This was a good article. Many of the knee-jerk insult responses validate Katz's point.
If someone objects to people being rude or obnoxious --- as Katz has --- it's striking how quickly many people move immediately to hand-waving about Political Correctness, Truth, the First Amendment or Human Nature. They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between real free speech issues and the everyday desire to be treated with some respect and avoid being yelled at. It's probably true that people routinely feel more strongly about things than is socially acceptable to express. But there's a reason why there are social norms about that sort of thing, especially in conversation between peers: take the norms and sanctions away and you don't get more truth, or more free speech, or "real" discussion. You get less.
Reading a thread under these conditions ends up feeling like someone shouting in your ear. Even if there's good stuff in a discussion, there's often not much incentive to stick around or participate. Why risk sparking off some obnoxious response, with all the wasted energy that entails? As Katz says, the jerk-behavior threshold is much lower than in real life. And most people just have better things to do than deal with people who tell them to please die, so they leave it to those with a taste for that sort of thing. People opt out, and so --- contrary to those who scream about their right to be jerks --- you end up with a good deal less free speech and discussion than you'd otherwise have had.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone objects to people being rude or obnoxious --- as Katz has --- it's striking how quickly many people move immediately to hand-waving about Political Correctness, Truth, the First Amendment or Human Nature. They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between real free speech issues and the everyday desire to be treated with some respect and avoid being yelled at. It's probably true that people routinely feel more strongly about things than is socially acceptable to express. But there's a reason why there are social norms about that sort of thing, especially in conversation between peers: take the norms and sanctions away and you don't get more truth, or more free speech, or "real" discussion. You get less.
Reading a thread under these conditions ends up feeling like someone shouting in your ear. Even if there's good stuff in a discussion, there's often not much incentive to stick around or participate. Why risk sparking off some obnoxious response, with all the wasted energy that entails? As Katz says, the jerk-behavior threshold is much lower than in real life. And most people just have better things to do than deal with people who tell them to please die, so they leave it to those with a taste for that sort of thing. People opt out, and so --- contrary to those who scream about their right to be jerks --- you end up with a good deal less free speech and discussion than you'd otherwise have had.