The Internet: Destroyer of Worlds
by Lawrence MeyersThe reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it.
– Mark Twain
The internet is the worst thing that has ever happened to civil discourse in this country.
Before the internet, political disagreements were hostile. Everyone believed the other side was wrong. No matter the argument presented, regardless of its basis in fact, it was almost impossible to sway the other side to one’s viewpoint.
With the internet, political disagreements have become toxic and destructive. The partisanship, the arguments, the daily slander – they have all escalated out of the realm of sanity. There are literally fights going on the streets. Sure, we’ve seen it before, but never with this level of ferocity.
The internet is to blame. Why?
We look to Marcus Aurelius, who tells us, “Of each particular thing, ask: ‘What is it in itself, in its own construction?”
The internet does not exist as anything more than various forms of technology strung together. The worlds created by it are constructs. They are virtual worlds, not real ones.
Given that the internet itself is not human, our interaction with it only serves to depersonalize the communication it allegedly facilitates. In point of fact, interpersonal communication has eroded since the internet became ubiquitous.
With depersonalization comes dehumanization. We now see the Other as more inhuman than ever before, because we now longer see him face-to-face, or eye-to-eye.
All we see are the Other’s words, taken out of context, printed, reprinted, disseminated, distorted, and reworked to fit an agenda. No different perhaps than traditional print media, except now the misinformation is created and distributed instantaneously. With each successive iteration, the original text, subtext, and context are stripped away. In the end, there is no there, there.
The Other’s actions now appear on a tiny screen, edited, clipped, repeated over and over, altered, mashed-up, restructured and redesigned to fit an agenda. David Milch eloquently characterized what the media did to us on 9/11. “It assaulted the collective sensibility…with fear-mongering images, a deliberate…habituation of the viewing public to the shaping of human experience in distorted forms”.
Exactly. The human experience of direct civil discourse has become irreparably distorted by the internet.
Worse, fringe elements that never had a voice now have one. While everyone may be entitled to their opinion, the irrational and insane ones now have equal stature. The Village Idiot now has a megaphone and he’s screaming at us from the center of town. Even worse, he can scream with complete anonymity. He’s an expert because he says he is….and if what he says fits the agenda of another nutter, a voice that should be ignored suddenly has power.
Finally, and regrettably, the internet provides us with what we truly want – not to have to think for ourselves. If we seek to argue a point, all we need do is troll cyberspace until we find the a truth we agree with, and cite it. There! It’s true because this website says so! It’s true because aforementioned Village Idiot has a flashy website – which provides a multi-generational derivation of an already derivative piece of text or film.
The only way to reverse this course is simple.
Unplug.
Engage your neighbor face-to-face.
Look into his eyes.
Use your intellect. Recognize there are things called “fallacies” that render most every statement invalid and untrue.
You stand as a sentinel to your own mind. If you only allow those thoughts to enter it that you know to be 100% true, then you have the basis from which you can argue a point. Anything that is less than 100% true is, by definition, false.
If it’s false, then shut up…and seek out the Truth.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
139 Comments
"They are virtual worlds, not real ones."
From a defeatist's perspective, perhaps, but the internet is no more abused or misused than any other public media outlet. The same can easily be applied to television, radio, newspapers–to any and all sources of information. As with any other created convenience, we have the choices before us of putting something to use for good or for not so good. And besides, every level of society can and often does create it's own 'virtual' world without need to cyberspace. In essence, what you're attempting here is take away the responsibility from the consumer our own to act responsibly and intelligently.
The heart of the problem is human, not cyber.
I'm actually rather insulted by this article. I am more than a mere consumer of 10-word quotes on a webpage – if something I read has impact with me, I do a little research and find out if it is factual before giving a knee-jerk response.
Why is this opinion even being offered and shared on the Internet then?
http://www.meganandjack.com/mt/archives/Mr%20Whip...
a screed about the evils of the internet…posted on the internet
I don't think the internet is the problem, it's the lack of common sense!
