Spears won't kill Piggy's traffic!

La Shawn Barber's observations about blogger responsibility are well worth reading:

....[U]nrestrained power coupled with little to no accountability is a dangerous thing. As a blogger who’s been the subject of nasty and false statements made by bloggers and in comment sections by anonymous cowards, I know what people are capable of saying when they get caught up in online anonymity. When you’re not man or woman enough to stand behind your words using your own name, high ideals like accountability and responsibility are mere afterthoughts.
(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

While this came up during La Shawn's response to Kathleen Parker's attack on bloggers (we're like the uncontrolled children in Lord of the Flies, claims Parker), I do think that there are probably a lot of bloggers who do behave precisely like undisciplined brats, and who are unaccountable. I'd rather avoid reading them if possible, but I think it's fair to criticize unaccountability and condemn "Lord of the Flies" antics whenever they are found.

Which is not to say that bloggers in general behave that way, because they don't. These days, there are so many bloggers that there isn't any generalization which could apply to all of them -- save the fact that they all write web logs. (Well, a spammer or a bot is not a blogger. Nor do I consider certain vast conglomerates to be the same as individual blogs, but that's another issue.)

Because I realize bloggers will disagree on issues like accountability (as they do on nearly everything), I can only speak for myself, and by way of definition of accountability, I can only offer the standard I apply to myself, and it's pretty close to La Shawn's. As I have said before, I have to be ready to defend anything and everything I have written in this blog, at any time. That's a pretty tall order for anyone writing opinions every day, as it is impossible to do this and be right all the time. Accountability means knowing the difference between fact and opinion, being willing to admit and correct errors and (at least for me), always being open to the possibility that I might be wrong about nearly everything.

Even my most deeply held beliefs.

For example, it is always possible that there really does exist the God so many people want to see as the angry bearded legend who sends people to hell for things like using their genitalia for purposes he's said to dislike. It is therefore possible that I might face eternal damnation. Although I have to be just as willing to acknowledge and answer for everything I have done in my life as I am to defend the thoughts in this blog, I live with that possibility, and the only bright side is that I'd probably be going where most of my friends have gone. I might not believe in such a God, but I know it's just my opinion and belief, and other people have other opinions and beliefs. Similarly, I don't believe in Communism, socialism, or other forms of communitarianism, but I must acknowledge that my beliefs may be wrong. I hesitate to attack people simply because their opinions differ from mine, and I try to limit my disagreements to the ideas rather than the people who hold them. But I'm human, and I'm always tempted to return fire when differences of opinion are coupled with ad hominem attacks.

If only the world of opinion consisted of verifiable facts! But it doesn't. Even the distinction between fact and opinion can be tricky. Many people believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. This leads to assertions of being wrong, of lying, and of being stupid or evil. In general, people who are willing to acknowledge that they have said what they said and are willing to defend it in a sincere manner are less likely to resort to insulting ad hominem attacks, they are more accountable, and less like the kids in Lord of the Flies.

I think the flaw in the Lords of the Flies analogy is that in the novel, a bunch of ordinary kids found themselves on an island where they reverted to natural savagery which resulted in mob tyranny by bigger and stronger boys. While some bloggers might voluntarily submit to systems which could be characterized as mob rule, there is no way for them to rule over other bloggers. If, in the blogosphere, a blogger doesn't want to join an online mob, there's no way to make him do anything, and there is no way to destroy his blog. Unlike "Ralph" (or poor "Piggy"), he can't have his glasses broken or be speared to death by other bloggers for speaking up. There might be people who'd want to do that, but they're ultimately powerless because the Internet more resembles a universe than a small island.

The only spears to be thrown are verbal.

And here's the problem and paradox for would-be tyrants (whether of the MSM or blogger variety): the stronger and sharper their verbal spear thrusts, the stronger their "victims" become.


AFTERTHOUGHT: Obviously, if we see "The Lord of the Flies" in blogospheric terms, a compelling argument can be made that the "Piggy" character (a voice for reason who argued against mob thinking) represents the best of the blogosphere. (Saying the blogosphere resembles his killers reduces him to their level, and IMHO, rather misses the point.)

posted by Eric on 12.29.05 at 09:53 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3165



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spears won't kill Piggy's traffic!:

» Say my name from The White Peril 白ç¦
Eric cites LaShawn Barber, who in turn is reacting to [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 10:28 AM



Comments

Agree with the article. We all can agree to disagree, and we all know the blogsphere, like everything else, has its share of blowhards, fools, shysters and dunces. The criticisms Parker levels can be said of numrous media formats BEFORE the blogosphere developed. Anyone remember UseNet? What Parker decries can also charged of numerous conservative blowhards BEFORE blogs, both on UseNet, bulletin boards, personal websites at Geocities, Tripod etc and "classical" media like print magazines and newsletters. Methinks Parker is miffed for some valid reasons, but it could be she is also upset because her ideas are being subjected to wide scrutiny, and inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lapes of logic are being pointed out. She can no longer hide behind her column and ignore emails sent questioning what she has written. Naturally the blowhards and professional agitators will flood the zone, rather than more thoughtful analyses, so I'll hand Parker that part of her complaint.

Enrique Cardova   ·  December 29, 2005 12:56 PM

PS: I should add a blowhard may be defined in this context as someone who argues just for the sake of arguing (like old communist party members you meet from time to time) or someone who advances loud arguments with no evidence or very shaky evidence. It doesn't mean someone who simply holds a strong opinion. Also another reason Parker may be miffed is because the blogsphere is a democratic leveller and fact verifier of sorts when used in its best sense. Far from the MSM obsessing over the quality of its product as Parker asserts, the sordid Rathergate and Jayson Blair episodes, and the even more sordid and inaccurate reporting on Hurricane Katrina, shows that Parker is engaging in wishful thinking.

The blogosphere means that the NY Times, CNN and others at once Olympian levels can no longer get away with it unchallenged. Anyone with a computer and web access and fingers with sufficient strength to type Google.com can take on arrogant media dictators and arrogant experts, and show their theories and activities to be false or dubious. That may be what rankles many blog critics- that "guys in pajamas", the despised "little people" as Leona Helmsley infamously put it, can make the high and mighty look stupid, not by simple polemical raving and ranting, but by measuring the high and mighty against widely available empirical evidence.

Enrique Cardova   ·  December 29, 2005 10:14 PM

LaShawn Barber is complaining about "nasty and false statements?" After reading her own nasty and false statements about "death-culturists" (her phrase) in relation to the Schiavo case, I'd say her complaints are a tad hypocritical -- especially after she deleted comments, and banned commenters, who questioned her nasty falsehoods. If she can't take it, she shouldn't have dished it out.

Raging Bee   ·  December 30, 2005 08:32 AM

There is no duty to allow comments, just as there is no right to criticize a blogger at his own blog. David Bernstein just turned his off at Volokh, and that's his privilege. La Shawn acknowledges who she is and stands behind what she says, and whether she allows criticism of her to appear in her blog is irrelevant. Not allowing comments is not the same thing as being anonymous. The only relationship I've seen between anonymity and comments is that the anonymous ones tend to be ruder.

From what I've seen, La Shawn's observations about anonymity are correct.

Eric Scheie   ·  December 30, 2005 01:44 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits