Slashdot Mirror
Flaming Freud: Analyzing Homo Incinerans
In most precincts on the Net, flaming -- loosely defined here as ad hominem verbal violence committed by the pecular denizens of cyberspace, and fueled by the creations and circumstances of the cyberculture they've created -- is both widely practiced and broadly condemned.
During much of what we call civilization, personal attacks on ideological opponents have been considered uncivil, a kind of social cheating that violates the rules of coherent debate and social relations. We generally don't attack other people unless we covet their land or property, are enraged by unreasonable provocation, or paid to do it. But online, people continuously attack others for less obvious reasons.
In fact, people online are frequently assaulted just for existing, one of cyberspace's unique features. Intellectuals, while they may privately backstab and mercilessly skewer one another, have always publically advocated what they call a "contempt for contempt" philosophy about personal attacks.
On the Net's threads and discussion lists, there is no such pretense. Hostility is naked and continuous, and even its most vicious practioners rarely suffer any consequences, experience regrets, or apologize to their targets.
While flaming is generally condemned by mature and civilized people, it's becoming clear over time, and as the Net enters its second generation, that that's too simple a position. However much we might or might not like it, flaming exists for particular reasons and serves particular functions, especially in the context of electric communities.
For example, flaming is a bit reminiscent of the role-playing that goes on in virtual sex sites, where people assume and experiment with different identities. The flamer can be tough and hostile online, even when he can't be in the real world, or isn't the least bit hostile face-to-face. On virtual sex sites, people experiment with different personae all the time, many of them aggressive. But they do so knowingly. Most flamers are not big on self-awareness. Many take themselves very seriously, imparting considerable virtue to their hostility.
Flaming has unintended consequences -- it has elevated e-mail to new levels of significance. Speaking only for myself, as flaming becomes more widespread and disconnected, e-mail seems to become more thoughtful, literate and civil. Denied the opportunity to speak thoughtfully in public, many people online work hard at making e-mail work even better. E-mail used to be an oddity, written in short, herky-jerky bursts. But as more people have grown up using it and become more experienced, it's gotten better. The problem is that unlike flames, few people ever get to see it. Thus e-mail isn't taken as seriously as flaming, it's evolution as studied or appreciated.
Flaming online is like jet noise near an airport, an expected backdrop, part of the digital continuum. Curiously, flaming often seems most enthusiastically embraced not by the dumbest people, but by the smartest, and perhaps the youngest. Male adolescents are the nastiest and most enthusiastic flamers, which shouldn't be all that shocking.
Flamers invariably know better, at least in real life (otherwise the homicide rate would be going up, not down), but the virtual world serves as a kind of free zone for the nervous, discontented, quarrelsome and meticulous. Invective has always provided some of the best and most inventive writing online, the nerd's literal revenge. Freud would have a field day analyzing flaming, though he would surely be roasted alive if he browsed anywhere near most mailing lists. His tortured, ponderous style of communicating would touch off a continuing roast.
People who would get their teeth knocked down their throats if they spoke so viscerally at schools or workplaces become cult heroes online, freely tossing out insults and taunts as long as there's plenty of bandwidth between them and their targets. They often see themselves as heroes and champions of free speech. Cyberspace filters out all the physical characteristics of an actual debate or confrontation -- people's size, gender, demeanor, posture, facial expressions, volume and tone of voice. This is partly because there are economic constraints on online time (thus personal patience), and a lack of immediate response from the target. Besides, almost all Net and Web communities are new, without the traditions, social protocols or inhibitions that exist off-line.
The Net is not a place for people who fear or dislike criticism. Being abused is almost noble, to some points of view. In certain scientific circles, as well as during the Enlightenment, it was considered heroic to dare to put your ideas out there -- you can't respond to criticism without suffering it first. Since at least that time, philosphers and experimenters have had to meet a rigorous test of scrutiny. That ethic continues on the Net, perhaps because programs and code that operate software really needs to work. When they don't, there's no evading it.
Simply a reality of life online, flaming has now become part of the digital social architecture, the price others pay to move around freely and express themselves openly. The Net is not a place for people who fear or dislike criticism, one of the problems CEO's and other thin-skinned types have with cyberspace.
Many people who denounce flaming see it as nothing less than a rise in thuggery, writes William B. Mallard of Rutgers University, in an essay in the collection "Internet Culture," edited by David Porter. Mallard calls flamers "homo incinerans" -- incendiary people. He recounts several rounds of flming on a mailing list devoted to psychoanalysis, of all places. His account reinforces the idea that online academic writing is particularly conducive to flaming, since adademic research is so closely associated with anxiety, wrath and vendettas and online culture only compounds the disassociation of sender and recipient.
This connection between academic temperament and online assaults might explain why tech-oriented sites are prone to metaflaming. Almost all tech and programming discussions are rife with anxiety, wrath and vendettas. And they are disproportionately peopled with students and academics and researchers.
Flaming is a difficult streak in Net culture to write about, because public discussion of flames attracts more flames. Pretty soon, all rational exploration becomes impossible -- as you can see in a flash by scrawling down below this column.
But if you buy the notion that electric communities (Net scholar Mark Stefik has written that flaming is the digital equivalent of people driving menacing outsiders away from their communities), then there has to be some natural rationale for flamers. Mother Net has provided them for the same reason Mother Nature provides mosquitoes and predators; they full some sort of digital predestination. But what, exactly?
The dark side of flaming is obvious enough: it inhibits free speech and it discourages newcomers and the techno-wary. More than any other factor, flaming keeps the Net from actually spawning open and coherent communities, since rational discussion becomes all but impossible except in closed, moderated forums.
Less apparent are the benefits of flaming, but there are some. Flamers are levelers and equalizers, obnoxious maybe, but also democratic. They are BS and hype hunters. When it comes to getting flamed, everybody online is equal. A tool of the adolescent and the young, flaming is a counterstrike against real or perceived authority figures, the very types you can't go after on the non-virtual realm. Flamers are indefatigable and enthusiastic. They generate excitement, create tension and interest around ideas and debates; they discourage punditry and top-down pompousity.
I tend to think of them, sometimes wearily, sometimes with affection, as the canaries in the coal mine, specimens in a jar that test radiatiion and other hazards. As long as flamers flame, the Net remains freer than anywhere else.
Please, don't do it - but it seems that it will just come- ------
-------------------------------------------
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I just see flameing as people letting out stress or just being an ass via the assumed mask of anomity(sp?)
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
You say one thing, but mean your mother?
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
I have to believe that after many years that I say what I think at the time. Too many times than I can count I have been given a negative reaction from slashdot and say what I really think. If that's flamming then so be it.
Respond to s
Cheers,
Richard
Figures
Burn Hollywood Burn
I see flaming more like road rage. On the Internet, all you see is text and graphics. Users don't have to acknowledge to themselves that there are real people out there. So, they behave in ways that they wouldn't if they were in a face-to-face confrontation. I've noticed two types of flaming: the trolling that's there to get attention or a reaction and the intolerance of alternate views on the universe. Both are offensive to me and I've learned not to react to either.