This article is just what the federal government and the main stream media ordered. the reining in of new internet control, great job.
I disagree with this article. In the days prior to the internet, the debates with my ignorant liberal brother used to end with me knocking him to the ground and giving him a wedgy. Now I just delete his latest talking point and all is well in the family.
Hogwash ! The Internet is the best thing to ever happen to public edification and discourse.
Second article EVER I read on Big Government that I think is full of crap. It isn't the internet that is the problem. It is the lack of a good education that people USED to get in school. They are now indoctrinated and brainwashed and it shows when incompetents like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama lead this country.
The internet does not make discourse less human or more radical. The internet is a tool to gather information and disseminate your point of view. The lack of training in critical thinking is what is making the discussion more volatile. If you can not mentally outmaneuver your oponent you will rely on your emotions to support your position.
Rational discussions very seldom turn violent.
press here
It is all Al Gore's fault since he invented the internet.
I would say that the internet is different than newspaper, radio, and television for the soul purposes of keeping it segregated from government regulation. I hear the analogy of "the community bathroom" often and it got me to thinking, My local coffee shop has writing in the bathroom but is is much more positive than it is portrayed with quotes like "love everyone including yourself". The problem is not the bathroom or the forum of presentation but the community.
The Internet has been the single most critical advancement in the means of communication in modern times. The Tea Party would never have happened without it. This uninformed luddite needs to find someone else to blame for the "lack of civil discourse" in this nation…and that would firmly be in the camp of those who seek to control the information…the mainstream media and the sycophants in the administration.
No it's Bush's fault, just like everything else. ; )
I would like to joke but the freedom of the internet is too important (even if it sounds silly).
Recognize there are things called “fallacies” that render most every statement invalid and untrue.
Including this one?
In your bio for this site you say you believe in "personal responsibility" and yet you are blaming the internet. The dumbing down of the American Public over the last 30 years by our liberal-infused education system is more to blame than the internet. I could easily trace the degradation of political discourse to the advent of the Television Set and its false depiction that World problems can be solved in 30 minutes.
It's a little odd to read a critique of the internet in an article published on the internet. But all that aside, we have actually had this conversation before. In historical terms it was argued that "public discourse" is a messy proposition, but we ratified the 1st Amendment anyway. When the old Catholic church forbade the populace from reading "scriptures," they argued that the public's ignorance of the meaning of holy writ would create chaos in the church. But the Protestant Revolution changed all that.
So yes, public discourse is no doubt a messy business, with lots of "dumb" voices being allowed to speak. But it is still the best "imperfect" approach to maintaining liberty for the populace, and sovereignty for the individual.
Aww….come on Lawrence. We can still point to Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston to consistently bring on, “Teh Totally Clue-Fricked Funny Librul Loons On Parade," moments.
All I can say is Thank GOD for YouTube for exposing the Stoopid of the Left. And Thank GOD for the internet.
I think the biggest problem I have with internet discourse is that its become a promotion fest. Successful sites rely on people who want affirmation, so they just promote that interest, instead of policing it. Using myself as an example, as a liberal who did not vote for obama, i think one of the biggest perversions of my political ideology is when voters stopped asking questions and stopped seriously considering their canidates (B.O. being the perfect example). Now to big worlds credit, I come here to know who in my group is not worth the support – due to a small handful of writers who report objectively and used unedited material.
did you see the guys face? face to face wouldn't be pretty. JK. we all know you can't blame the internet just the users so this was, in my opinion, a stupid evaluation of who to blame- a thing- the internet— mmmm- wierd. maybe just maybe his point was to look at the stuff on the internet and then talk face to face but it sure didn't sound like it did it?
While the internet may have given voice to the villiage idiot, it has also given voice to countless millions who have never had a voice until now.
Not all are villiage idiots. But most can't portray their ideas with the same ferocity as the elitist-ivory tower types.
Much to their chagrin, the playing field has been leveled and I, or any other person now can speak just as loudly as they can.
This article sounds more like an argument for shutting down the internet than an unbiased look at such.
