On Griefing for Goodness

[paulhope]

secretspice posted this really good article a while ago. Among other things, it presents a sympathetic view of Something Awful's griefer community (guys that will, for example, disrupt Second Life interviews and entrepreneurship with flocks of flying penises

Comments

[util]

Isn't it kind of ironic to be talking about this on the internet, mostly with people you'll never meet? And what about these guys, proud to be social retards, devoting hours to trolling online?

[paulhope]

Isn't it kind of ironic to be talking about this on the internet, mostly with people you'll never meet?

I don't think so. Why do you?

And what about these guys, proud to be social retards, devoting hours to trolling online?Yeah, ok. That's bad

[util]

I saw it as ironic because I thought you were saying everything on the internet is somehow hollow. I see you have said otherwise in the comments here, and of course this would not be consonant with what I know of you anyway

[paulhope]

Dammit. the internet ate my response to this. I'll try again later.

[paulhope]

Right on.

I totally wanted to go in this direction before deciding I was too tired to write any more, but yeah, I think exactly the sort of stuff you are saying complicates matters. Yes, the internet has a lot of stuff that shouldn't be taken seriously. But, as you say, useful discussions do happen, and as a channel of communication it's just a potent connection as any; people are just as vulnerable when communicating on-line as they are in person.

So I guess what I'd want to say in order to pretentiously parallel something I said in the OP, this kind of deliberately disruptive behavior can't be considered a good thing based on its form alone--"disruption is good!"--but rather, the content of the act matters. What is being disrupted? Is it a wasteful human institution? It is unwarranted pomp? Or is it serious human communication or self-worth or sanity?

I think I've told you before about the general shitshow that LiveJournal's philosophy community is, but there's for me a lot of parallels between this discussion and a lot that went

[anosognosia]

"The problem with capitalism is that it is that the pricing mechanism only care about what people's preferences are, not what is actually valuable for people."

What's the difference? In what way is your preference for Fair Trade coffee and un-preference for virtual real estate 'real value' whereas the contrary attitudes are 'not real value, just subjective preference'?

"is that by punishing those who put too much stake in the internet by humiliating or disrupting purely internet-based activities, it makes people take stock of the situation and realize that the internet is not serious business, after all."

What's the difference between 'the internet' and 'not-the internet' such that the former is "not serious business" and moreover that we are justified in "punishing" those who think otherwise?

[paulhope]

What's the difference? In what way is your preference for Fair Trade coffee and un-preference for virtual real estate 'real value' whereas the contrary attitudes are 'not real value, just subjective preference'?

Good question.

These days, my answer is that we discover what is really valuable and what is merely subjective preference through inquiry, discourse, etc. So, for example, I would say that when people's subjective preferences are shaped and refined by rational argument, they will converge on a devalue of virtual real estate, and a valuing of Fair Trade coffee.

I should mention here that I'm not hugely confident that Fair Trade coffee is hot shit, but considering who is likely to be reading this, it seems like it's a convenient grounds (no pun intended) to draw upon as an illustration of a rationally motivated consumer choice.

What's the difference between 'the internet' and 'not-the internet' such that the former is "not serious business" and moreover that we are justified in "punishing" those who think otherwise?I'll