-Jennifer
Flaming is just like picking a fight in a bar.
Except you don't (generally) get hurt.
End of story.
1st!
1+1 = uh, can I get some help here? Jeb?
What's that.. Uh, no it can't be, it's too soon for that! Alright, who's the naz
*** Invocation of Godwin's Law ***
Post Terminated.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm afraid I respectfully disagree. I see little wrong with flaming, although I certainly won't indulge in the practice myself. Flamers reveal more about themselves than their targets.
While everybody might lose their temper every now and again, it isn't something to be proud of, nor does it win any points. USENET and the WWW should be read with large doses of skepticism.
I object to the term "verbal violence". That term should be reserved for credible threats of violence. Mere vitriol causes no harm other than hurt feelings. For those, I suggest growing a thicker skin, or getting some self-confidence.
I get the feeling that for once, this article comes from the heart. If anyone has received a lot of flame, it's Jon Katz and his "insightful" (in the /. sense of course) brand of libberish nonsense we all love to hate.
Sorry Jon, but your assertion that flaming inhibits free speech is ludicrous, since flaming is in itself a form of speech, and one that people normally cannot "get away" with in real life due to the overly developed sensibilities of people with far too much emotional baggage. By removing the possibility of hysterical and/or violent responses, the net has in fact increased the freedom of speech by allowing people to say what they really mean rather than mouthing polite platitudes whilst seething inside.
And as for flaming discouraging rational conversation, some of the best arguments I've seen has been the result of flamewars online, or indeed have been the flamewars themselves. Passionate arguments are always the best for getting to the bottom of things, why else do you think public debates have always been so popular and successful? Argument is a necessary tool of the rational mind, and a heated argument is far more likely to reveal the truth than a load of politcally correct group-speak.
Face it, you just don't like being flamed. Either deal with it, or get over it, just stop whining about it.
It would be like overhearing a conversation in said bar and then arguing about it and then more people start to hear and then they comment and so on.
Respond to s
I think we can all agree that Katz, more than anyone else, is qualified to write an article about flaming. 90% of Slashdot comments attached to a Katz article (or diatribe) are usually flames, justified or not.
...is that he damn well knows what it's like to be flamed. :)
Dear my! What are those things coming out of her nose?
Spaceballs!
> newcomers and the techno-wary. More than any other factor, flaming keeps the Net from actually
> spawning open and coherent communities, since rational discussion becomes all but impossible
> except in closed, moderated forums.
Aren't you contradicting yourself somewhat? The last thing I want is a "community" full of people saying "PLEEZ UNSUBSCRIBE M3 FRUM DIS L1ST!".
Flaming is as much a form of moderation as anything else, and if flaming keeps the newbies away, (e.g. flame one newbie to a helminthic crust as an example to the others), then load 'er up with napalm and let 'er rip.
Speaking of flame, there's a fascinating thread in news.admin.net-abuse.email on the nature of communication across the language barrier, and it started with a flame. Search for "worm poop" or "worm men" and watch as a native Italian speaker (and spammer) gets his flames and death threats translated through Babelfish to English (and back again), to the amusement and delight of all.
To quote one poster from the thread: "Any sufficiently advanced communication is indistinguishable from gibberish". And yet - any sufficiently advanced communicators are still able to understand said gibberish.
For those who surf the newgroups, this may be of interest...it may just save your mailbox!
The Internet, just like the real world, has its share of rude people. While there isn't much one can do about it, it would be silly to avoid using the Internet simply for fear that someone might insult you in public one day. Sooner or later, it will happen, and the best you can do is to be prepared for this. When it does happen, the only thing you absolutely must not do is whack the "reply" button and send off a stream of insults at your offender - or if you absolutely must, at least make sure that you do so in private. All you would achieve with a stream of insults is what is called a "flame war" in network jargon - dozens of people casting insults at each other, and a very swollen mailbox. Insulting someone on a public list is very much like punching someone in the face in a crowded bar near closing time; don't do it unless you want to get into a fight that could be painful for everyone.
Now, of course, you have been insulted and some factually incorrect statements may have been made about you, or your words may have been twisted around to make them sound like you meant exactly the opposite of what you said. A public reply may be appropriate, in much the same way that one would write to the editor of a newspaper and request the publication of a formal reply to "straighten out the facts". The important thing is to avoid content-free messages where no misinformation is corrected, no point is made and all that is ever exchanged is insults.
But before you do that, you will want to consider why these people have been rude to you. First of all, make sure the poster did intend to be rude. The Internet connects people from over 50 countries, and many of them are not native English speakers. They may have translated an idiomatic expression literally, and insulted you without meaning to. Similarly, native English speakers may have used a correct idiomatic expression which, when translated literally, sounds very mean in your language.
The next thing to consider is where the poster comes from. No matter what your personal opinion on the question may be, there are cultures with a very different definition of what is or is not socially acceptable, and in particular there are cultures where personal attacks are no big deal. While you may think that they should not do anything that hurts your feelings, you probably don't want to get into a cultural flame war, because you are probably hurting other people's feelings as well on a regular basis. For instance, do you always address people by their full name and title, or do you just say "As Peter said yesterday..."? In some countries, it is a grave insult to call people by their first name if you don't know them personally, while in others using the full title can sound sarcastic. There are dozens of similar examples, and the only way to successful cross-cultural communication is to tolerate other people's cultural habits in return for their tolerance of yours.
Another point to consider is that, sometimes, people are having meaningful discussions in a tone that appears inappropriate to you, but that may seem perfectly normal to them. As long as their messages contain useful information, there is no point in trying to police the list, both because it is the list owner's job, not yours, and because adults are unlikely to change their behavior in any significant way, especially if the people complaining are new to the list. If you want the list owners to take action, it is better to write to them directly, so that you do not end up being labelled as "one of the people running the flame war". If you just want to publicly express your indignation, it is best to type the message and pause, just before sending it, to consider whether you are doing this in the general interest or for your personal, selfish satisfaction. Most mail programs let you cancel a message.
Lastly, if you are new to the Internet please take the time to look through existing resources on netiquette (the rules of etiquette governing on-line communication).
Note that among Internet users, a kind of "shorthand" exists which may be confusing at first. One example of this is the term "IMHO", which means "in my humble/honest opinion".
You may also encounter symbols called "emoticons", which are used to help define the emotions of the poster while he is writing.
If you think there is one iota of hostility in my nakedness, you got another thing coming.
that was it.- -----
--------------------------------------------
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
You've been caught lurking in the 'secret' sids John ! And then tried to intellectualise it. Bah, you would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids !
Is it just me or has /. become a slightly better-behaved place since Rob's IRC rants over the last week? It seems like the spam, trolls, flame etc. has reduced by a load.
---
According to a UN survey, anyway. More findings:
Americans flame using ungrammatical sentences and poor spelling. They typically pepper their "flames" with scatalogical references that are simultaneously no sequiturs and anatomically impossible. I wont go so far as to label them morons but, you know, if the shoe fits, etc, etc. Brits flame the best because they have a lot of repressed bitterness over being poofters. For example, teletextual incendiarism is almost certainly of Brit origin.
