Thanks! (Plus, some thoughts about lying)

[lostboy_lj]

I know I've been missing of late, but I just wanted to pop in to say thanks to whoever nominated my essay, Rules of Engagement, at the No Rest For the Wicked Awards, in the category "Not Fade Away".  I suppose I was in an essay-writing mood all last year, and while I didn't get around to writing everything I'd planned, I was fairly proud of the

Comments

[eilowyn]

So sorry you were called a liar. As someone who has had what they say misinterpreted because the internet doesn't have a sarcastic hyperbole font, I understand how shocking it is when an accusation is labeled on you, and then how you begin to question everything you've ever said. It's not the same thing, but it still is wank, so I sympathize (there's a book I'm reading on fandom in which there's an entire chapter on fan wank. I expect to be nodding my head and agreeing that my experiences match those the authors describe, and I kind of figure you would be too.) (Not that I'm saying you cause wank, just that you recognize it.) (See? Questioning what I say for fear of misinterpretation!)'

[lostboy_lj]

Oh, it's no problem. I usually don't even mind being called a liar, if the accuser is an ignoramus and the argument is about fact. She simply didn't know the facts, so calling me a liar might even be understandable in a face-to-face conversation twenty years ago. The main trouble now is, these days we're all typing at each other on mini Oracles of Delphi, where the relevant information is a few taps away. It makes little sense to accuse someone of lying about a fact, especially an uncontroversial one (the fact in question was regarding events of 2500 years ago... the very definition of "ancient history", and backed up with a citation from Herodotus, A.K.A "The Father of History

[bone_dry1013]

To some degree, I feel like Internet (capital I) speak mostly stays on the Internet. I say that 'cause of years of online gaming, and mostly because of the last year I've spent playing League of Legends, which utterly redefined everything I ever knew about raging/flaming (seriously

[lostboy_lj]

My theory is that this sort of stuff is more about self-gratification than actually conveying anything to who you're speaking to, so "arguments" made on this basis more than often seem to turn into pointless shows of dominance.

Yeah, that's certainly seems true in many cases. Not sure they're all pointless, but the current vogue in blogs and other social media seems to have an almost natural one-upmanship built-in. Tweeting is probably the worst of the latest batch... as if we all needed more outlets to be glib, without a 24-hour glib machine rewarding the glibbest.

I'm not sure it's a fixable problem, since internet communities are rarely real communities.

It's certainly not an easy one. The biggest problem is, as you noted, the lack of faces to punch. Almost all historical codes of civility, honor and manners emerged due to the implicit threat of violence.

Also, 'grats on the 'noms.
(why did I say that like that?)

CUZ WE R ON DA INTARNETZ.
(and, thanks.)

[bone_dry1013]

[lostboy_lj]

No problem, dude! (I MEAN NO PROBZ DOOOD)

[readerjane]

It's so gratifying to read essays from someone who both sees this sort of thing happening, and cares about it, and understands the harm it can do

[lostboy_lj]

Thanks Jane.

We're damaging the very basis of our discourse. We're like those characters in Lewis' That Hideous Strength, who insisted that language meant whatever they wanted it to mean, and wound up with no ability to communicate at all.

Yes, exactly. Eventually, the words even cease to become useful as weapons, and discourse becomes babble. Orwell summed up the former quite well in his "Politics and the English Language", and then (in my opinion) Derrida perfectly illustrated the latter in action. :)

I do agree that the consequence-free nature is the main cause here, and that's pretty frightening given I can't quite think of a proper analog for it in history. Adjusted for population, have we ever had this many people hollering at each other with little to no fear of consequence and, in many cases, even a degree of social reward for the behavior? Could get ugly (and some would argue it already is).

[lostboy_lj]

The other really scary thing is, I've heard people agree with this sentiment we are discussing, then moments later proceed to make the accusations anyway. The dissonance was startling to me the first time I watched it happen, but not the 5th, 18th or 993rd time. It's the most commonplace irony I can name these days: "Let's all engage in an open, civil dialogue with each other, just as soon as we've gotten rid of all those rotter, dirty, lying Democrats/Republicans/Turks/Venetians etc."

Depending on the topic, it can be almost impossible to avoid an accusatory crossfire of strategic lies, whereupon no one belives the other is arguing honestly, and ulterior motives are ascribed to all. For example, to date, I have had exactly one rational, civilized and illuminating argument with someone about abortion. The result? I married her.

[rebcake]

This gives me so many thoughts! Dear Old Dad, a retired journalist, pins the beginning of the end to the dismantling of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting and print.

I was horrified during the last election cycle (can we add softener during the next round?) that the organizations who count up the lies told by each camp found more of what was said on both sides was blatantly untrue than ever before. (More than 50% in some cases? That can't be right.) The perception was that there were no consequences and nobody cared anyway. Uh, wrong.

Maybe the perception has become that everybody is lying, and therefore the term has lost its sting. Like the way you can call anybody a "bastard" nowadays and it's fairly shrug-worthy? IDK. It's heinous.

I will say that I have a particular hatred of the "bending of reality" lie, as I've seen that one end up in full-scale bloodshed, and because it's the last refuge of scoundrels. I mean, there's a reason why "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is still so current, IMO

[readerjane]

(Maybe the perception has become that everybody is lying, and therefore the term has lost its sting.)

That certainly seems to be what Coca-Cola is presuming. I came across this article yesterday and was shocked (an effect that's kind of depressing in its rarity) by this paragraph:

"I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim."

So is mendacity the presumed default now? 'Cause if it is, I'd like to leave the party, please.

[lostboy_lj]

Hah! Well, then again I suppose that's nothing new. I think Snake Oil Salesman runs second or third in the list of "World's Oldest Professions."

I don't know if you've ever seen "Idiocracy", A.K.A The Greatest Film of All Time, but...

[lostboy_lj]

Oh! It also reminds me of "Vitajex", from "A Face in the Crowd"... perhaps even more so.