Slashdot Mirror
Technology: Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding
Red Leader. writes "This Thomas Friedman op-ed entitled "Global Village Idiocy" and this article by George Packer, entitled "When Here Sees There," both touch on some interesting observations regarding technology's impact on tolerance and understanding. My favourite quote from Friedman's piece is "the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."" We've previously posted the Packer piece, but combined with other story, I think it's worth a retread.
It is no secret that groups that have increased contact with another group will find something to complain about. Romantic thoughts about a group are certain to be dashed with closer contact. Those ideals are likely to be supplanted by the worst stereotypes that the other group falls into.
In the South Central L.A. neighborhood, blacks who have no historical animosity about Koreans find themselves filled with anger at the stingy, disrespectful store-owners. The Korean store-owners, in their own right, harbor fears of the dangerous, thieving blacks. The result of this animosity was displayed during the Rodney King riots where blacks looted Korean stores with a vengeance and Korean store-owners shot back from the roofs of their stores.
Right or wrong, these stereotypes arose out of *increased* exposure.
I have been pwned because my
"the Internet, at its ugliest, is just an open sewer: an electronic conduit for untreated, unfiltered information."
Since most I know I've learned from Internet, my brain must be full off unfiltered intelligenceBut seriously, I think that has a positive sideeffect, because you have to develope your own filter, which isn't even close to standard (Radio, Television) filters.
The only solutions to problems caused by free speech is more free speech. A little education and critical thinking can go a long way to dispell the crap that goes across the wire (or airwaves.)
Don't just listen to what is said, learn about who is doing the saying. If you know the motivation of who is doing the communicating then you can go a long ways towards determining its value.
How many people believe the car salesman when he tells you "This creampuff was only driven to church on sundays by a little old lady..." Look at the odometer, check the tires and check the engine. On every story you read and every comment you hear.
You guys are saying 'i like my freedom, but not if it comes at a cost" well listen to yourself you moron. You are a typical american who is always willing to trade away some basic human rights for the illusion of saftey. Terrorists use the internet, or snail mail.. It doesn't matter .. its not hard for people to communicate. Government cant regulate the internet as it is in many countries, not just the us... that's all for now...
"untreated, unfiltered information"? Shock horror, maybe he'd preffer that The New York Times gets to filter our information for us? This is the biggest sin of liberal mouth pieces like the NYT, ommission. Read that paper and there's stuff you'll just never hear about, points of view they don't want you to hear.
I am not convinced that the point (internet decreases tolerance)
made in the article is a bad one.
To take the case in point made in the article (Israel -vs-
Palestinians). Before the internet, there was only one side
of that story that most Americans would ever see, the one we would
get on CNN and the big papers.
But now though, with the magic of the internet, it is as easy as
typing in (http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/index_e.htm) to see what
the other side of the story is (and what a different story it is!).
I don't see how this is bad. That is what the internet is supposed
to do.. let all sides express their views and opinions, without
requiring you to be a major media company to be able to do so.
In the long run, I think that can be only a good thing..
Takochan
Yes, of course. It must be that Internet is "Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding" because it says so on slashdot and hence, everything on the internet (and slashdot) must be true.
Without a proper scientific study to back it up, it is pointless to even start a debate, this is just bad journalism. Take some inflmatory example and extrapolate it to every internet user and with a few logical leaps, voila, the internet is "Fueling Hatred and Misunderstanding". Jeez.
It used to be that print and t.v. journalists were the filters that stood between the information and the people, so we only saw the world through their biases, not our own. Now, for better or worse, we get to create our own worlds from the unfiltered info stream.
Friedman is simply lamenting his own obsolescence.
Cheers,
JHVH1
Internet is just a new tool on the block, and it will cause new alliances to be formed, and old alliances to break. After the dust settles down, the butchery will continue unabated.
In the end, it is the family that counts. It is upto the parents of young children to bring them up not to hate others based on the flimsiest of differences (skin color, shape of eyes, language, etc.). If you have been following recent events in Pakistan, you will see that kids over there are being trained to hate the west with a vengeance in 1000s of madrassas all over that country. It is as if the grown-ups have some unfinished business, and want the kids to grow up and finish it for them.