"I would say that the internet is different than newspaper, radio, and television for the soul purposes of keeping it segregated from government regulation."
Not really; it's not different–it's simply easier for the public to access. For the government to regulate it's contents would be substituting them for 'the community'–the 'problem' remains if 'regulation' is the issue.
"The problem is not the bathroom or the forum of presentation but the community."
That was my point, and not even the Almighty will force us to do what's right, or print what's true. We have the power over what we create, so let's stop pretending otherwise.
The gist of the article……………..WAAAAAAAAH! we in the elite media can no longer taylor the messages for the "great unwashed" to recieve. There has been, for as long as one can remember an opining from the MSM and politicans that no one really gets involved in the country. Now, with the intervention of the internet, the availablity of infromation from outside sources that give information that contridicts what the "elite" editors are pushing, they decry the availability of information. The days of the MSM are numbered, they have been outed as non-truthful and collaborative in their story lines………………that is not reporting that is propoganda.
Thank you for staying part of the conversation.
-Richard
Journolist chock full of Marxist, Socialists, and Communists: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/07/socialist-jou...
An informed electorate is one that can discern the difference between what is "spun" to enhance a political party's (dims) power and what is "spun" (Conservative TRUTH) to enhance the US as THE important Nation it is…..
Someone got one-too-many email forwards this week, I reckon.
Speaking of destroying worlds: the Daily Caller has some explosive raw Journolist emails! A must read!
http://dailycaller.com/
"The only way to reverse this course is simple.
Unplug.
Engage your neighbor face-to-face.
Look into his eyes."
Excellent idea, you first.
"Use your intellect. Recognize there are things called “fallacies” that render most every statement invalid and untrue."
Including the ones you make here? Just curious.
wow…We have been told to sit down and shut up again..
We are changing America one person at a time at home and on the internet.. The days of controlling the message is over.
The Internet is the most valuable tool for Freedom that the world has ever had! Why do you think Obama wants to take it away from US! – Blog on! – With every word you type, Dictators the world over, cringe!
I'd argue a second point here that the internet also opens access to thousands of so-called "legitimate" news sources, from newspapers to television news, both foreign and domestic. Is having access to these sources also considered "destructive" to public discourse? In some cases, maybe, but I'd still take the full access to sources over the old media regime any day.
The internet has allowed for the common man to get an alternative view, other than what the Lame Stream Media wants them to have. Yes, it can be abused but usually it becomes apparent if the sites have biases. Huffington Post will promote the Communist agenda until the cows come home, but most of us know that so we don't bother with it. Big Government has been very good about getting the real truth out there. It inflames the Liberals to their own hypocrisy when it is pointed out, they go bananas, as recently when Breitbart showed how the NAACP is actually a pawn of the left, and how in fact THEY are the racists. That whole story was driven by the LEFT trying to call the Tea Party people racists, but it kind of went off in the lefts faces.
……………."I don't think the internet is the problem, it's the lack of common sense! "
If I didn't know better I would call that a Racist statement !
Hahahaha
The internet is an extension of free speech, and anything to hamper that is totally against it. The first amendment, is the first amendment. Anything else is an attempt to destroy it. This why our founders made it the first amendment. Civil discourse is who we are as a Republic. God bless,the wisdom of our founders.
Breaking news from Politico: A survey of liberal bloggers finds that they fear Harry Reid's defeat more than any other campaign in the 2010 congressional elections. A poll taken by the Democrat polling firm (that achieved infamy for doing polling for Bill Clinton), Greenburg, Quinlan & Rosner, finds that the campaign to Defeat Harry Reid has them scared more than any other race in the nation.
http://remembernovember.com/
As with so many other epithets, we're not supposed to think "the village idiot" is directed at us. But the dirty truth — the one suppressed in the name of "civil discourse" — is that it very much is.
Butt wasn't the old way more Fun ! ?
At risk of allowing the Village Idiot getting center stage, the internet has been the most empowering media for the exercising of our free speech rights.
Yes, this!
I know, I know… I have to stop with the racial profiling……. I may end up in jail yet.
Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic".
I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside.
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear – and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
If you take the time to consider it, the internet may very contain all of human knowledge, including that which is most vile and most astonishing – In my opinion, that is rather impressive. It is true, though, that the need to wade through such an immense amount of Bravo Sierra to find some semblance of truth is tiresome.
You have GOT to be kidding? Before the Internet, I knew NOTHING about politics. You only knew what you read in the newspaper about candidates, and even THAT depended upon which paper you read, or the fliers they mail to your house. Sure, I think you can and should certainly look people in the face and tell them why you vote the way you do, and I certainly don't agree with calling names or punching someone's lights out. HOWEVER, I have grown a tougher skin from mixing it up with people who vehemently disagree with me.
I am able to be civil when someone is trying to degrade me by calling me names. If someone had verbally attacked me in real life that way, I would have crawled back into my house and locked the door. I've found that, on the Internet, if someone insults you and you don't respond in kind, but do keep trying to appeal to their sense of fairness, they will soften and you can have a sane discussion. At least, I've found that to be true with MOST people.
The author of this article, Lawrence Myers, must be Breitbart's attempt at being "fair and balanced" – like when Chris Wallace has Jesse Jackson on his show to get his opinion about something, when, in truth, no one really cares about Jackson's opinion anymore.
One thing I have learned – and the Internet has nothing to do with it – is that so-called "compassionate conservatism" is more like "liberal light", and I have no interest in being "Fair and Balanced', which is the reason I stopped watching O'Reilly when he used to have Dr. Marc LaMont Hill on his show. If I want to listen to liberal garbage, I know plenty of places I can go to get it. The same goes with blogs. If I want to read drivel like this, I'll head over to HuffPo or something. If I want to be told how to think or what to speak, I'll listen to one of the President's speeches.
Well, I suppose the same thing could be said about TV or radio. How impersonal is that? How direct is civil discourse with TV or radio. Is the TV newscaster any more reliable? NO! Do they distort? Do they lie? I know for a fact they do distort and they do lie. I have first hand knowledge of this. Do they present a story before it is fully developed as Breitbart did? EVERYDAY,EVERYDAY!! And…… you know it. Further TV and the movies have, out of greed or with deliberate intent to destroy our culture have produced a whole bunch of trash. Thank God, for the internet. The newspapers lie; Time, Newsweek lie and so do the major networks. Or…….at the very least they have an agenda and the people know it. They aren't interested in presenting just the facts and…. the people know it. What would you have us do? We have to go to other places to get our information. The internet is more reliable. Besides, it is not your place or any of your business to determine whether or not I can decipher if the info. I am getting is true or not.
The discourse has gotten louder Sir, because the right has become as belligerent and determined as the left always has been. We tried politeness, in the face of utter contempt and rudeness from the other side. They used and still are using our genuine desire to be good, fair people against us. That's why conservatives are held to a higher standard. The left has no standards because with them, standards are conditional. The gloves are off. Further TV and the movies have, out of greed or with deliberate intent to destroy our culture have produced a whole bunch of trash. Thank God, for the internet. It has helped to keep our wannabe tyrannical govt. at bay.
Mr. Meyers,
I'm imagining that this post is at least somewhat, tounge in cheek. First, all we see is not all one sided. There are a varity points of views presented. Second, giving the "Village Idiot" a forum is not wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Finally, the idea that one no longer has to think for one's self is an indivdual choice and may or may not be true for all. It is our responsiblity to separate wheat from chaffe, and those that are willing to do so, do not fit your arguement.
Unplugging MAY be one way to interact with others, but again I say that more information and more interaction of ANY level is what will move any discussion forward. In other words, some, but not all by any means, react in the way that you are claiming.
The examples for NOT unplugging are many, but the one that I will cite here is the "Great Awakening" of the public to the inherent potential abuses of our system of govenment by those governing when apathy is the rule, not the exception, could not have come about without an alternate media, the Internet.