Saying what you think, even if it's negative, doesn't have to fall into the category of flaming. It's an issue of etiquette and substance. I see flaming as venting without contributing any food for thought in an obnoxious manner. You can disagree and express negative emotions without resorting to incindiary language.
-Jennifer
This article must have taken all of a minute
to write. As for invoking Freud, he must be
turning in his grave, being associated with
such a thinly-argued piece of drivel.
arnald
OK, we now have an explanation for the normal reaction to a Katz article.
Ohhh, no. The prevalance of flaming on the 'net isn't an indication of the rise of anything. There are flamers wherever, and to the same extent, content can be divorced from consequence.
Bathroom grafitti. Prank phone calls. Letters to the editor under ficticious names. Anonymous hate (surface) mail. Big-mouthed media celebrities who'll never meet the people they slander.
All the 'net has done is lift up the rock and show you the bugs that were already there.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
I'll say it again. No accountability, no responsibility. If you're anonymous, you can flame away, because you don't have to look at the person you're flaming in the eyes. If you can't see the other person, it's much harder to care about their feelings.
Also, flaming is like playing violent video games. It's to take out aggression, it's to have fun. It shouldn't be taken seriously. If you're being bothered by flaming, take steps to escape the fire, or fight fire with fire.
Mother Net? I think net flamers spawn because of immaturity, not because they serve a purpose. It's possible to disagree with someone in a serious conversation without lambasting his/her very being. I think flamers do as much to defend free speech as people who play violent video games do. What does that mean? I have no idea.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Secondly, flamers don't consider themselves such. Despite making comments about a particular person as opposed to this issue, when confronted with any specific post, they claim they're not the one that's flaming. The other side "started it with [x] post". It is a lot like road rage in that people feel the need to put down others in order to maintain their sense of superiority.
It has nothing to do with free speech any more than spamming does, and it isn't any more necessary than murder is.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Doesn't it bug you to know Jon Katz predicted your immediate destiny?
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Seriously, anyone have a genus/species name for trolls?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Do I agree with the content of the article, No, but then I could only read half of it before I became tired of it. Do I like flamers, No, but that is what filters are for!
If I don't like what you have to say, I ignore you. As far as I am concerned, an individual has the right to behave and say however/whatever they want to. That is, as long as they do not voilate another individual's rights doing so.
So, as flaming does not violate anothers rights, flame away! After all, the only thing that it does to me is makes my filter list longer!
Eagles soar, but Weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.
I think that few people are qualified to judge the merits of many of the John Katz articles namely because they don't have the proper background to allow for editing and writing experience. In fact most people don't even read the essays at all and then just flame anyway. That just shows ignorance.
Respond to s
Being someone who generated 12,000 hits in 36 hours by flaming Ryan Meader of MOSR, I can say a 'detailed analysis' of flaming is bullshit. Flaming is little more than being juvenile again. I like to flame someone in good fun every now and then, but I liken it to squirting someone with a water gun. Annoying enough to get thier attention, but not enough to go to jail for.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Embarrassment? Hubris? Unhealthy self-opinion? I suspect the latter.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
katz writes about something he really knows about.... getting flamed.
-Brian Peace
For my own part, I agree with Jon in that flamers are an indicator, but I disagree with what's being indicated. For me it's a filtering mechanism; once the "temperature" of the post reaches a certain point, I just ignore it. It's my bozo filter.
I have reservations as to Sigmund Freud having cogent observations on flaming. It's my impression that Freud is being abandoned by modern psychiatry because his theories are flawed. According to one skeptic I read, Freud's theories may one day be regarded like astrology and alchemy: precursors to valid science, but no longer useful.
'nuf said.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
The primary culprit here is HTTP. With a BBS, you had to establish a connection and log into a system on which you had established an account. This may not seem like much, but it was part of the "sense of place" that BBS veterans often lament missing on today's net. With /. or any of a hundred other web forums, you can just click your way in and just as easily click your way out. The BBS was an investment; the web is just screwing around, not much more interactive or engaging than channel surfing.
Flaming on BBSes took some real energy because it generally went on at some length and in any given local calling area there were only so many places you could make an ass of yourself before you ran out of welcomes. Flaming on the web is more like a drive-by shooting. Any AC can fire off a shot not even notice the response. Unfortunately, since Microsoft killed browser development and since HTTP appears to be the VT100 of the next decade, this isn't likely to change.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I couldn't agree more. This really does seem to be the day of days for Slashdot stories that get "flamed" though. A story about flaming, right after that useless thread on distributed memory architecture supercomputers.(I refuse to say the words at this point.) Better luck later on I guess.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
They most certainly don't! From Socrates to Plato to Dr Johnson, to Schopenhauer, to Winston Chuurchill, Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron, all of them, there's a huge tradition of invective and personal abuse among intellectuals. This "contempt for contempt" is a mark of pseudo-intellectuals; people who think they're acting with incredible maturity and cleverness when they're actually just too dull to come up with a good answer.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Well, to add my flame to the fire.
Jon Katz on flaming? Is this what we call 'self-realization'? Or does he actually believe that he has just stated something truly profound and enlightening for the stupid masses?
Yeah, that's probably it. Hard to believe that Katz would actually wake up to his own stupidity.
Bite my yammer.
Journalism requires thought. Thought requires language to be decisive. Decisive language is much better to read than a Microsoft textbook. There is nothing wrong with using "big words". Fact: most peoples' vocabulary ceases to grow past age twenty-five. For those that refuse to use the "big words", I venture to say that growth ends somewhere around fifteen. your language will define your perspective on the world. Use it well and it will serve you well. Choose to use only fragments of your language and you will find yourself in a personal deficit for doing so. So please, feel free to flame me also.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
And not only has it been lost, but its popular definition has changed to the point where it has little meaning.
Consider my first experience online: AOL. That, by itself, should invite a platoon of flamethrowers to point in my direction. But in 1995, at least, it was possible to find signs of intelligent life on the service, other lusers who were my age or at least acted like it. This was due in large part to having to pay by the hour; most kids got limited access, if any, and had to make the most of it, which left little time for pointless posturing on the message boards (which were heavily moderated anyway). It was then that I discovered Usenet, which has long been treated like Outer Mongolia by AOL, but was the source of some truly inspired writing, arguments, and all-out war. I spent much of my 20 hours a month simply downloading articles from Usenet.
That changed in '96, when AOL moved to unlimited-access. Now parents had a new babysitter, developmentally-stunted college dropouts had a new latrine to piss in, and the collective IQ of the service plummeted. I bailed the very next month for an independent ISP and haven't looked back.
And true flaming--which, despite Katz' assertions, usually attacked the message, not the messenger--has suffered badly as the Internet moves into the mainstream. "I CAUGHT LUXERx AND HIS MOTHER IN A HOT WET 69!!!1!!1!!!" is not a flame. It's the immature bleating of lonely teens who have just figured out how to use a newsreader to crosspost to half the groups in alt.* on Usenet. Real flames are written by people who value subtlety, excellent grammar and precise logic. Often their subjects don't know they are being roasted, even while everyone else in the group is stifling a laugh.
