As a Hellenic Wiccan, I’ve often considered Hephaestos to be the patron deity of computers, or possibly Hermes, who I think of as the patron deity of the Internet itself. After reading this post and the resultant discussion on Grad Student Madness, however, I am starting wonder if perhaps Dionysius might be a better fit as patron deity of this modern tool of mass communication.
The post originally had to do with this article about a book, Republic.com 2.0, by University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. It posits the theory that the internet, far from strengthening and enhancing democracy, is turning us all into a society of rabble, and in fact is making us dumber as a society in general. It got me to thinking, which is dangerous sometimes, but it did induce me to come up with a complimentary theory of my own. Is the internet turning us into a nation of cyberholics?
The Internet does after all share many things in common with your neighborhood bar. Everybody seems to gravitate to the blogs, sites, or on-line forums where they can associate with those of like minds, much as they search out the appropriate bars for the same reason.
Once there, in both cases, a good many people end up wallowing and saturated in their own delusions and self-assurances, and search out mainly those people that offer them insight in some cases, or verification and justification in others. In some cases, they get a little too carried away, and the next thing you know a fight breaks out. In most cases, it never gets beyond verbal jousting, but in certain instances, it can turn downright ugly. It might even get violent, and this might as well be true of internet habitués. After all, who knows who or what they end up taking their frustrations out on?
We all know that television and gaming can be addictive, just as nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, sex, gambling, etc. Well, consider the number of people that engage in internet discussions, and the question becomes, how can it not be an addiction for some? It offers the same degree of comfort and release, while allowing for a degree of anonymity not available in other ways.
On the internet, you can be yourself to a degree that would be wholly impractical in other areas of life. In a bar, you have to get drunk or high to achieve that level of comfort at being exactly what you are. Of course, then, there are the repercussions that inevitably follow. The nightclub owner might have you arrested or sue you for damages. You can have your ass kicked or worse. You can wake up the next day with a killer hangover. You can even end up with an STD and not even remember whom you got it from-if you are lucky.
There are no such readily apparent dangers on the internet, and so you can be yourself without those kinds of repercussions.
You say do not want to be yourself-fine, who says you have to be? If you prefer, you can be somebody totally different from the person you really are, and can feel comfortable in any forum, internet chat room, or blog discussion. You can even be the troll you have always longed to be. You can be a 280-pound cyber-bully, so to speak, with a twelve-inch dick. On the internet, it does not really matter if you are a 98-pound weakling with a three-inch dick who is afraid of his own shadow.
If a good lot of what I said here seems to apply to you, there might well be a reason for that. If so, you might feel at home here at this site.
It is all about the pheromones.
2 comments:
Yeah, I think Sunstein's point about the rabble is exactly that the Internet allows everyone to be a 280 lb. bully. It's fine on the net. But real world democracies can't function if everyone's a 280 lb. bully. I think what he's worried about is that everyone's going to want to get their way all the time instead of negotiating and making compromises and all of the other things that go along with democracy. Democracies made up of 280 lb. bullies who want to get their way all of the time quickly become tyrannies because someone's got to be the strongest or have the most guns. He's also worried about the fact that a good number of people can't seem to see any reason that other people might disagree with their political views other than that they're really bad people. That's also troubling in a democracy.
As for the addictive potential of the Internet, it's probably much the same in interpersonal relationships- unlike the real world where you have to consider people's needs and feelings, on the net you can keep them at arm's length and act as you please. That's fine for make-believe, but it's terrible in real-life relationships.
I think that perhaps the interconnectivity of the internet, plus rapid release of relatively censorship free news, articles, and opinions from around the world could change democracy (re: damage in the eyes of some). That said, it also has the very real capacity to bring change, and progress. Which in my opinion, isn't bad.
The only real problem I do see with the internet is the overwhelming nature of information that comes, totally unverified, that could be gobbled up as fact in a New York minute. While there are plenty of good, unverified sites online that contain truths, there are equally as many that contain nothing but lies and propaganda.
With regards to the addictive nature of it, and/or the side effects associated with internet over stimulation - I have to say that it does exist - just as with anything else.
I know there is a reason why I severely limit my time on debate forums now. All of the exposure to arguments with the inability to get away from the non-constructive arguments, makes me irritable and moody.
On the other hand, blogging, writing, and debating in moderation allows me to unclog my brain, so I can allow new information to sink in, while exposing me to ideas that are new and outside of my limited circle of real life influences.
Nice blog.
Post a Comment