument is that public flaming or private flaming leads to fewer people joining in the conversation of the e-community. He states that the civil interactions are often not seen publicly, while the attacks generally are seen publicly. This is true in some forums, but is not necessarily the case. The unmoderated e-mail list is the most typical of this problem. A few flame-wielding posters can easily destroy the entire valuable interaction by overwhelming the civil posts. USENET is also vulnerable. Moderated forums generally can keep this from occurring by, well, moderating the submissions from participants. On mailing lists, this generally works well, but depends greatly on the moderator and is open to the charge of suppression of unpopular viewpoints (as is /.).
Flames, however, in some cases are an important protection vehicle for the community, especially when it is under attack by those who damage the cherished signal/noise ratio for the community. The reaction of flamers is usually toward those that bring the least to the discussion, thus perhaps regulating the forum by discouraging these from participating. These flames are often directed, and rightfully so in my opinion, against kooks who invade forums with wildly inaccurate claims or off-topic postings. The likes of Jim Fleming, Richard Sexton, Joe Baptista, Bob Allisat, Jeff Williams, and other net.kooks are barraged with flames when they enter a forum spewing their junk posts at unsuspecting participants. Although in the case of net.kooks it is impossible to stop them, the flames will keep others from being taken in by the inaccuracies of them and their posts.
Beyond simple kookism, flames do perhaps help to keep the signal/noise ratio high by discouraging ill-informed posts, for example from newbies in forums with highly technical content. Although the flames may seem hostile, they do establish a barrier to entry that will help keep the s/n ratio high.
Other flames are less useful. However, sometimes we need to apply the "good sense" filter to flames that we see. For me, flames from anonymous sources fall into the "ignore completely" category. Flames with content that is low on informational measures and high on the "you suck" measures also find their way to the bit-bucket. The second kind is often anonymous, so these messages are ignored anyway. Finally, there are some flames that are worth responding to. It can be difficult to determine which are in this subset, but there are some. Usually they contain some information that (however vaguely) supports their view. These flames may be from people with real views that don't have the language tools to easily approach them. They may also be from people who think, however wrongly, that "that's my style, so I can't be bothered to change it to make my point." These folks are an unfortunate case-- they are diminishing their own right to free speech by not fully exercising it. Perhaps replying to their messages can help them understand a more useful approach to online communication.
Some topics will never be divorced from their ability to generate flames. The Mac Evangelists werer the first well-known group to flame everyone who said anything negative in any way about Apple or the Mac, and the Linux evangelists are similar in their flame-expressed ardor. In politics, tobacco, guns, and abortion in the U.S. might as well be consigned to flame-only news groups and mailing lists.
Flames are a fact of life in the e-communities that we are building on the net. I, somehow, don't see them as quite a scourge as Mr. Katz. Perhaps if you flame me I will.
Allan
I have to agree with a number of posters here. Since my first days of trolling about BBSs back home in rural Georgia I have seen the flame wars rage. From the first time I hit the Usenet I have seen and received a mulitude of flames.
I remember back in I think 1989 when I posted the wrong author for a book in a Usenet discussion. I was roasted alive with comments insulting my lineage, intelligence and questioning the very need for my existence. I am sorry to say that this is not a constructive way to hold a conversation or get along in a larger community.
Correcting a person is one thing, insulting them is senseless and stupid. This is one part of internet traditions I do not fathom to this day. I have participated in a flame war I did not start but meant to finish and it was a stupid mistake. It is better to ignore it than provoke it. I know now. I only hope that as the online community evolves that we might become more civil among ourselves. It probably will not happen but one can hope.
ACK
I used to think he was just a know-nothing tech writer that tried hard. Now I know for a fact that he doesn't even try hard. He is useless.
The year-long "I can't install Linux" adventure should have been all the proof you needed. Katz has less hands-on experience with computers and technology than any other tech journalist on the planet -- and that's no mean feat.
Read this excerpt from a past Katz piece here:
At the time he wrote this, Katz had been a technology pundit/journalist for several years, and yet clicking a word processor icon and entering text was "deeper into the inside of a computer" than he had ever gone.
Did you really need a misquote to convince you that Katz was an inert gas?
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Maybe you need to get out more. Attend a public meeting of your community's residents whenever there is a contentious issue: a proposal from a developer to build 1200 square foot townhomes in the middle of 3000 square foot single family homes, a proposal to plop a Home Depot big box store next to a residential area, a proposal to raise taxes, whatever. You will see all the flaming you could want, and it won't be anonymous, it won't be restrained by any sense of civility, and the imprecations against the life and health of opponents will be as vicious as any on the web. And, no, the majority of the folks won't be like this, but the majority on the web aren't either. And these flamers won't be kids. You'll see any age/gender/race/size you can imagine. The Real World: still the source of everything on the web!
Are you the Paul Dunne who has written Linux for Webmasters, Red Hat Linux 6.0 Application Development Tools with CDROM and The Complexity of Boolean Networks? And are you the Paul Dunne who was the editor of British Exonomy After Oil and Quantitative Marxism?
If so, then those are quite a good CV. However, your writings here do give a nasty image of you. I just don't find it appropriate that a writer flames another writer because he writes differently.
_X_ lame.
___ stupid.
_X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
___ what you posted/said has been done before.
___ your post was a pathetic imitation of ______________________.___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, or list.
___ your post contained commercial advertising.
___ your post contained numerous spelling errors.
___ your post contained multiple grammatical errors.
___ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR PUNCTUATION!!!!!
___ your post was an obvious forgery. _X_ you have a lame login name.
___ your machine has a stupid name.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and added no new text.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and only added ___ lines of text.
___ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!"
___ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you.
___ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider.
___ your
___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of alt.best.of.internet.
P.S. This is a form flame. You can get it here_X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net.
_X_ You are a loser.
___ You must have spent your entire life in a Skinner box to be this clueless.
_X_ This has been pointed out to you before.
_X_ It is recommended that you:
Hi..I've always viewed the internet as the last bastion of "freedom". The ultimate in anarchy.which is good..it becomes self ruling. The internet has always quietly chugged along, even though flaming AOL newbies send dumb "Microsoft will pay you $100 if you forward this" emails. Most people will just discard it, while veterans of this society will either:
1) Politely tell the flaming newbie of his error
2) Flame the flaming newbie to hell and hope he never comes back.
Sometimes option 2 will work..they will cowl in fear or they will just write YOU off as a newbie.
The virgin masses who just check their email and go to websites with pretty dancing gifs or WebTVers who cruise the web with six-pack in hand are tourists...and we should treat them as such.
Either like the French who hate foreigners but will gladly take their money or like Internet Patriarchs who will let the clueless masses think they know what they're talking about..
My diatribe is over
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Flaming appears in every forum on the net. You can go to IRC, MUDs, or whatever your preference and it's there. And it's always self-moderated. When a thread/MUD/channel gets too vitriolic, people go elsewhere. Eventually even the most flame-crazed will get quiet when they realize there's nobody listening. Then the cycle starts over in a different place, with a different subject. I've noticed that it usually doesn't matter what the subject is. That's merely an excuse for flaming.
"Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
I'm not qouting the entire thing, but that was the funnies thing I've read today! Someone throw some moderator points at it to make sure everyone else gets odd looks from their co-workers! >:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
If we had to use a pen people would flame less.
"...combining with economic advantages of the linking structure far surpasses any disadvantages in increased perversions
It's no wonder you're received with so much hostility here, Jon, when your masturbatory "feature article" is nothing but a gangrenously priapic way for you to retaliate against the email equivalent of a knock-and-run doorbell prank. It can't be anything else because it's shallow, uninsightful, ignores a whole culture of millions of netizens, and seems to be pulled right out of your pud.
A real flame isn't just "FOAD." You're confusing depersonalized hooliganism with a merciless, accurate personal attack designed to elicit a visceral response from the target. Have you ever even heard of Usenet, Jon? Plaintext is so cold and impersonal, the Flame evolved as a means to get someone's attention, to stretch out their virtual sphincter, and most of all, to make them THINK. And of course, given that Usenet is the fertile compost heap of the internet that it is, the Flame grew into an art form. But then you were unaware of that, weren't you? The word 'Usenet' doesn't even appear in your article.
In fact, you didn't consult any other sources at all to prepare your story. You didn't interview someone else who had been viciously flamed. You didn't talk to other journalists about their inbox contents. You didn't hunt down a virtuoso flamethrower from alt.flame. You just sat down with a jar of vaseline and 2.5 minutes later issued forth a "feature article." So that's what they call it these days.
If you had consulted anyone with real experience writing flames, you would have learned that the first rule of flameage is entertain. Presumably, someone else somewhere is going to read the message. Typically, flames are posted in public forums to score the flamethrower a few clique points with the eleets in the forum. And although these eleet wankers probably have a lot going against them, at least they're not stupid. A good flame must make use of the devices found in quality literature and journalism: metaphor, symbolism, humor, imagery, theme... even dialogue. And it must be written well, preferably well beyond a high-school achievement level, with a few $20 words and $40 compound sentances here and there.
As for discouraging free speech - what kind of interspecies pornographic fantasy was distracting you when you wrote that? Flameage is free speech. The only kind of speech that flames discourage is idiotic speech. If a statement in a public forum elicits a flame, then it deserved it. If not, then someone will stand up for the original statement. And if a simple flame discourages an individual from spewing forth future verbage, then it's doing it's job, making the person think before posting.
Flame Off.
Simply put, Jon, flames are the medium of self-regulation in an environment where the S/N ratio is so low it hurts. High-beta negative feedback. It's perfectly suited for electronic communities... hell, the flame evolved here, what else did you expect? Chip and Dale?
I can see the fnords!
JonKatz User Info
I have seen him post once in a while though.
DCMonkey
Mike-
..|.. or how about oo!oo (for emphasis, of course *grin*)
A potential middle finger emoticon:
Or maybe the "binary four" notation referenced in The Jargon File , which is 00100
Of course, one could always just type "fsck you" and be done with it, but where's the fun in that? *laugh*
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
I just put on my flameproof armor and ignore the people that respond with excessively derogatory phrases.
No matter if you're beaten up by bullies in high school, if you're left out of any sports you care to practice, if you can't get a date to the prom: in the world of computers you're the master. Recently not only you're the master but you get reconginition and lots of people coming to you for help. You may even get a well paying job years before all those bullies even think about earning their own money, and that feels good. Until very recently, the expertise and command of technical things that was required to access the net was a limiting factor and put geeks in contact with other geeks in a worldwide fashion. It gave us a head start in building the communities, filosophy and rules by which the internet functions.
Then the possibility of getting online with just a few clicks allowed anyone, no matter how stupid (from the point of view of teenage geeks), to "intrude" in our own world. Now not only we are excluded from most social events in real life, the same people want to take over our own private world!
Of course when geeks grow older, and I'm a 34 yo geek, we learn to deal with those issues and end up adjusting; we learn to use whatever capabilities we have in a useful way and we simply outgrow the need to be accepted in some circles - we learn that we usually are well accepted in the circles that really matter.
But can you blame a teen geek, who is probably feeling left out, who gets humiliated every other day, from defending violently his/her perceived territory from people who are trying to turn it into just another instance of the real world?
I think it's very understandable why teen (and immature) geeks behave like this, but it's also sad. It means geeks are using their superior knowledge to beat those weaker than him/her, just like bullies use their superior physical strength to beat those weaker then them.
On the Internet, the geeks are the bullies! My advice to geeks: be honest and think about this or you'll turn into what you despise. My advice to everyone else: think about this next time you abuse a geek. It's just human nature, after all.
My favorite thing to see is when the flaming is stupider than the original post. It is really dumb to go around picking on someone because they are new to something techincal. Not everyone knows everything that I know. I don't care to know every damn techincal thing either.
However, just because you find something offensive doesn't make it wrong or invalid. People should be allowed to go shoot off thier mouth and do it anonymously if they wish. Verbal jousting keeps your mind sharp I believe. Christ, if we all have to contruct every damn thing we say without slang or emotion, correctly punctuated, and with formality it will all just be so boring I don't thing I would care to ever read any posts ever again.
I'm sure the upper crust would just love it though. They could make the internet a safe little membrane that only formally educated, tassely shoe and dockers wearing, coffee and wine swilling, IPOing, SUV driving, cell phone owning losers want to participate in.
What's this about Jon Klatz saying that we old ladies are to scared to put people in their place!! Is he on drugs?
In my day kids didn't talk like that to their elders let me tell you what. I've got a good mind to come over there and box his ears.
"Old ladies can't flame!" he says. I'll have you know that I was flaming people while you were still pooping in your diapers. It's stupid stuff like this is why most old ladies don't even read slashdot anymore.
suitespot@hotmail.com
Usenet newsgroups used to get flamed all the time.
I think that the bigest problem is that before we could only influence a few people at a time within ear shot. And we have social conventions to keep our public behavior in check. Or we could write a book and it would be published a year from now and someone might read it a year or more after that.
A writer rarely writes contraversial articles and publishers rarely print them. When the article is published somewhere, it is normally in a magazine that only people who feel a certain way have gone to the trouble to subscribe to.
Windows users rarely get upset about an article in Linux Journal, because they don't subscribe to that magazine.
But discusion groups like slashdot tend to draw from a wide audience. And many of the articles are opinion pieces, like _this_ article. It is impossible to prove one way or another.
Many people, including myself, find Jon Katz to be a little irritating. But that is OK with me. He probably finds me irritating. *S*
The problem comes in when someone sees an article that is brand new. And the article really doesn't have any concrete facts to contradict. But they know that the article is wrong. And the answer to their problem is only a "reply now" button away...
So they attack the author. They must correct the error of his ways as quickly as possible, so that he can retract his horrenous article before anyone else can be inflicted with it.
But it doesn't matter that this type of argument argument is false. All that matters is that the person forced you to defend yourself. And by defending yourself you make it seem like there was something to the other persons argument. Ipso facto, the person has dragged you down to their level of "are not, are too" argument.