You could argue that the anonymity of the internet coarsens civil discourse, but I would argue back that I think it's better to have the coarsening than the alternative. When a person has a blank mic, they often feel free to unleash their true selves without any fear of reprisal. I'd rather know who I'm really dealing with than have a polite conversation of lies and half-truths with someone who's really seething with intolerant fury inside. In that sense, I would argue that the internet really promotes honesty. If you find other Americans ugly inside, well, that's its own truth.
Free speech dictates that all the voices have a place, even the ones you consider to be worthless. The internet is simply the vehicle through which those voices find expression.
Mr. Meyers — this article is nothing but Bilge. I know how to think for myself and I have stood on my Conservative political beliefs before I was even able to vote. I am NOT swayed by what I read on the internet because God gave me a spirit of discernment and I choose to use it when I utilize the net.
Your articles sounds like the people who constantly yell that guns kill people and therefore should be controlled.
I will also say, that I have NEVER abused the internet in any way but have used it as a tool to communicate with friends and family and for keeping myself informed of what's going on with this admin the last 18 months.
In the old days, a reader of a paper or viewer/listener of a broadcast who didn't agree and may have had a decent point had to write a letter to the media outlet, hope that someone read it, further hope that it made it past the editors to the "public comments" person and then hope that it finally made it's way to the viewing/listening public.
Therefore, one out of a million public opinions made it up the hierarchy and into the public discourse.
Of course along the way, all the biases came into play as to whether or not an opinion would be shown to the public, etc, etc. The public was obliged to be filtered through the endless filtering of the media.
Now, when Joe public has an opinion, he merely posts it in the comments section and viola! it appears. One may not like his opinion, one may think it is ignorant, or one may read a perspective that may not have occurred. Regardless, the internet offers the most truly democratic and populist form of discourse in the history of humanity.
I don't happen to think this is a bad thing.
I take issue with the premise of this article, which makes the rest of it …blah, blah, blah.
" There are literally fights going on the streets. Sure, we’ve seen it before, but never with this level of ferocity."
Sooo…Progressives (code for Commie) have been infiltrating our society for a hundred years and now they have taken control in the highest levels of government. Real Americans are going to fight like hell!
Libs and conserves used to have the same goals, just different ideas on how to achieve them.
We conservs and even some libs do not share the same GOALS with progs.
It's war.
Since this government has a choke-hold on so many other of our public forums, stands to reason that the internet–the final frontier–is now in their sites. And, as with everything else the Left touches, they'll render the internet useless and banal should they succeed in getting hold of it. Then, the people will find another outlet as we always do.
No, this 'new world' of no opposition the left hopes to create sounds 'virtual' to me. What they lack most–historical proof of success and reality–is and always will be beyond their reach.
Since this government has a choke-hold on so many other of our public forums, stands to reason that the internet–the final frontier–is now in their sites. And, as with everything else the Left touches, the internet will render itself useless and banal should they succeed in getting hold of it.
This society of no opposition the left hopes to create is little more than another 'virtual world.' What they lack most–historical proof of success and reality–is beyond their reach.
I'll be honest. I really see the internet as the destroyer of falsehoods and secretary supreme.
A politician can no longer say one thing one year, and hope that his constituency will have forgotten it the next. There is almost ALWAYS digitized video record or audio recording of what is said in the public sphere.
For the first time in history, we have a completely objective, entirely un-human tool that helps keep everyone accountable for what they way while in the public eye.
This is a good thing, it just happens to cut both ways, holding conservatives and liberals to the candle equally unmercifully.
Agreed.
Village idiots have been screaming gibberish since the first one was hired. The only new thing the internet provides is we get to either listen to or ignore other idiots.
This civil discourse is no difference in my opinion of what's been going on through out history, just not publicly noticeable. Doesn't mean any of its new.
Actually government fears the Internet. Whereas in the past it might take days for information to spread, today in milliseconds we can communicate worldwide. Additionally with the vast amount of information available to us, in mere seconds or minutes we can find facts and figures to support an argument or tear it apart. Governments don't like that. They can't so easily bedazzle or flim flam their society as in the past.
In our case we can know almost immediately what congress and the administration is or is not doing and who is responsible for idiotic decisions.
For myself, I give thanks daily that we have this super information highway available to us. The only problem is that there is quite a bit of chaff mixed with the wheat. But with careful analysis and multiple sources of information, the truth can be gleaned from the garbage.
The irony was not lost on me either.
Common sense isn't nearly as common as one might think.
Agreed. The only thing the internet has done is make existing communication faster.
Agreed.
I don't see how anyone could have followed the near revolution in Iran last year and think the internet is anything other than the means of communication of the people of the world.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had some number of years ago with some one complaining how the national conversation seems to be sinking into the muck.
I asked him did he think the rise in domestic violence was caused by more violence, or was the existing violence just getting reported more often?
Of course when the means of communication were solely in the hands of the elites, it was much more cordial, because the participants were so few.
The more participants added means the more diverse the opinions, which of course is going to mean more disagreements.
But that does not mean the conversation should once again be limited to only a small select group of people. That's what created the mess the MSM finds itself in. Their monopoly on information is vaporizing before their eyes, and we now see the reality behind their curtain.
Anything that brings more information to more people, enabling them to make more informed decisions is a great thing.
In many West European countries, private television was banned until the 80's or even 90's. And even today, there are many laws regarding everything from not being allowed to show convicted criminals in the newspapers to "speech codes" that stop honest debate. Even more so, many European countries have newspapers that range from liberal to outright socialist, all propped up by government funding, and they filter out any view that is conservative, pro-American, and the like. That's Europe. What about the US?
Fact is, before Fox News and cable news, the networks had a monopoly on shoving liberal lies down the throats of honest citizens. Newspapers from Seattle to New York were as liberal as you could get. Hollywood even more so. Thanks to the Internet, conservatives are finally able to fight back against the censorship, distortion, and outright lies of the mainstream media and liberal establishment.
Liberals realized a long time ago what Ayn Rand said already back in the 1950's: politics is just the final step in a long, long process. Winning the culture war is step one of that process. And the Internet is helping us do that. If that also lets a few village idiots out of their basements, fine. We're used to worse reading the Times.
This article was simply a ploy to bring back new life into the United States Postal Service since its simply another government agency going down the tubes. The author would rather we start mailing letters of debate to one another instead (postage payment is the upside).
//sarc
The only things that can protect an individual from fallacy are firm principles and a desire to know the truth, no matter what it may be.
Exactly!
Veiled behind the anonymity of one's computer screen, lashing out in a series of 1s and 0s, people find the propensity to behave in a way they wouldn't behave to another person's face.
"Dear Britain: Lift the Ban on Michael Savage!"
Hm let's see. Without the availability of the internet and the ability to research facts and opinions from all sides we'd be where? Oh yeah, how about Cuba? Sorry, yes maybe not everyone writing an article on the internet is some elitist "journolist" but I think that's the point. I think the Left is getting a little worried their "guide the sheeple" plan is no longer in play…..
Absolutely correct. A discussion on line provides links to documents and/or articles, posts, etc. In the past, it was one's word against another's. Liberal lunacy has very little substance, so their entire arsenal is name calling.
Hey Ed, I look at it like an equation… On the internet both sides are equally represented. It's a constant battle to tip the formula to your side. In the MSM the equation is so heavily weighted to the left, only the right has to constantly fight to reach the same level that the left. Long Live Free Internet.
You have the most frightening avatar I have ever seen! I had to cover it while reading your post.
Did you mean "Eastern European" countries.?
The Press Corps was not around back in the late 1700's.
Freedom of the Press implies freedom of the Printing Press…. a printing press which could be owned and operated by anyone, the very same printing press which was the very Internet of its age.
