Posted on 09/07/2002 10:01:30 AM PDT by clodkicker
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/currentview.html Friday, September 6, 2002
A newsletter I subscribe to spoke of civility on the Internet and mentioned "the hate filled web site" http://www.freerepublic.com/ I went over and had a quick look, and I didn't see any hate, although it's certainly not a Democratic Party booster site. Is there something I don't know about that site?
In fact this chap said today that two web sites are "hate filled"
http://www.lucianne.com/main.asp is the other.
Here is what he said:
"As I've remarked before the Internet contributes greatly to this. It's much easier for us to become online "dittoheads" when the drug of hate speech can be consumed privately, without sound, without company and without interruption. This has been reflected since the beginning of the Web in such hate-filled sites as Lucianne and Free Republic . Recently liberals have begun fighting back (sort of) at sites like Buzzflash and MediaWhores ."
I went looking and I saw no hate. I didn't have a chance to look very deep, and I presume that the people who post there are not Democrats or liberals, but I didn't see any "hate". Perhaps I missed it? Or have we got to the point where anything that is not explicitly liberal can be dismissed as barbaric and hate filled? I haven't time to do any in depth investigation. I have a column to do. But I wonder where we are when a commercial newsletter mostly about web technology says things like this.
Chaos Manor started out as a column in Byte Magazine (of lamented memory), describing the hardware and software he was working with, the writing he was doing, games he was playing, and anything else that met his fancy. Chaos Manor is the name of his house. His column has to be at least 10 years old, and he's always a good read. He doesn't mince words, either. I recommend it regardless of your politics.
But, you'll see that kind of thing on any site like this, left, right, or center. Before someone makes a sweeping statement like this, they should do more research than I would think this person did. I would say that the hateful types are a minority here, no more than on any political site.
The screenprint was captured by a intern from Univerisity of Arizona who shared her find with her schoolmates and with a local Congressman's office.
I've seen actual photos of Mexicans in the U.S. waving the Mexican flag while simultaneously ripping up the U.S. flag. I wonder if she'd be as upset over that?
HA!
I enjoyed his Byte columns too.
One would be a "proactive" variety, and the other would be a "reactive", responding to attacks that may only be compared to somebody rushing over the hill pointing a flamethrower in your direction. Nobody much likes getting flamed. But some attacks really are gratuitous. Like a teenager lashing out at parents who have been quite lenient, to the point of indulging practically every whim the child came up with. But when even the mildest of rebukes is applied, "I hate you!" rings out loud. At which time, the parents, feeling quite wronged, retaliate with a little "hate" of their own.
The universe can be a ruthless place. Does an attack by a great white shark mean the shark "hates" you? In that case, the shark is just being a shark, and does not differentiate between your magnificent intellectual prowness and the relatively slow thought processes of a sea turtle. To a shark, prey exists for one purpose only, lunch. Does this mean we should not hunt down and eradicate predator sharks that threaten us? There certainly is not a whole lot of common ground we may use to establish a dialogue with a shark.
And so it is with individuals who send up attacks against the established order of things, not because they are particularly oppressed, but because they are, basically, geared to break things and make noise. If there is not enough adversity in their lives, they go out and invent some. Hadn't better be yelling about "hate", though. Some 95% of the personal woe suffered in this world is self-induced.
Or have we got to the point where anything that is not explicitly liberal can be dismissed as barbaric and hate filled? I haven't time to do any in depth investigation. I have a column to do. But I wonder where we are when a commercial newsletter mostly about web technology says things like this.
Dear Jerry,Loved your Byte column in the old days . . .
I'm very familiar with FreeRepublic.com, aware of Lucianne.com, and--though totally unfamiliar with the other two, quite confident from what you've said/quoted that they are claptrap.
The overriding point, surely, is that the Internet is a "poor man's soapbox" with a global reach. I'm very glad for the existence of FreeRepublic.com, because it is a vehicle by which I can express my views to an unlimited potential audience of people who might take interest in, and possibly debate, those ideas. I am content to be known by the company I keep by frequenting FR.
Others might prefer Lucianne, or those other sites, and now that the Internet exists to enable them, it would IMHO be an infringment of the First Amendment to suppress political discussion on them. But my opinion is that, like talk radio, Internet discussion has a huge niche open for conservative commentary (as is found on FreeRepublic.com) and very little market opening for liberal commentary.
IMHO journalists consistently use certain words deceptively, especially the word "objectivity." It is my opinion that in the mouth of a journalist, "objective" means nothing distinguishable from what "liberal" means to you. This would, if I am correct, imply that the journalist considers "conservative" to be an antonym for "objective." And that journalists would bitterly oppose the use of the term "objective" to apply to anything or anyone conservative.
It would take a little time to read a 200-page book and if necessary refer to the footnotes, but Slander by Ann Coulter will reward your attention. If that doesn't persuade you that my analisis is correct, why then, we disagree. But if it does persuade you, you will understand why talk radio is conservative--the niche for liberal discussion is essentially saturated by "objective" journalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.