The best response to people like this is a polite reply thanking them for their response to your article. Don't defend yourself, because there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so. And you know that you are right anyway. *L*
Or that's what I think anyway. Take it or leave it, it's only my opinion.
-- Never make a general statement.
Excite News reports in this story that: "MADRID (Reuters) - At least 10 melon-sized ice balls that have slammed into Spain in the last week are probably debris from comets, not human excrement as first suspected, a Spanish scientist said Monday."
Was the whole point.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Jon Katz curiously wrote: "So flamers discourage free speech, prey on the weak and dominate discussion."
How, pray tell, can private individuals on a private forum (/. is not a gov't entity!) "discourage free speech"? There is no censorship on the internet. This is important, and bears repeating. There is no censorship on the internet. Don't like it? Leave. Sounds fair to me.
If Aunt Nellie and the rest of the soccer moms can't handle objections, debate, diatribe, and cussing, what are they doing on the internet? If Katz is correct (and I would bet beers to bytes that he isn't), there must be a market for namby-pamby sheep who don't like potty-mouths (or anyone who disagrees with them).
If the internet, in all of its raw, untamed "hostility" is a bad place for little Jonny, perhaps he should start his own online forum, heavily moderated and not connected to the outside world. Then, for $15.99 a month, Mrs. Grundy and her bridge club can log on and participate in the most boring, infantile, non-hostile forum around. Something like teletubbies dot com. Ooh, sign me up!
C'mon, Jon, put your money where your mouth is.
I know you once had this in Britain, I've read Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff is an example of someone who made many "trips to the woodshed."
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
time to take that chip off of your shoulder, and get on with life.
geeze..
OTOH, some flames reflect the fact that geeks love to argue, and geek arguments tend to be more passionate and structured; those who can't keep up, lose, or can't see the light descend into name-calling. That is, any mention of Hitler is a de facto declaration of flame war. And then there are the idiots who really love being wrong, and who get flamed by those who see they continue to argue without application of reason. Eventually they get banned in more structured forums.
I am always amazed at how angry and hostile people get when someone has an opinion they disagree with.
Just because MY opinion is different from YOUR opinion does not mean that I am slamming your right to have that opinion.
This comes up a lot when people discuss "favourites"... favourite bands, favourite foods, favourite operating systems, etc.
We all need to learn to express ourselves constructively and avoid personal attacks...
"OS/2 sucks"
is a much better reply to "I like OS/2" than
"YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
wouldn't you agree?
Nobody "sucks" because they like something else, or don't like what you like.
"On the other hand, the early worm gets eaten."
just a few thoughts from a /.'er who has been around for a few years....
1. I think that regardless of the community, some folks need a whipping boy and if a person has the potential to irritate it is easy to lash that person to the post. Mr. Katz seems to be that person for this community. A role that he may seek/enjoy, who knows? One thing is certain, folks read this man and he generates heat (maybe even some light).
2. I have been angry/frustrated in the past at people both on-line and IRL but I _try_ not to fly off the handle. I have never engaged in a flame war because if I am that angry/frustrated I would want to engage that person in a REAL conversation (if possible). If I was _too_ angry for that, I would wait until I was in control of myself and then try. But, to flame a person seems to me to be uncouth, mannerless and without integrity.
If I want to educate someone about what I perceive as ignorance on their part, it would be much more effective to speak to them in a manner they will listen to.
I often wonder what happened to manners and being nice. You can get alot accomplished without being mean. And I am _not_ a Polly-Anna! I am an N-Tier Client/Server QA person and I can tell a developer that his code is a stinking pile of dung and why AND have him listen to my feedback. And since I am also not stupid, you let me know your e-mail address!
I am sure that my comments will engender some flames, but oh well....... If anyone who does flame me would actually want to communicate with me I would welcome the opportunity.
Confidence is what you feel right before you completely understand the problem.
-- Ogden Nash
:)
Seriously, this site is downright NICE the vast majority of the time. I have seen and participated in REAL flame wars, some of which went on for months, on Usenet. Nothing *public* on slashdot has ever gotten even remotely that bad.
For the record, I support anonymous posting - on Usenet and here. I even more strongly support pseduonymous posting, both on Usenet and here. I do not support the type of moderation where only approved posts are available at all - as on most web sites or on moderated newsgroups.
We can adjust our settings here, or our killfiles on newsgroups, to allow ourselves to see or not see as much as possible - which means we CAN check out what is being said by the less popular posters. For me, the fact that unpopular words are not deleted from the forum is what causes me to believe it is a forum and not just propoganda.
That people act like jerks in flamewars is not surprising to me; I've acted like a jerk myself under the heat of the flaming. But I feel strongly that politeness, while desirable, ought not be an imposed requirement in any discussion I find truly useful.
You seem to have missed the entire article. Katz wrote this article in RESPONSE to the e mail forementioned!!!! There was no flammage in regards to this article. Well maybe, but we'll find out about that in Part 2 of this boring diatribe.
I find it hysterical that all these people who are sounding off about flaming are doing some hard-core flaming themselves!!! Just because you don't use curse words or offensive language, doesn't mean that someone won't interpret what you say as being mean...(I found your comments about not being taken serioulsy as a child very offensive and quite mean.) Yes, Talisman was very, ummm, curt, but that's HIS way of expressing himself.
What this whole comical discussion is based around is FREEDOM of expression, a right that need not be toyed with in ANY way shape or form. Who gives a fsck if Katz didn't care for the way Talisman chose to express himself. The bottom line is it is his right to say what he wants.
"Most of my heros won't appear on no stamps..." Chuck D from Fight the Power
The problem is that no-one knows how to deal with
sarcasm on the web: i.e. when a flamer says
something like:
"What the Hell? this f@$%ing lame arse must be
taking classes at Tijuana Tech. RTFM"
when what they really mean is:
"Man, I'll bet this guy got laid last night while
I was reading this damn manual. I gotta get
myself a bee-ach and get the hell outta this lab.
If only I weren't such a fat-ass, oh well, at
least this trench coat covers up my gut."
Ahhh -- the web becomes more and more like
San Fran everyday, littered with flamers.
Don't mind me -- I'm on a permanent Soma holiday
IANAL, but certainly "Please die" is not a threat, just like "Please shut the fuck up Jon" doesn't imply that I might wish to force you to shut up, I just wish you would.
The intense interest generated by any Microsoft/DOJ, RIAA or DeCSS related threads belies your statement as these are political issues.
Rare indeed is the "in depth" flame. Most are shallow polemics devoid of information content. Yours is yet another permutation. Their efforts should be applauded and make an excellent example to follow. What's your point? So am I. So's Katz. So, presumably, you are, too. And mature individuals keep theirs in check. Grow up, testoterone boy.MAC | A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
One point I haven't seen made yet is that email, newsgroups, and other on-line venues are a very different sort of communication compared to face to face verbal communication on the one hand and reviewed, edited written publications on the other hand. Online writing is conversational in tone and content, without the nuanced cues and feedback found in direct human interactions, and without the editorial filtering. This removes a whole lot of restraints and conventions that help keep us civil.
The other factor is that its harder to type than it is to talk. (doh) I'm a very fast typist, but its still hard for my fingers to keep up with my thoughts. So I find myself using overly emphatic or exaggerated prose and grammar to try and get my points across. The net effect is that written conversations tend to suffer from over saturated emotional content -- flamage.
The barrenness of online speech and the difficulty of transcribing conversational speach to written word make flaming an easy way out. It takes time and effort to master the skills and self-discipline needed to communicate effectively in this media. Unfortunately this means that in open forums such as this, we have to endure boorish flamers. And the regrettable fact that discussions happen in an extremely short time frame makes it harder to take the time to hone your words or to reflect on them before posting.
In my product support work I did not have the option of ignoring the flamers. But engaging the flamers with civil, on-topic, constructive, and informative replies I typically caught them off-guard -- often leading to public apologies and retractions. In cases where the flaming persisted, or was beyond my tolerance threshold, replying directly to the flamer was often more effective than public retorts. So my advice would be:
I have heard the terms "flamer", "flamebait", and "flaming" before, but have never heard a formal definiton. Could someone enlighten me?
(Note: I am not a therapist or psychiatrist, although I own a couple of books by Freud & have used prescription drugs.)
/. lack a representation from this group; how many of us decided to mess with computers & gadgets because dealing with people was too often a no-win situation. (I know that describes me.)
Looking this article, & recalling a couple of articles he's written in the past, Katz has a style that could be interpreted as speaking ex cathedra (although I believe he's trying to be thoughtful).
On the other hand, there are a lot of people with self-esteem issues, & I doubt the people who post to
Katz, I believe, pushes these people's buttons without knowing it, & they lash out. Or use Katz as a target to strike out at, rather than the other irritants in their life.
In other words, Katz represents the authority figures they believe are messing up the flamer's lives, & telling him ``You suck" or ``Please die" is their contribution towards fighting against oppression.
Then again, given enough people any comment -- no matter how inoffensive (e.g., ``I like to go into the mountains & smell the air & watch the trees") -- will result with someone finding cause to start a flame war.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I think one thing that a lot of newbies miss, and this includes Katz, is that there is a difference between what they percieve as flaming and what really *is* flaming. In my 15+ years in on-line communications (BBSs, Fido and now the Internet) I've been in true flame wars and what others considered a flame war.
/clearly/, that we're wrong *and why*. This is something that newbies to the net don't grasp as well.
;)
A true flame war, to me, is just flat out insults with very little content. An example:
You motherfucker! You're so god-damned wrong it isn't even funny!! What, your mother forget to get of your daddy's dick and swollow you that one night? Geez, fucking moron! Die!!!
That is flaming in the true sense of the word. Now, a lot of debates that I'm in I've been accused of flaming when there is no flaming at all. In the style that I debate in I start of pretty civil and temper it with humor. However, my humor is mildly sarcastic in nature and not ill-intended. However, constantly some people persist on a track of obvious futility I crank up the sarcasm to drive my point home. This is because I don't really like having to reiterate over and over something that is plainly obvious to me to someone who isn't taking the time to think the problem over before entering the discussion. I also crank up the sarcasm with someone decides to come off as rude, brash and more than a slightly holier-than-thou.
You get two of those people together and while the sarcasm and side jabs will fly, it is *NOT* a "flame" war. We're not blasting one another with raw, out and out insults. In each case that I've been blamed for it I've also been told to calm down, even though I am calm when I post, and that I really should get along, even though I'd associate with the person if we ever met.
In each case the person who calls it a flame war or tells me what is going on is new to the net.
It isn't that the net is abusive, that flame wars break out easily or that people sending a message don't think that the other side is being read by a human. Granted, those are factors, but one is left out. That is the tone that the reader takes a particular message. Stated simply, people see abuse because they expect abuse. It is one of the fun thinks that happens to language when posted. The tone is not dictated solely by the context or the style of the poster but also in how the reader decides to read it. It is the singlemost overlooked factor in many disagreements.
This is not something new to people who have been on the net for years. We know that things will be read the wrong way, which is why we go off half-cocked but we're also willing to back down fast if we're pointed out,
Anyway, rambling reply to a rampling feature. Point of it all, don't call it flaming or a flamewar until it really is. Sarcasm, disagreements, and subtle jabs are nothing more than word play and part of the culture, not flamewars. Like a pair of kittens playing, it only looks hostile.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Surely everyone knows that if you want to write a real flame signifying that you have utterly and completely lost an argument you must take the time to include a detailed explanation of why the target of your flame is so similar to Adolf Hitler in every way - instead you use weak insults like "ass-wipe" or calling him "Katzhole".
Ironic, though, how the poster ranted about Katz not checking his deleted items folder to include a direct quote and then proceeds to say he would have included Jon Katz's email if he hadn't deleted it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"All over the Net, communities confront the same choice: freedom or civility.
Let he who dare speak within this forum called internet look after his own defense. For in this land we are all sovereign. The roses herein bear thorns and the daffodils have bees, and we will not be his gardener. The stings and slights that come his way are for him to ward off as best he can. But if he deigns to replace our liberties with his mode of gentility, he will find us a ruthless enemy that will brook no king above us.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The point that most seem to miss with this (and most other JonKatz articles) is that JonKatz isn't touting his opinions as "Law", but offering up his opinions (usually based on hard fact) as the foundation of a discussion. I don't recall Katz ever saying "I'm right, you're not". He always seems to be offering up topics with the intent of getting other people's perspectives. I may not agree with everything he writes, but I always appreciate the fact that I've challenged to think about something other than the black/white technical world most of us are imsersed in. On the other hand, I hang my head in shame everytime I read a response that says "You're wrong, so you're stupid!". As a member of the Geek Community, I wonder why someone who probably spent their younger years being mis-understood would subject another member of the same community to similar ridicule. If I read something I don't agree with, I find that a simple response containing my reasons for disagreement is a much more satisfing response than "Please Die".
I run a bunch of political sites and I'm accustomed to the fact that lone flamers are always going to be with us. If someone is abusive enough for a long period of time I'll block their IP but for the most part the community on an active board really deals with flamers in their own way (usually by ignoring them).
The real difficulty I've noticed is when you have two or three people flaming as a group with the clear intention of making a board unusable. I had a situation on one board recently where four or five people came on and began announcing the formation of their own group, which had nothing at all to do with the board topic, and then had post after post of their group's planned activities, a little stage internecine feud, etc. The damage was much worse than just a single angry person.
A board like Slashdot is so popular that they can afford to keep the Anonymous Coward option, but for smaller boards blocking some people and requiring non-anonymous membership are the only way to prevent such nonsense.
That's not really a reason. This is just a cleverly disguised "Katz sucks."
Katz's critics seem to feel mysteriously exempt from explaining why he sucks, implying that it should be obvious to anyone else as cool as they are. What little substance they offer is highly subjective: "he rambles," "his topics aren't news for nerds," "he's not part of the community." Notice that Katz critics love to talk about the Slashdot Community as if it were clearly defined -- which is isn't.