That was flaming then. Now it's just noise, which I can pick up from any high-school student lounge. The freedom and accessibility of the 'net are its blessings--and also its curses, and eventual downfall.
I thought it would be a fun idea to flame the author, but then I realised lots of other people would be doing it anyway, so it wouldn't be original unless I got first post :-)
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Got to the 3rd paragraph and thought. This is a bit long for /.. Bet it's a Katz.
Deleted
In Cyberspace, the consequences are more obscure. And it is somewhat easier to come up with a new persona.
The end result is that the social veneer is much thinner, and we tend to see the core of the person more directly, since they have a sense of safety in the appearance of being anonymous.
- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
These guys say soul-destroying stuff like about Roberta Williams and cancer and what not. Serious? I doubt it. I think they are very self-aware people who flame for entertainment.
Btw, this is the best Jon Katz article I've seen. I've been flaming your posts for a long time as AC, Jon- too bad when I get my nick I have to post something positive! Wait, that makes me look like a pussy: dear Jon, fuk u.
> Most mail programs let you cancel a message.
Heheh...
Me: *Cancel*
EmailApp v4.2: "I'm sorry, that option is not available."
M: "Um..." *Cancel*
E: "I believe I just informed you that you cannot do that. This message will now be sent. Please enter an address in the To: field."
M: "WTF?" [moves mouse towards window close button]
E: "Sorry, no dice. I have now taken control of your cursor. Enter an email address now!"
M: "Aah!" [reaches for power cord]
E: "GIVE ME AN ADDRESS OR I'LL FORMAT YOUR HARD DRIVE, B***H!!!"
Yes, 'big words' have their place, and I use them when I'm writing a report or whatever, but I don't expect them on a site like this. Everything has its place; if the author wrote all of Slashdot's articles, Slashdot would never have succeeded, because you might as well read National Geographic, and at least in National Geographic the authors have some idea what they are talking about.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
For a brief time, believe it or not, it was customary for arguments to be defered to net.flame (later alt.flame) and the interested parties would actually comply! One interesting result of that was that alt.flame developed its own culture with its own celebs who definitely ripped each other apart, but in many cases there was also an underlying level of respect for each other's wit and imagination.
Of course over time all things like this fade away, and the signal to noise of "useful" flameage eventually became low enough that I stopped interacting on USENET at all. I find it odd that Jon is only now getting around to flames as a topic, since it's been around the net for well over 10 years.
Flaming seems to be a way of defending/establishing a person's psychic-verbal territory. Primates will repel invaders with physical attacks and by throwing feces at invaders. I believe flames and other ad hominem attacks are the verbal equivalents of throwing feces.
Just a thought.
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
So what's the big deal about it? Is this whole damn shit worth writing an article and worth a post on /.?
Is Katz running out of ideas for articles? Generally, I find his articles to be quite decent, although he got "flamed" a lot. But hey, writing a whole article on this? Is Katz trying to prove or show something?
Look, scriptkiddies, I've been on the Net since 1978 (yes, I remember when 300 baud was fast and 110 baud was still common, and when 1200 baud came out it was sweet nectar from the Godz). And, really, there has always been flaming.
Jon's just trying to explain to himself why we flame him. It's simple - he can't stop pontificating on subjects he knows little or nothing about, and does it in a way that aggravates those of us who understand how to write in a truly digital age.
Writing for a magazine is dead wood. Writing for a totally electronic method is digital - brevity is the soul of wit, one should not write about what one does not know.
That aside, the flame wars today are like little sparklers going off in the night compared to the flamefests we had in the old days. Then, it was real flames, flames as tall as buildings, flames that destroyed entire computing departments (which were really subsections of math departments back then), flames that caused people to take your decks (of punched cards) and drop them accidentally.
Now, they'll probably just mess with your bank account or something tame like that.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
to (-1, Flamebait).
Oh wait, you can't moderate articles like you can in Kuro5hin, can you?
Never mind. Just moderate this comment then.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I mean, you're reading that post on Slashdot, and it's really interresting. You make an insigthfull comment on it (which gets ignored by the moderators, and the other one below which is funny gets rated 5, but that's another topic, and if I don't stop now, I might get "flamebaitted"), and are proud of what you had to say. It seems that of all the posts there are on this subject, you have brought a new light to it, something that people didn't see the first time around when they posted their comment. You come back a few hours later wondering if someone replied to what you wrote, to read : "haha sux0rz" or, "You s***, 'X' company are f****** losers and you are a complete retard". I just hate that. Flamebait should not not be tolerated, and free speech has it's limits. If something is irrelevant, don't publish it, even tough it might be funny. I know censorship isn't what most slashdotters like, but Slashdot might need a little more of that.
The normal social mechanism that prevents this sort of thing from happening in the meat world- identity leading to accountability- usually does not exist in the electronic world.
Personally, I despise anonymity, and dislike pseudonimity. Although there are cases where these are desirable, they are usually counterproductive in a forum where sensitive personal issues are not being discussed.
Pseudonimity doesn't really solve the problem, because (1) pseudonyms are usually free, and one can obtain a new one at will and (2) pseudonyms are rarely tied to a strongly identifying piece of information like a non-web email address.
Does this mean we are all engaging in some kind of freudian-youwannadoyourmomma-twisted-virtual-sex-p lay? Ewwhhh gross. Ill never feel the same way about /. again... Ewwhhhh double gross.
This is incredible....I always thought that the flamers were just....mean...or had too much spare time...like certain people that wrote the story...*coughJonKatzcough*
The anti-salmon
You are as shameless as a panhandler--and
are despised for the same reasons as one
despises a panhandler.
------------------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship
as damage, and routes around it."
I referee soccer matches, and I've seen broadly similar behavior in games involving teenaged males. That suggests flaming is related to dominance conflicts.
I don't see flaming as anything new; it did, however, take some standing in one's community to get away with it. The Web has provided an easier forum for the masses to join in the fun. Some of the best flames I've ever seen have been historical quotes from Oscar Wilde, Winston Churchill, and others. Some of my favorites include:
"Dear Sir: Your manuscript is both good and original. However, the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good."
"If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea."
"If you were my wife, I'd drink it."
"You will either die by hanging, or from some loathsome disease."
"The former should I embrace your politics; the latter should I embrace your mistress."
incendiarism n : malicious burning to destroy property; "the British term for arson is fire-raising"...
But teletextual turns up only a few references to the article mentioned by Katz in this search.. so wtf if 'teletextual'...?
Several years ago my sister got online, and in one of her early emails to me she started in with the Clinton-hating routine. She is (or was) a big Limbaugh fan, like a few other members of my family. Like I explained to her, I flamed her for it because in writing I can say all the things I can't say at the dinner table.