Here is why Tom doesnt like the internet - because it makes his job irrelevant.
See Tom has this really important job where he at the new york times tells people what to think and decides what information they should know.
But now the internet is here and people do not need to go to the new york times and their free fuscking registration to get information. And people can gasp form opinions on their own. Well then Tom's job is kind of useless then aint it? Running a ministry of truth while you have free information exchange is very pointless, noone will listen to you.
But the internet makes arabs angry and dangerous, because they see palestinians being beaten on cable!!! Now really, Tom dont you think that would be less of a problem if palestinians werent getting beaten by israelis soldiers all the time?
But its out of context!!! Well and what is the alternative? The New york times will provide the context? Of course not. The new york times will just not report it.
See thats the great think about the internet. People can provide their context. They dont need the official media to provide the context for them (ie tell them how to interpret the news).
but with the internet bad people find other bad people with like views. Big fing deal. I will always choose freedom of information over propaganda even if freedom of information provides speech to some bad people. It is not suprising that almost every oppressive and racist regime tightly controls information exchange, between its people. Cults and extreme groups also have real trouble keeping their memberships up when they cant control what information their members can access. In fact the best way to stop islamic fanaticism is to give internet access to most muslims (isnt ironic that Tom complains about muslims who are in general are not very likely to be hooked up to the net?).
Saying the internet spreads hate is stupid. Does he think that all this hate is due to the internet? Is it the gulf war with all its victims the internets fault? are the terrorist attacks and the bombing of afghanistan the internets fault? Were the israeli attacks on palestine the internets fault? How about terrorism?
There is adifference between the internet and the new york times that tom has to grasp. The internet will usually reflect the real world.
Both Christianity and Judaism went through reformation movements.
Islam, being the youngest of the three Western religions, has not.
As for the cliche about "Christians have shed more blood in God's name than ANY other religeon, ever," I would like to see a number -- especially compared to belief systems like Communism or Naziism.
It may be true, but I've never seen anything to back it up.
And ultimately the Internet will be a weapon of tyranny.
We watch we read we absorb like sponges. Uncritical, unreflective only having an emotional response to the next car ad or half naked chick. Burning buildings, quarter pounders, sports highlights, political arguments...we can't call them apart any more. Rage in the street, pick up a rock, loot burn kill. The kid with the Nike T-shirt and the gun could be Compton, Ramallah, Freetown, Kuala Kampur, Seattle, Buenos Aires.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security. The Government can pass as many laws as it wishes, and yet you are no more safer then you were before. From the uneducated "profeesionalized" goons patting down attractive single women at the airport in the name of security to the outright paranoia of not letting people take nail clippers to school, we are no safer then we were.
Criminals will find a way to break the law if they want to bad enough. It's not worth any of your liberty, and it never will be.
Look at your Spanish history before the Spanish Inquisitions. Before the inquisitions there were Jewish, Muslim and Christian cities in Spain. Or more precisely, city states.
During the growth of the Spanish empire, Spain took most of these cities over, however, they were still not properly integrated into one kingdom, they were a little bit more like the UN is today. Still, to some extent, autonomous but beholden to the Spanish crown.
One of the things that Queen Isabella did to change this was to impose a state religion (Roman Catholic), and then later to cause the inquistions to enforce the crowns will. This was done with the knowledge and encouragement of the state church (which was at this time, not Muslim).
And your argument is that the christian religion better on the history stakes? Or should I mention the crusades as well? Those wars to fight the "infidel Muslim", in which the goal was to retake Jerusalem, and reduce the influence of the Turk (Islam) powers.
Some of what you describe is true today. But in an historical context, it's total drivel. Judaism flourished when Spain was under Moslem control, there was a holocaust when Christians took over.
There is a significant Christian minority to this day in middle-eastern countries which have been under Islamic rule for over 1000 years. The history of these Christian communities has mostly been peaceful co-existence with their Moslem neighbors.
Look at the +ve side.. The biggest advantage Internet has over other media is that both sides of the story are available, if you're willing to look.
An American read an Arab news forum; an Indian can browse a Pakistani newspaper; What other medium provides such unbiased coverage ?
It is upto the individual analyze different news sources, and form an opinion.