Truth be told, Slashdot is a cornucopia of "content [that] reflect[s] poorly on the community." AC's posting inane crap. Luminaries posting inane crap. Slashdot staff post bullshit rumors and then end up immediately retracting them. Coverage of Microsoft and Java will typically be smug and negative. Coverage of the Amiga, Linux and Perl will be fawning and uncritical.
All of this would thoroughly discredit a standard news site, but Slashdot has a different model. Rob and Jeff merely regulate the amount of content -- the "community" (posters, moderators) act as the filter. In a way, if the Slashdot staff is guilty on anything, it's not doing too little filtering, it's doing too much. (Of course, maybe Slashdot is supposed to be a site where only the best nuggets of information are posted -- in that case, it's failing miserably.)
You're comparing apples and oranges. How would you compare paintings to music anyway? That's like "Which is faster, 5 litres/second or 22 miles /gallon?"... Humanities, having the room for multiple dissenting opinions is in some cases a good thing, and in some cases a bad thing. Someone could like Gustav Mahler over Mozart, which is fine, but it also allows for more clueless pontification (a la the New Yorker) that would be shot down in a more technical field.
Dorothy Parker was a wonderful critic and flamer. An example of her criticism can be found here.
The world is full of idiots, and more than a few have discovered the Internet. Some are so confident in their idiocy that it is difficult to resist that little voice that murmurs "pull".
Dear Jon,
;-)
Why do so many (mainstream) people have such difficulty understanding the 'net and the way it works? It's not just you. It is so very simple and obvious to those of us that grew up in it and built it. Why is the 'net useful? What is it's real and true value? What is it about the 'net that makes want to use it? All these questions, and the question "Why are there flames?" have the same answer. Are you stumped?
Here's the answer:
The 'net provides a free flow of reliable information. It is honest.
It is not Politically Correct. Rather it is Simply Correct.
Realize the 'net would be useless if all the data that flowed through it carried the same "colors" as the data that comes across "mainstream media". There is no need for civility because there is no immediate threat due to physical presence. There is no need for manners, nor any need to defer to someone of larger physical stature simply because they (any potential threat) are not there (within reach).
How many times have you spoken derogatory comments about someone "under your breath"? How many times have you cursed someone who cut you off in the middle of the road? On the 'net, you don't express yourself "under your breath". Your comments, thoughts and reactions are all out there in the open for everyone to see if you choose to place them there and if they choose to read them. Here, you get to curse that idiot driver and have a certain confidence that he will hear your words. Surprise! You are not as well loved as you thought. Surprise! Your supposedly well thought out belief systems turn out to be rather "holy" after all; and here is someone in your face that in no uncertain terms, is calling you a lazy idiot for not thinking things through.
Some of us like it, relish it, learn and grow from from it.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could really, truly, honestly, tell your wife "No honey, that dress makes you look fat"? Then she could take that honest objective datum and use it to improve herself, or she could simply modify her opinion of you as a reliable data source.
This happens all the time on the 'net for people that can really and truly use it. You have to be able to think, learn, CHANGE YOURSELF and your opinions of others before any discussion is really going to do you any good. Too many people in this world grow up without these abilities. Too many discussions are carried/acted out in the "real world" where there is actually nothing gained because all of the participants are fearful of offending others or in some fashion disrupting the discussion. Tell me, what good is a discussion that disturbs nothing? What's the point?
>There are good arguments in support of flaming. Flamers can deflate the
>pompous, correct the inaccurate, educate the ignorant, level the
>communications playing field.
The problem being there are so many people who are accustomed to simply having their way. It does not matter whether or not they can think, follow simple directions, or simply learn anything. These poor fools are the most frequent victims of flames and in my opinion, rightly so. For all too long our society has tolerated ignorance, idiocy, and simple laziness for various vague reasons like "fairness", "niceness" and so on. Now the tables have been turned. If you don't have your facts straight, someone will straighten them out for you and let everyone else know that you and your screwy ideas are worthless. If you don't have the ability to defend yourself, too bad. The ones that do think, do learn, do research will skewer you every time.
Once again, this is a good thing. It stops the pollution of true, useful information by the ill informed. It exposes and ridicules faulty concepts that are presented in the mainstream everyday as if they were viable and if you don't value that, go watch FOX for the rest of your life. At least you'll be happy there.
If you don't have the ability to think about what has been said, absorb new ideas and adjust your opinions based on the wealth of information that is available you can of course stay out of the fray, or off the 'net entirely and be left behind.
>Worse, the ferocity of the environment discourages all but the most
>confident or determined posters.
Indeed it does! This is Yet Another Good Thing. How often have you read erroneous reports or seen broadcasts that are so far out in left field that you are left wondering how the reporter/editor got/keeps the job? An erroneous reporter/speaker doesn't get away with that on the 'net. If you are not at least reasonably sure of yourself and where you stand in regard of any particular topic, what in the world are you doing talking about it as if you do know the subject thoroughly? The point is, you, yes YOU, can meet and learn from an expert on ANY subject at any time. So don't expect to be regarded as an expert when you hop into a forum and start talking, unless you are CONFIDENT that you know the subject. Of course, if you jump in and are found to ignorant while speaking as an authority, expect to be flamed. There would be a lot more well educated people in the world if this behavior was practiced face to face. There would be a lot fewer "offended" of various ethnic, racial, or whatever your pet peeve types if this behavior could be practiced face to face. Simply because they would have learned to either put up, back up, hold up, or in whatever way defend their ideas and positions or be told to shut up and listen until they have something worthwhile to say. So many people think that they know what "it is all about". They think they are the so important. They think they are "hot stuff", "top dog" or whatever. In reality, most of them simply don't think very well at all. In my opinion, it's high time someone showed them the error of their ways.
>Flaming, like skateboarding, seems overwhelmingly an adolescent form of
>recreation.
Hardly, skillful flames are sometimes difficult to perceive. Well formed sentences, solid logic, a foundation of fact and skillful selection of words can produce a beautiful dart that often will not be perceived as such by the target. They are always educational for the interested and alert third party and often are for both the flamer and flamed as well. They are also something that very few adolescents can produce.
>Whole segments of the human population - women, the elderly, those who
>speak foreign languages, newcomers, children - are excluded from the
>conversation or choose to avoid it.
I have yet to see anyone excluded from a public, unmoderated, discussion until after they have already made fools of themselves or in some fashion rendered themselves as incompetent, ignorant, or in some way unreliable sources of information. Even then, the exclusion is generally made on an individual basis. It is a personal choice.
>Some are too vulnerable too join in
So be it, this is not a problem. There are activities of all types that are simply not available for some because they don't have what it takes. This is simply another. Fortunately, it is founded on that most fundamental of human features, the power and capability of thought.
>many are tough enough but they don't see much reason to bother.
Indeed, this is true of many activities such as one of my favorites, mountain climbing. I choose not to participate because I have a child to feed, a wife to maintain, etc. In other words, it is not worth it anymore. If some people decide that the insight and knowledge that is available on the 'net is not worth the trouble, that's OK, that's their decision. They can live with it and so can I. On the other hand, if you want to pollute or destroy what I consider a reliable and valuable information source just so that it is easier for the timid to use, then you will find yourself isolated.