... I think playing partisan politics as if it means anything more than sports is extremely naive. It's amusing, however, that many people who identify themselves as right-wing generally
support their home team in committing acts of murder, violence and war, but don't support helping local communities, small business, education, the poor, the sick, the environment (both natural and man-made)... and then call
themselves good Christians, typically justifying their own predetermined prejudices by pulling obscure references from a dubious religious document out of context. It's especially fun when they then conveniently ignore whatever parts of the same document contradict their bizarre opinions. Irony is fun. The left-wing team is nowhere near as entertaining... but just
as irritating and irrelevant.
Here's an sample of the flame I sent her:
Pretty harsh for a close family member. Here's part of the justification for it I sent her:
-----
If I hear extremist rhetoric in face-to-face contact, I'll shrug my shoulders and leave the scene. No point in wasting my time debating. Debates of this nature are usually pointless, because typically neither party is actually listening and critically analyzing what the other party is saying; more often, the listener is busy formulating their next attack or emotionally looking to defend their own ego or fragile belief system.
But usually, the average advocate of any extremist viewpoint is not capable of holding an interesting debate because they have not invested the time to research and analyze their subjects, instead merely taking at face value whatever data is foisted at them by whatever propoganda outlet already suits their emotionally-charged opinions. They are rarely interested in meaningful discussion, but rather merely looking for an outlet to regurgitate the same venom they've consumed. I find this annoying.
I can write a decent piece. I can write better than I can speak. And as opposed to spoken discussions, the written debate carries a lot more weight... there's more time for careful deliberation, fact-checking, references, etc. There is also a lack of inhibition. I'll write things that I wouldn't say, because there is a lack of repercussions -- there's no screaming or crying or hitting or even icy glares. Even a "fuck you, you're an asshole" doesn't carry the same emotional weight in writing that it does in the real world.
So email and the internet is like a blank check for me, a license to say what I really want to say. When the subject of Rush Limbaugh comes up at Christmas dinner, what I'd love to say is something like: "Rush Limbaugh is the most disgusting, degenerate, asinine, moronic pile of shit that human genetics has ever conspired to assemble, and his little wanker army of Dittoheads is the sorryest assemblage of ignorant twits, racist and sexist scumbags, general assholes and obnoxiously stupid fuckheads this country has ever seen. He is probably one of the most defective human beings on the planet at this point in time, and it's hard for me to believe there's anyone who isn't at least half-retarded who actually listens to him."
Yeah, that's what I'd like to say, but I won't, because a) what's the point, b) I'm not Johnny-on-the-spot with that kind of verbal rant, and c) it'd just ruin Christmas dinner. But I think it's only fair that if I have to listen to your wrongheaded opinions then you should have to listen to my wrongheaded opinions, and this is my forum of choice. If I'm rude about it it may just be that I'm on a roll, that I feel strongly about the subject, that I'm not intending to be rude and it's accidental, and/or that I just happen to think of a clever turn of an insulting phrase. Whatever the case, you should be aware that I'll feel free to speak my mind in writing - the whole truth as I see it and nothing but the truth. If you're comfortable with that, great, if not, it's probably best if we just call a truce right now and not bring up politics or religion in email.
-----
Strangely enough, politics and religion have not only not come up in email ever since, they seem to have been banished from the dinner table, too. Yeah, I'm a dick, but it worked out pretty darn well for me.
Just wondering. Linguistics. ;-)
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
I think flaming and trolling is much simpler and that most people on here try to overanalyze it.
People want to believe they are smart. In real life no-one gives a shit what they think. The first step to becoming smart must be to get people to pay attention, right? So shout as loundly as you can.
But I do agree with everyone. Katz is a retard who gets his ego bruised from people repeatedly pointing this out. So he feels the need to rationalize his being bitch-slapped.
Personally, I like fishing.
Take this personaility test.
The essence of it is that there are people that have vigorously strong positions on some peculiar issues and that there is little point to trying to debate the issues even if you think you have a rational position and can debate rationally.
There are enough people who have strongly irrational positions, whether due to mental instability (suggested in the essay, and likely, in my view, for "crackpot" theories) or (I would add) due to having strong emotional feelings surrounding the issue, and likely to be true for situations such as the Abortion debate, matters in the Middle East, and anything relating to Nazi Germany.
In effect, this provides a corollary to Godwin's Law that topics involving large numbers of deaths and/or outright wars evoke such strong emotion that many find it hard to detach themselves from the issue so as to discuss the issue rationally.
And if the matter is "insane" to begin with (e.g. - as with most "conspiracy theories"), there is no "rational" side to start with...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Well, I personally find that there is something inherently wrong with flaming, but then again, I tend to segregate it all into the following archetypes ($5 words are fun!)
:)
1) Friends joking around
We've all done it - groups of nerds (usually teenagers, and more than often led by a girl) go and find something to make fun of, then put their heads together to find some brutish commentary that will make the person mad, and thus give them a good laugh. Is this bad? Probably - it depends on how far they go. It's the cyber equivalent of a group of people picking on the geek in high school. It happens.
2) People without any respect
You can't please everybody, and sometimes the ones you can't please blame YOU for it. More importantly, they place enough blame on you to let you know about it, thinking that you might actually lower yourself to repair the problem.
3) People who have had bad days
Just like in real life, they've got to spoil it for the rest of us.
4) People who are on an adrenaline high or are frustrated due to some environmental phenomena.
'Moody' describes these people well. They're the ones that go off at the drop of a hat. I remember being like this while trying to install a new video card once (Windows was trying to be 'helpful' and activate the motherboard one...).
Also, when a person is being flamed, they tend to get like this. It's a chain reaction, I've noticed.
5) People who have to be right
Guilty! Heh - ever have someone say something that you know is wrong and then you tried to correct them, only to start a war of correctness? Annoying, isn't it? I just don't understand why they all just wouldn't listen to me
Anyway, these are all I can think of at the moment - anyone else think of any?
~Reave
"There are two ways you can leave this office - through the door, or through the door with my boot stuck up your rear en
You bring up some excellent rules for how people should conduct themselves, but I think the reason that a lot of people don't participate in a civilized discourse on the net is because there really is no online rhetoric that governs the discourse of the online world.
Think about it--while it is obvious that online communication differs from other forms of interpersonal commuication, has anyone really gone through and catalogued what makes online discourse so different from discourse between two people who are physically approximate to one another? Take a debate for example. Debates often take the same form as a discussion/flamewar on then net, with the different participants taking points and counterpoints, often with the hopeful goal of dialectical synthesis. But just as it is during a debate, often the two viewpoints are so far apart that dialectical synthesis is impossible to achieve. However, unlike a debate, the online discourse often degenerates into a series of ad hominem attacks and offtopic gibberish designed to push people's buttons. Why? Simple--because in an online discussion there is no accountability.
Think about last week's debates. Had GWB turned on Al Gore at one point and called him a "major-league asshole" when he couldn't rebut one of Gore's points with a factual response he would have dropped in the polls immediately. He would have been accountable for the fact that instead of answering a valid point, he had launched into an obvious ad hominem attack.
With online discourse there is no accountability. People use their supposed anonymity to say things that they would never have the balls to say in a public, physically approximate forum. They are unwilling to break the rules of verbal rhetoric that has existed since the beginnings of civilization because a.) it makes them look like an asshole to transgress the boundaries of verbal rhetoric and b.) it will usually lead to their getting their asses kicked. The moment that the discourse moves online though, these rules go out the window. There is no such thing as an online rhetoric and the supposed anonymity makes some people think that they have carte blanche to say whatever they want--often times the most ill thought and ignorant things.
The fact that there is no such thing as an online rhetoric and by extension a code of conduct is a real shame. When I used to teach English composition at BGSU, I forbade the Internet as a source for my students papers. Was it because the Internet isn't a good source? Of course not--the Internet can be a powerful research tool if used correctly. Unfortunately, my students were too narrow minded and ill trained in written rhetoric to realize that the Internet has no rhetoric at all.
Just my 2 cents.
Brandt
Eudora have a new browser with a moodwatch feature that uses an amusing chilli rating (three chillis for flaming hot :-)
It claims to spot potentially flame-worthy mails before they get sent... or arriving. It doesn't even need to have any rude words in.
Personally, I prefer screaming matches over the phone. At least they're instantaneous, and you can't mess up the tone of voice thing.
/prak
--
We may be human, but we're still animals.
Flamers are levelers and equalizers, obnoxious maybe, but also democratic. They are BS and hype hunters. When it comes to getting flamed, everybody online is equal. A tool of the adolescent and the young, flaming is a counterstrike against real or perceived authority figures, the very types you can't go after on the non-virtual realm. Flamers are indefatigable and enthusiastic
While in many cases this is true, I am seeing a disturbing trend in opinion being "flamed" as fact. They rarely hunt hype and BS, instead they create it. This leads to uninformed or incorrect conclusions based merely on an antagonists willingness to suppress discussion. While it may be a tool of the young or the oppressed, it does not equate to intelligent discourse, it merely supplies "take that."
What has happened is people are given a sense of anonymity. The feeling they can poison the neighbors' dog, whether it barks or not, without fear of being held accountable.
The positive side is many discussion boards (like this one) are making the effort to remove the pure flamers. "Dumbing down" their response to -1 to provide the rest of us with a true forum for discussion. If they are of true value would we really have the -1 responses outnumber the other by 2, 4, or more to 1?
Jon Katz wrote:
Has he read any history of the 19th Century? Gross personal attacks were the norm in 19th Century American politics. Grover Cleveland, a candidate for President, was attacked as the father of an illegitimate child. (He won the election.) Abraham Lincoln was denounced as the "Great Ape" by his opponents.
Was Katz alive and conscious during the 1960s? Civility was hardly the hallmark of that era.
And what about more recent American politics? The attacks on Clinton and others hardly rank as meeting the standards of civility.
These are just a few examples from American history. I'm sure others could name more. Foreign (to the U.S.) readers may cite evidence from their cultures.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
Seriously, though. I've also never written what I would consider a "flame." I've written some pretty darn sarcastic responses, but they always had a point; it was never just "you're too stupid to live."
I guess that doesn't really mean anything; you can't really say that something isn't a problem just because you're not participating in it. But the funny thing is, I've barely ever BEEN flamed either. And I've been online a long, long time; I used to post to tons and tons of BBSs before I ever heard of the internet. The only flames I've actually gotten have been on Slashdot, and then about half the time, I just reexplain my position and the flamer recants. Or at least acknowledges me as human.
If there's all this rage and angst flying around on the internet, why isn't it evenly distributed? Why haven't I gotten my share? Could it be that people who get flamed a lot are somehow different than those who don't? In otherwords, could it be explained by the flamee just as much as the flamer? Jon, I'm not trying to say "it's all your fault," but maybe you're in a different position than a lot of us.
With /. or any of a hundred other web forums, you can just click your way in and just as easily click your way out.
It was easy back then, too, but not AS easy, so the flame dynamic did not happen AS quickly. Modern forums, Slashdot included, have regulars as well, and it is often these regulars which put forth the most vitriolic of flames, bolstered by their high self-opinion as a 'regular' or an 'old-timer', or simply in quest of entertainment in the face of giddy nonsense posited as exciting fact.
Flame wars are no worse than they used to be, they're just more prevalant and more visible due to the widespread availability of the internet. If http had never been invented, and we all just used text-based email, forums and chat, we'd still see the same result. The "I'm a crusty Internet olde-timer, and I remember when..." bit is getting old. Let it go.
Flaming didn't start with the Internet, BBS's or any other electronic medium. It started with the Editorial page of your favourite newspaper, and before that on over-turned soap-boxes in the center of town, and before that on stumps in rural villiages and so on down the line.
There is nothing new under the sun, and John Katz must not be allowed to improve is image and fiscal worth as a writer by setting himself up as a helpless victim of random 'Internet violence' and trying to convince his readers that they are all victims too.
**>>BELCH
Quite so. Where else do we get the term "Yellow Journalism?" Newspapers in the early 20th century began to put on a show of impartiality only because it increased circulation.
Everybody who flames does it for their own reasons. A lot it is just teenage posturing, the electronic equivalent of grafitti taggers. And a lot of it is various forms of fanaticism. (By Winston Churchill's definition: a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject.)
But there is another subset of flamers, those who have made flaming into performance art. Like in all art forms, there is good art, and bad art. The very best of the "performance art" flamers are joys to read. Even when when their point of view is wrong-headed (i.e, when they're roasting you) as long as you have some sense of humor and perspective, you can enjoy their missives.
What is this thing you call "libberish"? Someone else used this word today and, based on the context, I figured it was just some Limbaughism, "liberal" and "gibberish" smushed together in that Clever manner that Limbaugh has. Is that an accurate guess or not? What's the deal?
If you look in the dictionary under flame bait, I think you will find Jon Katz. Sometimes I think he lives in his own virtual world, because it usually bares little resemblance to the one the rest of us live in.
We generally don't attack other people unless we covet their land or property, are enraged by unreasonable provocation, or paid to do it. But online, people continuously attack others for less obvious reasons.
This is completely untrue, the reasons people flame are completely obvious and exactly the same reasons people attack other people outside of cyberspace, including the ones listed above. The primary reason is a perceived offence (whether real or imagined), as most of Jon's articles are designed to offend, flaming should come as little surprise. The second major reason, completely ignored by Jon, is to get attention. This is why children have tantrums, teens vandalize, crazies stalk and kill celebrities, and flamers flame.
Flamers invariably know better, at least in real life (otherwise the homicide rate would be going up, not down), but the virtual world serves as a kind of free zone for the nervous, discontented, quarrelsome and meticulous. Invective has always provided some of the best and most inventive writing online, the nerd's literal revenge.
Jon has obviously spent very little time with young people. Young people are angry, the world is not perfect (not even well executed), and the young take it as a personal affront. This is why they yell, scream, swear, vandalize, fight, destroy, speed, use drugs, demonstrate, and try to change the world in general. As usual, Jon's article is verbose, and entertaining, but not particularly well thought out or researched.
