It has been an interesting couple of weeks in the social media world, and whilst I've sort of been having some voluntary down-time, 'Twitter-storms' have been brewing. As I noted in my recent post 'Speech Matters', much of this has to do with the age old question of equality, in light of the decision to put Jane Austen on a banknote. Apparently some men find this incredibly threatening, and feel the need to abuse women 'verbally' online. I think that is incredibly weak, and saw this first hand when I attempted to engage with one individual. A request to tone down the language saw him direct this language at me, and my wife, which seemed a little ott.
All this made me think about Arguing on the Internet.
Before I get into the meat of this post, as I recognise this is a piece of writing on the internet, let me just post a 'meme' which rather makes me chuckle;
I couldn't agree more, sometimes. When I look over the twitter feeds of some of my braver friends, you end up with the most surreal things. People, men and women, who are intelligent enough to use digital technology, fail to see the consequences of their personal choices (lads mags, glamourisation/over-sexualisation of the body, pornography, page 3/gossip mags) in the light of their real life effects. The suicide of Hannah Smith is a sobering example of the real impact that digital technology can have. And the knock-on effect of different cultural forces that people ignore in the pursuit of happiness and consumer choice. Then notion that there should be some form of ethical code, some right or wrong, is often anathema to those that 'troll' the internet, and indeed those who have trollish elements in their real, offline lives.
Its not about right or wrong, its about something else. I honestly believe that to be the case. It is very rare, when arguing on the internet, for someone to appeal to absolutes, or a viable or respected moral authority. I actually quite enjoy it when a friend of mine dares to post a statistical study or something, and then everyone who disagrees with its conclusions instantly knows more than the researchers, usually citing Wikipedia for proof. Because for some reason (and I am well aware that statistics and studies can be wrong, see a wonderful twitter account for proof re stats) right and wrong goes out the window when we argue on the internet.
There is often an appeal to the power of the majority, and thus the right-ness of that majority. This is a poor place to argue from, even as it cuts both ways. Sometimes the majority is wrong, sometimes it is right. Often the majority makes a pretty good decision based on incomplete information, whereas when all the information is out on the table, the minority was actually right all along. It is true that vast numbers of people use online pornography, and that vast numbers of people buy magazines that directly judge and mock people for their body shape, but does that make these things right, and good, and true? I don't think so. And the sad shape of many people seems to be testament to this.
Occasionally, and again this is a two edged sword, there is the appeal to equality, or whatever the individuals mis/understanding of equality is. I personally believe equality is of vital importance, and I believe that because of my Christian faith. It concerns me, though, when one of the fruits of equality, such as women working full time and husbands staying at home, is over-egged into being the ultimate of equality, for example in George Osborne's recent, slightly disparaging comments, that stay-at-home mothers are making 'a lifestyle choice'. True equality isn't going to mean everyone does the same thing, in the fiery case of womens rights, true equality should mean that some will go to work whilst others will stay at home, and both are equally valid.
Flowing on from equality comes another misunderstood and over-applied word, the might banner of our nonsensical culture (given its non-understanding or application of it), tolerance. So often abused as a word, it seems surreal to me that we would rather tolerate people, and be tolerated, than love people, and engage with them passionately out of a place of concern. Should I tolerate a friend, someone I love, walking down a dangerous road to harm, or does love compel us to intervene? I've written before about the 'Myth of Tolerance', and I feel that understanding some of the dynamics might help some of the more frustrating internet arguments to move forward. I blogged a while ago about a worrying case of the intolerance of some tolerance.
Often, though, the appeal to an ultimate authority comes into the argument in a shape that is utterly bizzarre. The inviolate nature of my desires, wants and feelings is invoked. This is when you know that an internet argument is not going to go anywhere. The radical individualism of our culture is a really rather sad thing. Not that I am advocating a sort of dystopic 'everyone is the same', but that instead there really are things, absolute things, that are true and beautiful and wonderful. The wants and feelings of an individual, expressed and by definition selfish, are fickle compared to the things of reality. We live in a half-image, a broken image, a reality that is tainted and is mostly grey even as light and colour and wonder and beauty breaks through. The real answer to arguments on the internet is not found there, it is found outside, so often. Or in a book. Or in a conversation. Or in a real relationship. The best arguments I've had are over a table, ideally with a pint in hand and some shared crisps.
When in doubt, resort to ad hominem. I come to close on a more humorous note, again, though I hope my point is clear. You can tell you are arguing on the internet when someone resorts to a personal attack rather than engaging with the substance of your argument. I get that quite a lot on this blog, which can be frustrating, but that is the price one pays for activities involved heads, parapets, and poking above. I think this meme makes my point about ad hominem beautifully;
Because people matter, truth matters, and love matters. An argument that starts can be transformed by love into something better. And I believe that that is something that some, and to a lesser extent all, Christians are called to do. We are all called to love. Some of us are called to engage with reason, and 'argument'. But we shouldn't resort to arguing as if we were on the internet. Because behind every Christian rumbles away the wonderful truths of Scripture, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the depths and riches of Church history and tradition. Every argument in culture (including those on the internet) is an opportunity for Grace, to show the love of Christ and the beauty and truth of God's design.
We shouldn't be content with easy answers, lazy arguments, and appeals to ad hominem, childish ideas. Followers of Jesus should respond with holy outrage to the repression of LGBT protestors in Russia, to children forced into ex-gay programs, to other children who are their parents gender experiments, to the rights of the unborn and the bizarre double standard of the media. We should be outraged because these, and other things, echo the fact that the Image of God is broken, tainted and reduced, but inherent to every human who ever lived. And these are the people that Jesus died to save.