You see, the 'net does not work like conventional channels. If you come along and mess up my space, I can move and my discussion can move right around you. If you or the gov tries to censor or moderate one discussion, I'll move on and start another. Try to tax or filter email, and the 'net will develop another method of moving data that is outside the legislation almost overnight. You can't influence the 'net with PAC money, advertisements, or whatever external force you wish to apply. By it's very nature it will simply slip from your grip if you attempt to squeeze. Finally, the people get to speak. You can speak
or not. It's your choice. Just be prepeared to be treated as people really and truly perceive you.
>So flamers discourage free speech, prey on the weak and dominate discussion.
No, they discourage idiocy and ignorance. They certainly do prey on and dominate the weak which is of course the proper, natural thing for the strong to do. It does not require legislation or regulation. It is not nice or fair, or civil,
but it is reality. The solution, which of course should be obvious, is not to whine about it, or in some fashion weaken the strong, rather it is to make the weak stronger.
This is one of MY pet peeves. Whining about problems that some people have does not improve anything. Putting shackles on the strong does not help the weak. The only way to truly improve the whole is to strengthen the weak or eliminate them.
This is the one feature of the 'net which will have the most influence on the populace in the long run. Of course it is also the one feature that all of pundits from the "classical media" have overlooked. For the first time since something like the printing press, a new form of data transportation has arrived. There will be no reliance upon the "classic media" as data conduits. YOU will be able to hear first hand from someone and converse with someone who was there and directly involved in whatever it is that interests you. YOU will be able to leave class and check out whatever it is that the prof was preaching and form your own conclusions. YOU will be able to test those conclusions not only against your classmates and your prof, but against the experts from around the world.
Myth after myth will slowly be dispelled as more and more people are exposed to rational thought processes, logic, and real data rather than the output of "filters".
The world is going to be a better place Jon, and it won't be because the strong have been handicapped. Instead, the 'net will either strengthen the weak or it will kill them. I intend to survive and grow stronger. For your kids' sake, I recommend that you do the same.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Why all the fuss about Katz not being very technically inclined? Does that make his views on the implications of technology less valid? He does not write about how to install Linux or where to get the newest kernel update. He mostly writes about the implications of technology in society. I don't have to know how to splice a gene in order to have valid in-depth opinions on the implications of genetic engineering. I don't have to pilot the space shuttle or work for NASA to have valid opinions on the space program.
Actually it's quite the opposite. Usually the geek in the closet is the last person to consider the socialogical implications of what he is doing. So please stop bashing Katz for being an average user.
Amazing how mad you flamers get when he wants to initiate an honest discussion about flaming.
I wonder, melons have a rather large size range...
"But they lack the typical coloring and texture we find in those cases," he said.
Ha ha! The typical color of piss is what he's talking about.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Excuse me, I must have missed it but what part of your flame was either clever or creative? I am not attempting to assess the comedic value of your flames because humor is subjective at best. 'Clever' indicates that some thought went into the message. 'Creative' would seem to mean that there was something original in the post. I found neither. I have seen the flamers use the same language and diction for the past 15 years; prior to the Internet, BBSs were where the flamers lived; see how far we as a community have evolved? Same flame, different kid. You talk about Jon Katz's 'journalistic integrity' but that begs the question: Where does journalistic integrity fit into opinion editorials? Simple answer is that it doesn't. It is just that, an opinion just like yours. Perhaps Jon Katz isn't an UberGeek like you with the ability to leap whole distros in a single bound. Conversely, you have amply demonstrated your own short-comings by way of your postings.
Thank you for posting a copy of, and link to, this flamethrower! I saw it once before, when I'd earned it (it was my first semester at Berkeley -- I was young and foolish) by doing a:
_X_ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!"
(though, in my defense, it was on a small (~0.5 dozen person) mailing list, and in response to a question about when/where to meet, or some such). Anyway, I foolishly deleted it, and have been kicking myself ever since. I've wanted a copy to use myself, but not badly enough to actually ask the guy who hit me with it in the first place for another.
This is an absolutely great tool, aside from being hilariously funny to "us grown-ups":
*For someone who "should know better", but slips, it makes for a powerful, but not really wounding, admonishment.
*For "newbies", its formulaic nature, as much as its actual content, can help convey the concept that there is a real tradition and etiquette to these things and that this is a response to a real breach of that etiquette, rather than just off-the-cuff flamage. Often, just getting this concept through their skulls is harder, and more important, than teaching them all the details.
*In fact, this would be a good document to show to "newbies" pre-emptively -- not flaminng them, but showing it to them (in person) and explaining that it is a list of grievances that the old-timers frequently have against newcomers, in hopes that they'll get a sense of why these things are bad.
Maybe it should even be displayed prominently among the various FAQs, introductory messages, etc., perhaps even being displayed as a warning when you create a Slashdot account.
On the other hand, it is pretty long, (it fits under the comment length limit, but it still takes a lot of vertical space), and I hope we don't start seeing it posted here too frequently as it could become a major bandwidth-killer.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
"Worse, the ferocity of the environment discourages all but the most confident or determined posters. Flaming, like skateboarding, seems overwhelmingly an adolescent form of recreation. Whole segments of the human population - women, the elderly, those who speak foreign languages, newcomers, children - are excluded from the conversation or choose to avoid it."
Thank you for pointing out one of the great truths of flame wars. They are adolescent. They are that way, because most of the people who flame are really too ignorant to come up with a real retort. They either want attention (rather like a screaming toddler), or they think they are somehow 'cool' by being offensive.
"Moderating systems ultimately can't hold people responsible for what they say, and don't take into account that the hostility isn't a side-show for many people, but the point."
Duh. They want to offend: it is the point. I'm not sure that you can't hold people responsible for what they say, though. You can't stop someone from being an idiot (short of radical action), but you can punish them for it.
"But more restrictive approaches pose an obvious tradeoff: less information, fewer public posts, no protective or leveling role for the posters."
People have the right to say just about whatever they want. There are a few limitations, but they mostly involve public safety. The first amendment was meant to protect people from being persecuted by the state for personal beliefs.
But speakers don't have the right to be heard. I can cover my ears, shout loudly, change the channel, or filter out anything and everything you say. As long as I am deciding for myself, and only for myself, what I hear, it isn't censorship. I think that, as much as freedom of speech is a right of free society, so is freedom of listening.
Okay, name me one online community where people find a lot of info they don't agree with. The reason people join the community in the first place is because they find a place that basicly agrees with what they already believe. The net does bring "all sorts of people together", yes, but not in the same place. Some communities are filled with MicroClones, this one is filled with a different kind of geek, some are for sports fans, others are religious communities. But they all have a focus, and should the focus change, the members would leave.
been out for 5 years, time to comment again...
The only reason you would write something so abusive is because it makes you feel better about yourself.
At this point, I expect you to tell me that you feel fine about yourself, and then attack me. That's what most people in your position do.