First the FatBoys break up, now this
i hope we can analyze what ALL CAPS MEANS next in a future JonKatz article. I would really like to see what arises from such probing and insightful research.
just think of the possiblities!!
am i the only one who can smell a nobel prize for priceless research into the human condition?? i hope not! go jon!
-------------- insert [signature] here
I was around to witness more than a few of those old FidoNet (BBS) flame wars, and rarely participated in them, considering them a waste of time and energy. I did come away from that "era" (dammit, I'm not old!) with the distinct feeling that many of these flame wars were the exercise of the desire to exhibit cleverness at venting bile and at inventing smart-aleck putdowns without the traditional risk of face-to-face confrontation. These flame wars only moderated (significantly, though) when the participants did have reason to meet personally, such as at local FidoNet policy fab-wabs (not sure if that was the word, so the hell with it).
Verbal conflicts in the "local" echoes tended to moderate greatly as you describe, sometimes even degenerating into disgusting love-fests, while the "distant" echoes (nationwide in scope) would suffer from endless flame wars with much clever but ultimately repetitious repartee and streaks of sheer bile. Still, there did tend to be at least a reasonable level of intellect. Nowadays, it's not even at kindergarten level almost everywhere I look (in Usenet). It's much harder to find the signal in the noise, although it's still possible to find isolated strands of very high-quality conversation even in wild, woolly Usenet.
Mind you, this talk of brimstone refers to the "controversial" echoes. Mostly it'd be much quieter in the cooking or various technical discussion echoes, although one could be very surprised on occasion to see just what sorts of arguments might arise over what odd points. Some of the conversations in certain echoes could become very strange indeed, much as they do today in less-frequented corners of Usenet. :)
I never did like the pointless exercises in scorching, and tried hard to not even see them nearly all of the time. Feh. I'd rather write prose or program or do almost anything else productive.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
I think there are different levels of free speech. I would categorize them by the morality of the message vs. the risk to the speaker. For instance:
The students at Tienneman Square: While these students were not protected by free speech, their message (at least to Westerners) was basically moral, while the risk was very great. One of the greatest images is the student standing in front of the tank, who was probably killed for his act of protest.
Martin Luther King, Ghandi: While their speech was, to a certain extent, protected by the government, they broke unjust laws, and were arrested, as part of their basically moral message. While not by the government, both were executed for their stances.
Larry Flynt: The guy's probably been in court more than King or Ghandi - although many disagree with what he's selling, he has fought for it, defended it, at great personal risk.
Winston Churchill: His message may have not been that moral, but if all flamers were as witty - also, when someone was insulted, they knew exactly who did it, and could respond in kind.
The Press: They definitely take some legal risk when they run a story on a private or public citizen. However, they are not on the same legal footing as the people they attack, so I have to say they are a bit low on the risk scale. For an example, see Salon on the Washington Post's handling of the Wen Ho Lee case.
Most Internet posts: People may think the world revolves on their discussions, but in reality, little changes. Little risk to the debaters, except to their online personas. With the weird, backwards laws, the host of the discussion takes more risk than the participants.
Anonymous Threats: May have something to say, but take no risk themselves, and don't try to attack on an equal footing with the victim.
Obviously, this is not a complete list, but gives us a way to compare flammers in response to, say, this article:
Jon Katz: A fair amount of risk, especially given his history as a flame target. And, I'm guessing, he's using his real name.
Respondents with real info: These people respond (flames or otherwise), with their real names and contact info, and take on a bit of risk, but not as much as the headliner.
Respondents without real info: They respond, but not even with a real email address. They take little risk to their online persona.
Anonymous Cowards: Zero risk, even to their online persona.
IMHO, flaming is OK if the flamer takes as much risk as the flamee, and that the two are on equal footing.
I would suggest that a big part of flaming comes from people that glance over the text and get the wrong opinion or idea. That person then feels compelled to put there two cents out on the subject, which again can then be misinterpreted.
Communication is a lot harder with just text. People who are not used to it can easily jump to the wrong idea. Text bandwidth is so much smaller then voice or visual, so a lot of the visual and audible cue people are used to are lost.
I'm not a person who flames, but after reading the first paragraph I supressed a powerful urge to savagely flame mr Katz just for the hell of it.
The only thing that stops me is that I knew 9 out of 10 people reading the article would do just that.
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Here's a somewhat interesting article on "corporate flaming" by Nick Mamatas, an Internet columnist and relatively long resident of the net. (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0036/mamatas.s html)
Kynn's page: http://kynn.com/
Wow...From the title, it would seem this article is about queers on the net...
Oh, wait. Katz. It *IS* about homos!
Richard
----
Deepthroat my submarine, swallow my seamen.
Katz has entered a new realm of self-recursive writing [I won't call it journalism]...
Catch a clue, folks!Katz is here to get hits!
Katz is here to get click-through!
Katz is here to get eye-ball time!
Just like the editorials in most newspapers today, which are solely designed to generate letters to the editor, the volume of which produces validation for the paper's advertising rates, Katz is here to generate traffic!
And now he's doing it with this wonderful recursive article about flaming, which is what most of the comments Katz generates are anyway!
Check it out:
Super Large, Super Hi-Res LCD Screens - 132 posts
Flaming Freud: Analyzing Homo Incinerans - 221 posts
Book Reviews: Sizing Up a Start-Up - 90 posts
Scyld to Release Beowulf 2 - 162 posts
Pentium III 1.13: Tops For Speed, 'F' For Price? - 148 posts
Comprehensive Video Benchmarks - 75 posts
Time Warner: Making An Offer They Can't Refuse? - 139 posts
That's why they keep Katz on!
Click-through! Eyeballs!
Keep up the good work, /.'ers!
</flame>
ps: not my best work in this genre...
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Heh, try being on the school board...
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
One obvious counter example is Lloyd Bentsen's now famous: "You're no Jack Kennedy." skewering of Dan Quayle.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Case-in-point: as a response to this article, I could spend an hour writing out a point-by-point refutation of Katz, and pointing out those instances where's he's not wrong, but just spouting obvious facts which enlighten no one.
Or I could take thirty seconds on a flame, e.g., "The KatzBot must be out-of-whack; it didn't include the term 'post-Columbine.'"
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I usually enjoy reading posts from those guys that you "love to hate". Katz's postings have moved from being hated to being pitied. Now to figure out how to set up my author-level filtering...
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I'm really suprised we haven't seen Katz doing an insightful investigation as to the reasons Penis Birdz are so attractive or the reasons Hot Grits down your pants are so popular.
My prefered method of research for such an article is to have Jon Katz hooked up with a hose that pours a constant stream of steaming hot grits down his pants for at least a good thirty minutes. He ain't done till he gots fourth degree burns all over his lower half. Then he can explain to us what's appealing about it (I know, I know, his skin's a peeling! bada bum!).
Bite my yammer.