Technology does not change human nature. The British felt the same way about the pamphleteers of the 18th century. The church felt the same about the printing press prior to that. Indeed, many feel the same way about talk radio and MSM. Even if the discourse does not sound terribly intelligent, even if half the people speaking in the public square have voted for people who would take their speech away, free speech is one key to a free society.
Far from being "bad", the internet has recreated the public square in the most inclusive way possible. Exposure to ideas is no longer limited by the political slant of ABC, NBC, or CBS. There is no longer a monopoly on where you chose to follow the world around you or who delivers it to you. You have choice. You also have a voice that you did not have 20 years ago. That your voice may be shrill, uninformed, or annoying is not the point.
Before the net, we were expected to take the information hand picked for us and accept it. Now we have a greater opportunity than ever to backcheck that information and make sure we are not getting smoked. Some people have never done this. That is hardly a good argument for limiting the best medium for those of us who do. Human nature never changes, regardless of technology. Lemmings will still be lemmings, no matter how you deliver the instructions.
The net is not the problem. Technology has never been the problem. Just human nature.
Haha, thanks for that. Helen Thomas is the wicked witch.
And no, Western European countries. Norway had a government monopoly until 1992. Sweden had banned private network TV until March 1992 as well, and two out of three network channels there are still government-run, with a bigger budget than ALL the other cable and network channels put together. Jon Stewart forgot to mention that in his expose. And in France they only had private networks from 1986-1987 onwards (TF1 was privatized, etc).
Much of Western Europe is literally a generation away from more or less total government control of mass media, barring satellite TV in the 80's. Maybe they should remember that before they trash-talk American culture.
I would go as far as to say that the Internet — the instant access and ability of of the general public to gather information and decipher ones individual opinions and truths — has saved the Republic…has opened the eyes of the masses…has brought us to our knees in the liberty of understanding…has brought tears to our eyes in thankfulness…being thankful for now understanding how fragile our Liberty and Freedoms are, and how close we have come to allowing the Leftist Radicals from destroying our Constitutional Republic. How's that for what the Internet has done for public discourse. Thank God for the Internet, and our freedom of speech to use it. We and our progeny will look back on this time in history…this time of a Titanic-moment — to site on the sidelines, or see the ship sinking and do something about it.
Well, no wonder the Prog/Libs want us to be more like Europe. I didn't know it was THAT bad over there, concerning TV stations. Thanks for the info.
Mr. Meyers, I suppose that you would rather see that we have no Internet and that we continue to get our information filtered through the members of JournoList and the 22 minutes at the the evening dinner hour that some small cabal defines as "news". Cyberspace has stripped the veil off our politicians and the media that report about them and it is far from a pretty sight. Far from "not having to think for ourselves", I question and reason, and yes, discern more. Having more information available is a bad thing? As far as "fringe elements" and "Village Idiots" go, who are you, Katie Couric, or the members of JournoList to tell me who these elements are? ……………. I can decide well enough, thank you. " Internet: Destroyer of Worlds" ? …………… perhaps but when I see a gov't and a mainstream media run by "fringe elements" and "village idiots" maybe it is time that world should pass and be replaced with something that actually works. Ever been to a New England town meeting? Sometimes loud, raucous and ulgy, it is the ultimate form of direct democratic rule- it WORKS. Welcome to the nation's biggest " town meeting", Mr. Meyers.
If it weren't for the internet, then how could we miss a village idiot such as this?
http://www.thefoxnation.com/basil-marceaux/2010/0...
The information revolution that is going on right now is going to change humanity in ways we can't even conceive. It's going to make the industrial revolution look like an afternoon nap.
And here we are, at the beginning, with front row seats!
Yeah, isn't it ironic? That fact was not lost on me either . . .
Seriously, stop the hate! /sarc
"With the internet, political disagreements have become toxic and destructive."
The Gulag had Twitter?
Nazi concentration camps had broadband connections?
Who knew?
Agreed, but…..
My husband just wanted to inform you that I don't fall into that category.
I have Truth Tourette's.
I bet a lot of people here do, too.
I KNOW AB's got it.
"Recognize there are things called “fallacies” that render most every statement invalid and untrue."