But the simple fact remains that the only reason why someone would be so downright abusive to another person is to feel better about him/herself.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Die, please. Die. How many more people have to ask you? Don't you listen?
JUST DIE.
DON'T ASK WHY.
DIE.
I know these females, I like turning them to stone.
I'm not the only person in the world. Even though I can ignore someone who is, in my opinion, a liar or a spin-doctor, by doing so I am letting him continue to spread FUD to others unchallenged. I'm not saying I actually feel this way about Katz - in fact I find his articles entertaining for the discussions they spark (even if the original article was rather naive). I'm just trying to explain why your suggestion to "just ignore" things you dislike isn't very practical.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there was more than one person who sent Katz similar messages? After all, you aren't the only person in the world with those particular, erm, "opinions", if you can call them that. He wasn't necessarily misquoting you - you don't know that for sure. He might have been quoting someone else.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
_x_ Thank you for wasting my bandwidth.
I'd rather get a real flame than a form flame. At least then I know someone has put some thought into it.
Okay Paul, let's get back to normal.
I can't follow you. Why someone shouldn't post about himself? I agree that the stories are choosen by the slashdot team. That might not be the best sollution, that's not a secret. But what IS the best solution? Do you got any propositions?
I think you are very rude against Katz. Rude for no reason. /. is a very open forum and anyone with an good idea can post something and get's heard. Aparantly you try to make /. better by ranting (aka flaming), I don't see how this could work IMNHO.
I think he was not referring to the general population, but rather to politics and debate. I have absolutely no idea if this is any indication, but the few TV snippets I have seen of the British Parliment engaged in debate have much more animosity than the American equivilents. It seems to them to almost be a game that they play with enjoyment - prod the other guy into making a misstep.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
All this infantile behavior is ruining slashdot. I only read the articles, I don't bother reading the discussions. Flamers tend to be boring and just full of themselves. If they were clever and witty it wouldn't be so bad, but they're not. No wait, this is just going to invite a bunch of flames and contribute to sinking the level of discussions, which I don't read, to an even lower level. Is this the pit of heretics? I believe I'll get off here while I'll still ahead.
I think the first reason is that, unlike on usenet, on Slashdot, after about a day a topic it mostly dead. It isn't on the main page anymore and only a few people are still posting to it. Their posts are not seen by the general population. This gets rid of two of the most common contributors to flame-wars:
Another reason Slashdot has less flames is just that it is more time-consuming to follow a nested thread with this interface. Every time you want to look at the next message down the list you have to click it and wait for the graphics and banner ads to re-load. With a newsreader, you can digest a thread much, much faster and therefore don't mind participating in a deeply nested back-and-forth argument.
I don't think that the Moderation is the main cause, as Katz suggested.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Those who don't have respect for themselves will never respect the rights of others.
Something to consider.
In short: Because he doesn't really respect slashdot or the net at all. He is fundamentally authoritarian in outlook, but posting to a forum that is dominated by people who oppose authority - or at least, unearned authority.
The long version:
Most of the people who participate in these discussions have probably read ESR's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". And most think that Bazaars are pretty cool, and that Cathedrals are kinda lame. But Katz seems like a guy who would be more at home in an old-media Cathedral than a new-media Bazaar. And so he attempts to treat Slashdot like an old-media Cathedral, rather than the new-media Bazaar that it is (mostly) intended to be. He posts his essays as if they were wisdom handed down from upon high, and rarely if ever participates in the discussions that ensue (or if he does, it's as an AC or under a pseudonym). When he addresses opponents, it's not in the comments, on equal terms. Instead he quotes their e-mail in his column, where he has complete control over what is printed, and can simply cut out a point he can't answer. He also writes articles with titles like 'Voices from the Hellmouth', which contain lots of quotes from his e-mail. Seeming to suggest that he is somehow making these voices heard, when they otherwise wouldn't - nevermind that most of the people who e-mailed him could have easily posted their comments directly instead.
On the other hand, in recent months we've seen people like Orson Scott Card and John Carmack posting comments to slashdot. If you'd told me at age 15, right after I read Ender's Game for the first time, that I would one day be able to read and participate in a forum that OSC apparently sometimes read and participated in, I'd've fallen off my chair. Substitute "17", "played Doom", and "John Carmack" in the appropriate places in the above sentence, and it still holds true. These are guys whose authority comes from excellence - Ender's Game and the Doom and Quake engines were extraordinary achievements, far more significant than anything Katz is ever likely to do. But they are quite willing to step out from behind the pulpit and interact with random people in a forum where pretty much anyone with a net connection can come and participate. These are people who seem to understand new media, and aren't afraid of it.
Katz, on the other hand, is afraid of new media. (And new technology in general: Note the Luddite-ism that runs through some of his essays.) Because he apparently wants authority, but he's not really good enough at anything to aquire the authority that comes from excellence. So instead he seeks the authority that comes from possessing a voice on a limited-access medium, the same kind of authority that a talking head on the television has.
And so the resentment that many Slashdotters feel towards Katz is actually quite akin to the resentment they feel towards a mainstream news source that they believe reports poorly on some issue important to him: They feel that he has authority that he does not deserve. Evaluated honestly, Katz's essays are no more informative, insightful or well-written than the best user comments on Slashdot - often, they're less so. They don't deserve to be elevated to a position of greater prominence than those comments.
End result, I was out of work, several people have a totally incorrect set of 'facts' which they are now using to make serious decisions, and a couple of flamers got to sit around bragging about the extra inch they'd just acquired on their dicks.
I've seen several responses here saying things like "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen", but how many of you are willing to put your jobs on the line to back up your opinion? Yeah, I never thought it would happen to me, either. Just like I knew no one would be stupid enough to believe a blatant re-editing of a post that was still in most people's spool at the time. (Pre-deja days.)
So, as a result of the widespread support of flaming, I hardly say anything now. I use remailers when I say anything that's likely to be even slightly controversial. Most of the time I don't bother. My right to free speech (which I don't actually have in my country :-) does include the right to remain silent. The net just isn't important enough to go screwing up my career and losing my friends over.
The bottom line is that here on /. the intelligence level is extremely high and....
Start out with that premise, and you've already lost
Further, no one here knew my gender until I start b*tching on one of these topics anyways in a previous thread...
I doubt there are very many people who would mistake someone named "JackiePatti" for a man...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
and then tell me how much sense it makes!
It's the internet dude! You referrin' to server bytes, bandwidth, or screen real estate? It's not like Cmdr Taco couldn't post another article if he wanted to.Then how'd you get here? Oh, I see...and contributing to the "space waste," along with the rest of us.The other problem I have with Jon Katz's article is the logical cul-de-sac he seems to want to force us with the seemingly inconsistent traffic signs of "victimized innocents" on the one hand and Orwellian mind control (in the form of self censorship through moderation) on the other: So "hate speech" is an "assault" on innocent victims and moderation of the sort practised here leads to bland homogeneity free from disturbing and/or challenging opinions. What's left for us to do? The answer, I suspect, appears earlier in the article: Yes, it would probably be satisfactory to Katz to have a model that involved active censorship. How you do this when you also provide real anonimity to your posters is an open question.