I beg to differ:
These may not be "suicide bombings" but they are fueled by the same thing: fanatical hatred and intolerance.
Every religion -- even non-religion -- can have its zealots willing to do anything for "the cause." Your average Muslim, just like your average Christian, Jew, or atheist, is at least tolerant of other faiths. On the other hand, every religion has nutjobs that take its dogma to violent extremes.
First, I don't think the parent is flamebait. I think the author is truely and honestly lost.
because it has a truly horrific history
Before talking about history, I suggest you learn some. Pretty much all religions had a horrific history.
Other religions like Christianity, Judaism, [more religions] allow for secular coexistance and equal rights.
They do TODAY. Christians slaughtered Jews and Muslims during the Inquisition. Jews slaughtered the Cananites in the early history of Isreal.
Now, read This essay. One of the author's points is that the Protestant Reformation brought Christianity into the modern age. Perhaps Islam, a much younger religion, is going through the same phase now. They key point is: don't compare Islam today against Christianity or Judaism today and extrapolate backwards. If you want to know what happened in the past, actually read about what happened in the past.
They may shake their fists in anger, but they don't kill you for insulting or denegrating their religion.
Almost all other religions have done this in the past. Read the essay and find out how different sects of Christians did this to one another. Read your history.
Now, get outside the West and do that in Saudi Arabia...Before you die, try to take a bet on where the AK-47 rounds are flying from that kill you.
You have an extremely perverted world view. Once you're done reading the history books, TRAVEL a bit. Geez. Most of the planet's population is peaceful and friendly. Only the violent bits get reported on CNN. That doesn't mean the rest of the planet is like it is on CNN. If you actually TRAVELLED to some Muslim countries, you might be able to think more coherently!
You can ask your ISP not to carry sites that you find offensive.
And if we use the same ISP and I don't find it offensive, then what?
In the words of Metal Church, what gives you the famous final word? to think that your opinion is preferred?
Just like television, radio, newspaper. If you don't like it - don't watch it/listen to it/read it. Why should anything on the net be different?
Do I like pr0n? No. Should it be banned? No.
I am no so arrogant as to believe that my repressed, mid-west ethics should be the deciding factor in what is and what is not allowed on the Net. While I of course secretly hope (as do most people) that my morals would propagate and take over, I'm NOT willing to legislate that and destroy the right of others to enjoy whatever hedonistic or perverse content they desire. As long as it isn't violating any laws, it's not my decision.
And it shouldn't be yours.
Asking ISPs to not "carry" sites that I find offensive is the same as asking FOX not to air the Simpsons or my local radio station to not play pop-music because I find these things offensive.
Wouldn't happen and shouldn't happen.
Voltaire had the only right answer in these situations.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
The essential problem with most arguments of this sort, is that they treat every new form of media as if it is an entirely unique phenomenon rather than seeing it simply another method of communication. Certainly, the internet has enough unique properties that it deserves particular consideration. But, when it really comes down to it, people have been lying and believing lies just as wildly and destructively for much longer than the internet has been around. TV and radio constantly broadcast partial truths, complete fictions, and truths expressed with bent language for decades. Some people believe everything TV, radio, newspapers, tabloids, etc. say already. Others are more selective. Just as we've learned to tune the signal from the noise with other media, we will adapt to the internet. When those with little technological experience begin to understand a little bit of the workings, they'll have as little faith in the validity of random online material as we do.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
The problem with people is that we fear the unknown.
What did Yoda say? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate....leads to suffering!
How true that is.
Global communications, and the Internet in particular, is creating an odd kind of de-segragation.
However, it is desegration without real direct interation.
It is kind of like desegragating the schools in Alabama, but ONLY Alabama -- how do you think the people in Mississippi would feel?
They just hear about it, but don't actually interact with the "other side" -- and so will only breed distrust, fear, anger, and hate.
Before, people distrusted others who were different, but they were separated -- either geographically or socially, and were not in their mental world.
Now however, these "others" are forced down their throats, and can't ignore them.
It is so easy to marginalize, make fun of, and distrust those that are different from ourselves, even in this "enlightened country".
Why? Because putting others down makes us feel just a bit superior and better.