Flaming happens because:
1. People read something that engenders a strong emotional response, usually anger.
2. They respond to what angered them in a manner that contains incendiary language, which is clearly expressive of their intense emotion.
3. This message is received and responded to in kind, evoking more intense emotion, which is then communicated in the next response
4. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It becomes a vicious cycle.
When we talk to people face-to-face, there are tons of social cues that we learned to attend to while growing up. These cues strongly inhibit incendiary behavior. Otherwise it would be one big constant barfight. Think of it this way, people get in fights more when intoxicated because those cues are harder to see. Online, those cues are gone.
Instead, each individual reader decides whether the length of each specific item is worth it.
For instance, when some friends blackmailed me into watching The Matrix recently, I did not think the length was an engaging exposition of the main plot, which as far as I could tell was: "Keanu Reeves is the Messiah. Wh-o-oah!"
If you hate JK's writing so much why did you come read the article and then respond?
---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
If you have half an hour and could do with some light relief, I recommend giving it a try. Some of the machine translated insults are choice, viz.
Se avete le sfere da fingere siete un uomo.
[="If you have the spheres to pretend you are a man."]
The thread does seem to back up the view of flaming as [relatively] harmless fun. Especially as the chief flamer concerned is probably far better occupied at his keyboard, than taking out his aggression elsewhere.
- Derwen
http://fsfeurope.org/
Well screw you too J.K. You can hide behind Freud but you're still insulting everyone.
That reminds me of another thing... BBS time was usually limited due to shared access (at least if you dealt with boards that didn't have a zillion nodes), usually around 30 minutes or an hour a day. You couldn't just sit on it all day long, clicking 'refresh,' waiting for people to reply to your email/posts. Your time was limited, and some people liked to spend more of it doing more creative things than random flaming. (Like playing Trade Wars 2000...)
Where's the submit button??
Mere vitriol causes no harm other than hurt feelings.
I would argue that this statement alone justifies the use of the term "verbal violence". I'm not sure i've ever seen a case where treating someone poorly over a disagreement was justified.
Over my years on the net, I have seen different forms of flaming.
When I was involved in the BBS community, there was flaming for the sake of flaming. Entire areas of the board devoted to insulting and attacking anyone within sight for no particular reason whatsoever. Kind of like the verbal parlor games of the French court played out in text, they were attack for the sake of attack with no real mallice meant. Sort of a creative outlet for those unable to come up with something useful to say or have a real position to hold.
Then there is flaming when dealing with an intelectual argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually not useful in debate. It is normally the sign that you lack the ability to backup your point in any other way. The only exception I have seen to this is dealing with the incredibly thick. Sometimes you have to vent a bit when dealing with people who are so dogmatic and rigid that they cannot deal with facts or evidence that contradict their tiny world-view in any manner whatsoever. (Like Creationists on talk.origins.)
There is also another way flaming is used. That is to try and piss off the opponent. In a net argument, there are three people involved, you, the person you are arguing against, and the audience. The first one of the primary two to lose their temper is usually the one who loses in the eyes of the audience. Net argument can be construed as a form of weird intelectual street theatre in this case. The first person to start blowing their lines is the one who usually loses.
Flaming does have its place, within reason. Unfortunatly, the net has also attraced some who are attempting to turn it into a "safe space" for them and their ideas. The "safe space" movement are composed of people who don't want their ideas to be challenged. They don't want an intelectual discussion where they might be proven wrong or told that they are deluding themselves. They see flaming as a threat because they see it as yet another attack on them. And since flaming is more heat than light, it makes a good scapegoat. They can then say "This is why we need more safe places on the web". To the uninitiated, it gives yet another excuse to hand over control to the control freaks.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Its interesting that you would choose to advocate free speech while in the same breath trying to silence your opponent. "deal with it, or get over it, just stop whining about it." Even more interesting was the quite audible "whine" of your own argument.
I think you didn't read this part of the article:
"As long as flamers flame, the Net remains freer than anywhere else."
Or prehaps your interpretation of the article was simply a bit lacking in objectivity?
but isn't letting Jon Katz post stories here carrying it all just a little too far?
Wow -- your packets had to trudge uphill, through the snow at 110 baud *both ways*
*and* your flame wars were bigger
Yup. Heck, we used to make computers out of kits, soldering the chips onto the boards ourselves, and using an oscilliscope to make sure it worked.
And nothing kept us warmer than a good flame war, a real sparker, one that would keep the heart a pumping. Why if we could have bought a PC with 16MHz we would have died and gone to heaven.
We even had to reuse our registers. We didn't PUSH and POP, we used MOV, and we liked it!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
My gut feelings tell me something else about flamers:
... like a beloved drug you can't stop taking ... you know it
...
- they overevaluate intelligence (including their own)
- they miss public recognition
- they are isolated, lonely and sometimes depressed
- they cling to esoteric ideas and make intellectual gymnastics to back up their ideas with ideology
- they become zealous missionaries or master cynics.
- they need a community of friends who understand their values
- they realize that the online community is the only one they can find and stay with for ever
- they get addicted to the freedom to say anything they want and to being listened to
- they need to justify their addiction with intellectual arguements (defending "freedom of speech")
- the more the feelings get hurt, the more they need a worthy goal to justify their involvement
- they get used to be flamed and flame back as a revenge or a sport, bury hurt feelings under thick skin
- end up to be negatively attached to the group in the worst case szenario.
- need to be funny to not get completely depressed
- the funny stuff makes them more attached
- they turn into being completely dependent on the participation in the discussion...or whatever runs for such
Usenet groups and slashdot do damage
and you don't know how to get away from it and with what to replace it with
For newbies (especially females) usenet and technical groups or mailing lists can be a downright desaster.
Flame me, ignore me, deny it... all of it would be a typical reaction of an addicted person.
Now, how do I get all my posts to slashdot nuked ? I just decided that this should be my last one and all the other stuff should disappear in nowhere. Archiving them would a "misuse of irrelevant thoughts spit out into the universe causing pollution of the mind-sphere."
I used to be an environmental chemist, so may be I should end this with a smiley and consider this my
return towards my old discipline. 8-)
There must be buildings full of psychologists reading this message board and others. (if there aren't there should be) They're taking notes and getting ready to embark on a whole new era of psychoanalyisis.
Someone please point me to the studies if you know of them. They should make fascinating reading.
If you want a great example of a real life flamewar, go to a University of Michigan hockey game. Of course, usually it's not really a war, because there's only one side yelling and the other side is just sitting and taking it. However, it's really quite inspiring to hear 6000 people yelling "It's all your fault" in unison at one hapless soul. This article from the Michigan Daily (the UM Student Newspaper) lists what they're saying, but you've got to experience it to see what I really mean
-
...for a sig quote that defines me to a T:
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
First of all,katz writes long,not-too-fascinating pieces for /.I liked his book better.I can't stand long,boring writing about something that's completely off-the-wall,like this piece.Flamers? Who the fuck cares?
I know, this is a little bit of a flame, but I really liked it. Maybe I should start reading your stuff again.