I get the impression that Jon Katz may not trust this community to police itself. This is understandable when you take into account the fact that he's not actually a member of the Slashdot community, as others have noted.
I've enjoyed most of what I've read of Jon Katz's previous writings, both here and on HotWired. This is the first time I've felt excercised enough to respond to something he's written. Thanks for the foil, Jon!
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
I've often felt that Microsoft propaganda isn't the worst enemy for Linux -- Linux users are Linux's worst enemies. With almost every Microsoft thread on Slashdot (or Linux newsgroups, etc), you often see the same thing: "f*cking Microsoft, how can anyone use that crap? Windows is for stupid losers." And so on. This of course does Linux no favors at all, and only serves to make the original poster look foolish. Why flame? I guess it makes the flamer feel all macho and self-important, but is it really doing anything else?
People of all ages skateboard, Jon.
Skateboarding is a brilliant show of redefining urban space, and seeing the world through a decidedly different filter. On a day to day basis, we create a radical subversion of the intended use of the city and its structures. By doing so, we threaten accepted definitions of space, taking it over conceptually and physically, and striking at the heart of what everyone else understands by the city.
Other countries certainly don't extend such niceties to their citizens; for example, I can go to jail for saying that the country I live in should be a republic, for example.
It's always odd to see the yankees saying that others oughta "think globally", yet when you see them doing a bit of thinking, most of the time you only something enormously local emerging.
I haven't been around
And now, Why I Don't Hate Jon Katz:
He's the reason I found
At least early on, Katz articles were what kept me here. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but since I am NOT a "computer science geek", I'm more likely to be able to post to the threads that spin off of his articles, and actually have something worthwhile to say, than to many of the others.
I'm not a computer expert. I play one at work, on occasion -- people in my department will call me (the pseudo-technical writer who's really being more of a secretary right now) with computer problems because I get there faster than the real tech support, who work in another building in another part of the city. I'm a highly competent end-user of just about anything that gets thrown at me. I am in NO way a programmer. I wrote a few things in LOGO and BASIC as a kid, and took a single Pascal course from an incompetent professor, and that's as far as I ever went.
For me (and for the others out there like me), I think Katz provides an important bridge between typical
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
at the risk of becoming katz-y: /. so his articles will keep appearing. I'm not sure I am ready to completely 'zotz' him from my preferences, but maybe I'll go check out the hellmouth articles (which someone else actually DID recommend) to see...
teens (or those who act immature) DO seem to comprise the bulk of flamers. my opinion - so what? there are plenty of times when a little immaturity is often the correct medicine. as others have stated - if you can't hold your opinion when it is challenged, then why bother having it?
a nonzero fraction of flamers may become mature enough to realize that their comments are hostile (or insert your _bad_ adjective here) and thus should be restrained. my opinion - that's good, but so what? the maturity of any individual in a society will (due to lowest-common-denominator) only truly be represented in that society when that society decides what lcd they will accept. there is a reason that 13yo males do not drive cars and vote in america - we decided that they are not mature enough yet. [ooohhhh - an opinion, here comes the flame...]
this j.katz article sucks. yes, it is petty, but that is my opinion - note, i am mature enough to realize that the person may not suck, but this article certainly did. the reasons have already been brought up in other threads - he is pedantic, long-winded, and pointless within a society [/.] that tends to mainly care about quick wits and interesting information.
since this response is fairly late, I doubt many others will ever see it - and besides, we already know that katz must have an inside track to
oh yeah, you may wonder why I am posting in this thread rather than starting my own? well, it was near the end of my _read_ and it had a fairly mature content. I may not be mature, but I like to associate with those who are...
The way I see it is this..
Every january, the moron factor goes up tenfold on usenet. Why you ask? Same reason aol users are the running joke of the internet.
This time of year, adolescent's are just gearing up there new puters. Christmas is grand aint it. Basically, they hit forums such as Usenet with no regard to how things work, they confuse it with anarchy, and hence the senceless drivel(re: you suck, this sucks, bla bla bla)
As for hostility... Damm right.The commercialisation of net will continue to be the single largest problem. Do any of us really want folks comming in, spewing a bunch of crap they obviously know nothing about? Do you really want aolers comming on and telling folks to tone it down?
For those wishing to live in a buble, stay with AOL, and simular providers, they offer there own discussion boards, and are generally flame free.
For the rest of it, usenet is harsh, its the unscensored truth, it's where people say whats really on there minds without social inhibitions. Thats what makes it so grand. It gives any and everyone the ability to say and discuss, any and everything.
Sometimes it is a little like a scoolyard, execpt the bullies arent twice your size, and your mind is your defence / offence. Much like nature, it's survival of the fittest..
Leace usenet the way it is, in the end, it moderates itself.
why so radical ???
As long as a paraphrased quote does not change the meaning of the actual quote and represents the spirit of the original, I don't think any harm has been done. Here, I believe this is the case. Katz was justified in paraphrasing, since the meaning was not changed.
-------------------------
Stupid people suck.
It sounds like someone basicly is saying "Get lost" to Katz becouse he couldn't install Linux the first time.
The Linux community is not tolerent of elitist however has few chances to flush them out
Unlike Windows Linux repells newbes... so the Microsoft community gets to get rid of there elitists while ours lay dorment...
It is annoying that some people think they are hotstuff becouse THEY can install Linux the first time while people like Katz has problems..
It's quite likely Katz simply has hardware Linux dosn't like..
My computer has no problems with Linux ONLY becouse I put it together myself to run Linux.. any posable hardware issues were avoided just by not getting any hardware Linux dosn't support very well.
The result? I can't run Windows... Some of my hardware was on discount becouse Windows dosn't like it... but works great on Linux...
I don't actually exist.
No Test ;-)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
>>Online mirrors the outside world. What are we, in prison?
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
I find it interesting, to no end, that a column concerning flaming and its inevitable and necessary existence on the Internet while at the same time chides what are agreeably some of the stupidest flames still attracts fire.
Tell me something, what could one say without attracting flames?
An obvious choice might be something clearly geeky, like "Linux Rules!!!" However, try it and you're sure to get massive feedback from the BSD freaks.
Hell, now I'm going to feedback from the BSD freaks.
So, what could I or anyone say in an online forum that would not attract fire?
I've never met a single guy named Jackie, Plenty of Jacks, or somthing like that, but never A guy Jackie. And certanly never a male "Patti". Not patty, even Patti, with an 'i'. To me, and, I suspect a lot of other people your name is agressivly femine. I at least would have thought you were a woman from your name. Although, I don't even bother to read peoples names as I read, actualy...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Rather than applauding you for "daring to speak radical thoughts", I think I'll ask why you have such a chip on your shoulder.
it's racist for them to assume that skin color automatically entitles them to special treatment.
Some degree of racism in ethnic minorities does exist, I'll agree, but don't you think racism by whites is a far more widespread problem, at least in predominantly white nations?
Female Prison Rape in NY
GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE!
IIRC, the law defines assault as making a threat upon someone, and does not necessarily involve physical harm. Battery does. I would have to disagree with you.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.