Gosh, I so love reading Internet comments. It's like a stroll on a warm spring day ... in a fetid swamp.
It's not the horrible affronts to logic and truth or the lack of regard for fellow humans (last I checked, that's what we are). Nor is it the constant refusal to stray from extreme partisan stances (oh my God, a RINO!!!). OK, it is that, and so much more.
For one thing, I'd like back all those wasted hours reading unbelievable (literally ... yet they believe) tripe. Just like a car wreck, you can't turn away.
One of the things I find most annoying about comment boards is that so many of the denizens think it's all right to re-imagine how a writer feels about one thing or another. And yep, I and other writers for the paper are often misquoted and/or have our stances misrepresented. For instance, a couple of commenters on the newspaper's site have decided that I define trolls as "anyone who disagrees with you."
Uh, no.
Last April, here's how I defined trolls: "It should come as no surprise that I'm not a fan of trolls, either the ugly little dolls or the anonymous Internet variety only interested in stirring people up by purposely posting inflammatory or off-topic statements (bridge trolls I'm still on the fence about ... just not a fence near a bridge)."
You can disagree with a troll, but someone is not a troll because you disagree with him. That someone is a troll if, for example, he purposely posts, as standard practice, often-outrageously incendiary remarks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand in an effort to distract other commenters and disrupt discussion. (Hey, did you see that unicorn prance through here???) Trolls are also fans of long-debunked tales, picking totally unnecessary fights, misinterpreting straightforward statements, and posting multiple claims with no evidence or with made-up evidence, then attacking anyone who points that out, especially if the "attacker" provides evidence to the contrary.
And yes, there are trolls on the paper's site and many others. You know who you are.
Funnily enough, trolls are often the first to take offense at anything they perceive to be an insult (such as someone calling them out for their trolling), which ... uhhh ... sort of reminds me of a certain thin-skinned presidential candidate. One commenter on our website last week compared insulting people like him to putting "a thorny crown on Jesus' head," saying name-calling and insults just make them stronger.
That's name-calling not done by the commenter, I'm assuming, based on other comments he's made.
As far as insults go on the Internet, pretty much anything goes, it seems. It all hinges on the intent of the person hurling the insults, so relatively benign terms like "liberal," "moderate" and "conservative" can be pejoratives if the hurler meant them as such. Of course, those are rarely what you'll see on the Internet. A lot of those terms can't be printed in a family newspaper.
Where it gets complicated is when members of our easily offended nation are taken aback by things that were not meant as insults. Yep, that includes the trolls, who are offended quite often by spirited debate backed by facts (not the made-up "facts" they prefer).
Part of the problem arises because assumptions are made about other commenters (see above) and what kind of people they really are. That's when you see all those "typical dimlib" or "typical Rethuglicon" comments. Generalization serves no one but the person uninterested in actual debate. And hack comics looking to steal jokes.
Add anonymity to the mix, and the ad hominems and straw men tend to fly like a flock of startled grackles. The social niceties and the rules of debate don't exist because it's so much easier to just lob insults at others than to attack the logic and veracity of an argument. And if the troll can make it all about him by acting the victim? Score!
Blogger and author Mark Manson has noted: "Freud made the argument that for society to exist, man's worst impulses--violence, selfishness, inappropriate sexuality--must be kept in check. The Internet is possibly the first mechanism in human history that allows society to not only exist, but to thrive by removing the need for self-censorship. With no consequences and less efficient communication, people are rewarded for shock value of what they say as much as the content and meaning."
What, you mean people would say outrageous things just to get a rise out of someone?
What would be nice would be if people on comment boards behaved more like people talking to each other in real life, but sadly, it seems online behavior is seeping more and more into real life.
I know my fantasy won't come true--people won't just start debating the facts in a civilized manner; it's just too easy to stick to rumors, myths and insults than to deal with real life.
Because, you know, real life is scary for someone who sees nothing but his own face staring back at him from the computer monitor. Meh, reality is overrated.
------------v------------
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com. Email her at blooper@arkansasonline.com.
Editorial on 04/20/2016