Thankyou for reading, I hope it has been of interest. I'd love to know your thoughts, on this as well as the linked posts. Let me know in the comments. As ever, please do share and like/RT this post if you think someone might find it useful.
You may feel I was brief and unjustified in my writing here about pornography. If so, please do read 'The Porn Problem', and also how it ties into a wider crisis of what it means to be human.
All this made me think about Arguing on the Internet.
Before I get into the meat of this post, as I recognise this is a piece of writing on the internet, let me just post a 'meme' which rather makes me chuckle;
Image from Google images.
Its not about right or wrong, its about something else. I honestly believe that to be the case. It is very rare, when arguing on the internet, for someone to appeal to absolutes, or a viable or respected moral authority. I actually quite enjoy it when a friend of mine dares to post a statistical study or something, and then everyone who disagrees with its conclusions instantly knows more than the researchers, usually citing Wikipedia for proof. Because for some reason (and I am well aware that statistics and studies can be wrong, see a wonderful twitter account for proof re stats) right and wrong goes out the window when we argue on the internet.
There is often an appeal to the power of the majority, and thus the right-ness of that majority. This is a poor place to argue from, even as it cuts both ways. Sometimes the majority is wrong, sometimes it is right. Often the majority makes a pretty good decision based on incomplete information, whereas when all the information is out on the table, the minority was actually right all along. It is true that vast numbers of people use online pornography, and that vast numbers of people buy magazines that directly judge and mock people for their body shape, but does that make these things right, and good, and true? I don't think so. And the sad shape of many people seems to be testament to this.
Occasionally, and again this is a two edged sword, there is the appeal to equality, or whatever the individuals mis/understanding of equality is. I personally believe equality is of vital importance, and I believe that because of my Christian faith. It concerns me, though, when one of the fruits of equality, such as women working full time and husbands staying at home, is over-egged into being the ultimate of equality, for example in George Osborne's recent, slightly disparaging comments, that stay-at-home mothers are making 'a lifestyle choice'. True equality isn't going to mean everyone does the same thing, in the fiery case of womens rights, true equality should mean that some will go to work whilst others will stay at home, and both are equally valid.
Flowing on from equality comes another misunderstood and over-applied word, the might banner of our nonsensical culture (given its non-understanding or application of it), tolerance. So often abused as a word, it seems surreal to me that we would rather tolerate people, and be tolerated, than love people, and engage with them passionately out of a place of concern. Should I tolerate a friend, someone I love, walking down a dangerous road to harm, or does love compel us to intervene? I've written before about the 'Myth of Tolerance', and I feel that understanding some of the dynamics might help some of the more frustrating internet arguments to move forward. I blogged a while ago about a worrying case of the intolerance of some tolerance.
Often, though, the appeal to an ultimate authority comes into the argument in a shape that is utterly bizzarre. The inviolate nature of my desires, wants and feelings is invoked. This is when you know that an internet argument is not going to go anywhere. The radical individualism of our culture is a really rather sad thing. Not that I am advocating a sort of dystopic 'everyone is the same', but that instead there really are things, absolute things, that are true and beautiful and wonderful. The wants and feelings of an individual, expressed and by definition selfish, are fickle compared to the things of reality. We live in a half-image, a broken image, a reality that is tainted and is mostly grey even as light and colour and wonder and beauty breaks through. The real answer to arguments on the internet is not found there, it is found outside, so often. Or in a book. Or in a conversation. Or in a real relationship. The best arguments I've had are over a table, ideally with a pint in hand and some shared crisps.
When in doubt, resort to ad hominem. I come to close on a more humorous note, again, though I hope my point is clear. You can tell you are arguing on the internet when someone resorts to a personal attack rather than engaging with the substance of your argument. I get that quite a lot on this blog, which can be frustrating, but that is the price one pays for activities involved heads, parapets, and poking above. I think this meme makes my point about ad hominem beautifully;
Image from here.
So why bother?
Why engage?
Because people matter, truth matters, and love matters. An argument that starts can be transformed by love into something better. And I believe that that is something that some, and to a lesser extent all, Christians are called to do. We are all called to love. Some of us are called to engage with reason, and 'argument'. But we shouldn't resort to arguing as if we were on the internet. Because behind every Christian rumbles away the wonderful truths of Scripture, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the depths and riches of Church history and tradition. Every argument in culture (including those on the internet) is an opportunity for Grace, to show the love of Christ and the beauty and truth of God's design.
We shouldn't be content with easy answers, lazy arguments, and appeals to ad hominem, childish ideas. Followers of Jesus should respond with holy outrage to the repression of LGBT protestors in Russia, to children forced into ex-gay programs, to other children who are their parents gender experiments, to the rights of the unborn and the bizarre double standard of the media. We should be outraged because these, and other things, echo the fact that the Image of God is broken, tainted and reduced, but inherent to every human who ever lived. And these are the people that Jesus died to save.
______________________
You may feel I was brief and unjustified in my writing here about pornography. If so, please do read 'The Porn Problem', and also how it ties into a wider crisis of what it means to be human.
This whole thing about stay-at-home mums being penalised by George Osborne is overegged. What exactly do stay-at-home mums think they would do with vouchers towards childcare costs?
ReplyDeleteI think, as so often the case, its an issue of the principle behind the practicality, if that makes sense.Thanks for commenting!
Delete