Journal WIAKywbfatw's Journal: Is intelligent debate dead nowadays? 3
I posted this comment to a story that's on the frontpage at the moment in reply to what someone else had to say.
As I write, my post has had 17 replies (I was expecting about ten or so, based on past experience), yet less than half of the replies actually seemed to grasp the question that I was asking (which, by the way, was asking why it's OK to operate by one set of rules when tracking down spammers but it's not OK to operate by the same set of rules when tracking down copyright infringement).
One described my post as "a rant": I would ask him how pointing out irony and asking a question can possibly be considered ranting but I doubt I'd get an intelligent reply. Is it me, or to rant don't you actually have to do more than make a quip and raise a question?
Another opined that my "sense of morality has obviously not developed to an adult level": interesting when you consider my vocal opinions in my journal entries and posts on subjects such as the war on terrorism, big business, copyright extensions, gay rights, xenophobia, etc. Yep, if there's anything I've shown through my posts on Slashdot it's that I don't have a well-developed and mature moral compass. (Not.)
Yet another didn't grasp what I meant by "without resorting to the kind of language that you wouldn't use in front of your mother", and proceeded to let me know that I should "Fuck off you corporate fuck. Fuck you and all you stand for. The French Revolution MK II is coming to a neck near you soon." Or, perhaps he did grasp what I meant but his mother's ears are less sensitive than that of my own. Frighteningly, the AC (he didn't have the courage to post using his own account: quelle surprise) was modded up.
(By the way, if you live in the UK, don't forget it's Mother's Day in two days time: if you haven't bought that card and gift yet, you've still got time. Run to the shops now.)
Others just seemed to miss the point of my post entirely, which was not only to point out the irony of the situation but to highlight how the actions described in the story summary were no different to those taken by spammers/spammer-hunters.
My point (or is it yet another "rant", I'm not sure now) is this: why is it that when you ask an intelligent question, and you ask it politely, there's always a significant group of people who feel the need to either: i) take what you've said out of context; ii) twist it to mean something else; iii) not bother reading what you've written beyond picking up a few key words; iv) just use it as an excuse to insult you; or v) any combination of the above?
Is this the world that we're living in now? One where even intelligent debate is too much to ask for? No wonder the world's crumbling around us, morally, socially, politically and environmentally.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-spam (Score:2)
Any sort of technological or legal change that would undermine spam would also undermine freedom of thought, expression, and dissent.
The New, Improved Soap Box (Score:1)
We've removed the low barriers that keep every dolt with a mouth off the soapbox. In 'the world', the stares of the other participants carry weight. In the digital realm, police are pretending