Including this one.
And remember: There are no absolutes.
Lighten up, my friend, there is nothing silly about progressives' desire to control the internet. Over the last few months I have written to the FCC in opposition to most of the regulations (net neutrality, etc.) they want to impose on internet providers as well as written my congressman and senators and ranted to anyone who would listen. I depend on the internet as a cost effective way to conduct business around the world. I know that more government involvement will only raise costs and inefficiency. It always does.
This guy was acting. He's a Prog Plant. He gave himself away several times, the stupid hick bit and the religious reference are all prog/lib stereotypes that they place on Repubs. Remember the Tea Party crasher that tried that? Probably in retaliation to Al Greene, who they are convinced is a Republican plant.
It would be better if colleges and universities didn't give free unlimited internet access to their students.
Ask yourself this: If Obama could, with a stoke of his pen, shutdown Rightist dissent and discourse to his FDR and Woodrow Wilson radical agenda and regime, would he? That is scary to think about. We must protect the Internet free-speech and Conservative news and radio, like a mother bear protects her young — standing tall, with teeth and claws ready to battle to the death — no matter how big the attack, or how hard they attack.
Freedom of speech is great! It lets you know who the stupid people are.
The internet is the greatest thing to come along since the First Amendment. It is the freest market place of ideas. Some are good, some are bad, some are downright dangerous. It is, however, a free market. Caveat emptor!
Everybody writes a stinker now and then, it's okay.
It may have meant the printing press back in the 1700s, but the press is now paper, tv, radio, and internet. And freedom of the press like that of speach is in all forms. Besides, the LCD screen is like the new age paper to in which the press can print on.
This is a set of fantastic and thoughtful set of comments from my readers. I want to thank you all for these enlightening posts because they added many different angles to the discussion that, frankly, show me how totally wrong I am.
I sent this article in after a particularly irritating conversation with — of course — some leftists. I was dismayed that, as usual, they seemed totally uninterested in even admitting that there was information neither of us had that rendered our opinions irrelevant. After trolling through the web that night looking for other opinions on the issue, I got really depressed at all the shouting that was going on. It just seems that there is no humility, sometimes on either side, and that civil discourse was dead.
So to make a few things clear:
I never said, nor do I support, that the internet be regulated or taken away.
That I am just as capable of fallacious argumentation than anyone else.
That, yes, I am fully aware of the irony of posting this article on the internet.
Andrew does not direct his contributors as far as content. It is self-generated.
In short, the good the internet brings us far outweighs the bad.
Thank you all for your intellects. I'll try not to let my emotions run away with me next time.
Another plus for the internet is making friends with people from all over the world who share your values and interests. It's amazing that you can have more in common with people on the other side of the globe than your next door neighbor.
I think the point that we need to engage people face to face is fine. But the attacks on the internet just confused me. Especially when, as others have said, the article is posted on the internet. I believe the internet has made facts more widely available. It allows us to quickly research and tear apart false claims spread around by other media.
Should we go back to being forced to believe everything the tv, newspapers, and magazines tell us? No thanks. I'd rather be able to disect all those stories piece by piece.
Great response!
Thanks.
Nowhere does the author argue this! Granted, bloggers are taken aback by this argument. But he is merely stating that this is not the battlefield upon which to win the war of ideas. The evidence that we find on the internet is not always trustworthy, it is twisted and molded. We can do a lot better just speaking to our neighbors, face to face, one on one, and having a civil discussion. Over the barbie. Beer in hand. That's my plan.
The potentials for deceit are limitless—-due to the fact that there are many individuals who neither have nor have a desire to adhere to anything resembling moral principles—-The Internet is a valuable tool to those who fit into either one of the above categories —That being said—Did I leave anything out?
What an absolutely IGNORANT and INANE thing to write on the internet. This thing called the internet has awoken more people to the REALITY that the Corrupt Media hid for decades from them. The internet is an EQUALIZER! now scurry along tool!
You must be logged in to post a comment.