Having something to hate also makes you feel you have a purpose...and in those countries with limited opportunities, freedoms, and low quality of life...having a bad purpose is better than trying anything else.
As for people who believe everything on the Internet to be true? Well, I hate to sound like a troll, but half of the population IS below average in terms of intelligence.....
"You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
You dont know which one of us on slashdot is a jew, hell I could be a jew, or you could be, or anyone here.
Because I dont know "WHAT" you are, i cannot judge you in an ignorant fashion. ALL i know is, you are human.
IF you are on the net long enough and make enough friends online, try asking them what they are at some point and be surprised when one of them is a jew, you could have hated jews all your life and find out one of your friends online is a jew and it all could change.
People who have never had positive experiences with jews learn to hate jews, I know some online and they arent bad people, I know some koreans too, along with south americans, asians, australians,
Its experience with all of these people, which lead me to the conslusion that all people are the same inside and diffrent outside.
The internet gives you a bridge to the religious, racial, and cultural gaps, the offline world does not.
An ignorant person hates the culture, the religion, or the race, but never the person.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security.
Typical knee-jerk conservative response. Did you ever consider the following: No amount of security to give up is ever worth a false sense of liberty. It goes both ways.
Think about it.
Yes it does go both ways, in one version you have freedom and minimal security and in the other you have no freedom and minimal security. The problem is, when our liberty goes away, Osama Bin Laden will not be the biggest threat to our well being, it will be our own government. If you think the US government is above oppression of its people, I suggest you read some history, check out some books on how the government, in the name of security, treated the American Indians in the late 19th and early 20th century. While you are at it, read up on the fate of Japanese Americans during WWII and lets not forget the actions J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph MaCarthy. In all of these cases, freedom and liberty were taken away from American Citizens for a net gain of ZERO in security.
The Founding Fathers did not trust the government and neither should you.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
In fact, I think it's largely thanks to the canons of journalistic ethics (check & report sources, get confirmation, etc.) that we've managed to have as informed a public as we have in Western society as these practices at least impose some discipline on the "authority" that's providing information which people will inevitably swallow without a moment's reflection. So in a sense, we all owe The Western Press some small amount of gratitude.
However, Mr Friedman should really be directing his rant at the way we brainwash people into taking anything stated by someone wearing a suit, or on TV, or on the internet at face value.
I don't know how many times I've chastised my friends and family for forwarding inane spam about Congress on the verge of taxing email at 5 cents a message without even bothering to analize the claims for even the faintest patina of credibility (gee, according to thomas.loc.gov, that sponsoring senator doesn't exist, the number of the "bill" cited doesn't follow the bill numbering conventions for either house of congress, etc).
We need to find a way to teach people how to think. Of course, that's anathema to the power structure of our society (we can't have men between the ages of 15-24 realizing that drinking Mountain Dew won't cause silicone-enhanced sluts to fall from the sky and fawn over them, can we?) for that to ever happen.
Good one Ian! I think Douglas Adams had a tremendous sense of both human nature and the absurdity of life.
The man said "arguably". If you don't think so, then provide a counter-argument. As it stands, all you did was post a idiotic "nya nya" post that makes you look like a moron.
Otherwise, just shut the F up.
This is exactly the problem - this issue is not cut and dried at all. It is intolerable that these so-called martyrs go attack civilians in the guise of being an army. On the other hand, there's ample precedent for taking up arms against your oppressor in ways outside the standard guys-in-camo definition, from Jewish uprisings in the Nazi ghettos to the American and French revolutions. And given that Israel has long used assasination and torture as tools of war, it's pretty hard to argue that this "war" has been kept inside those guys-in-green line.
If Yasser had set up a market system and concentreated more on the economic development of his people, rather than the extermination of the Jews, he might be worthy of respect.
This is an excellent point, Yasser Arafat does not seem at all effective in broadening the economic base of Palestine. However, the same point goes goes doubly for us and trebly for Israel, who are, after all, paying for all this monkey business. You want to see an end to the bombers, you gotta put all those smart people to work at something, or they'll work on their own plots and machinations. Food for thought, given that our foreign aid is 0.1% of our GDP (even worse if that 0.1% includes military aid).