Debased Communications

[Michael Goodspeed]

I've recently found myself rudely awakened to the pathetic level of "discourse" at which much of the Internet currently functions. A few days ago, I posted a YouTube video featuring myself offering a monologue entitled, "9/11 Redux - Who are 'Sheeple'"? Now let me state clearly, it was not the intention of this video to instigate a debate on any questions of "conspiracy" in the 9/11 event. (And let me state equally clearly that I am not referencing this video here to provoke a discussion on 9/11, because that would be totally inappropriate for this forum, whose purpose is to explore the Electric Universe.) My only purpose was to question and challenge the tendency toward bullying, shouting-down, and debasement in Internet communications, and also, the extraordinary intolerance displayed by some members of the "alternative media" and so-called "conspiracy" crowd. I also pointed out an obvious irony -- all of us who argue for alternative schools of thought have sometimes encountered the rigid mindset of self-described "skeptics." We implore such people to be more open, circumspect, thoughtful, and humble. And yet many proponents of certain so-called alternative beliefs, including some alleged conspiracies, consistently behave in a manner that is FAR WORSE than the self-described "skeptics." This sad reality is illustrated with ugly clarity in the comment section of the aforementioned video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zX8B1yws-QQ

I must defer to our moderator Dave Smith's judgment in determining whether this post is appropriate for this forum. Again, I've NO INTENTION of beginning a debate on 9/11 or any specific conspiracy issues. I'm only interested in hearing the thoughts of other members on the quality of discourse they've experienced when discussing controversial issues on the Internet. Any thoughts?

[Michael Goodspeed]

And here is my follow-up video to the "9/11" one: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Lrfb5m1-c

[MGmirkin]

My experience has varied considerably with respect to "scientists," "skeptics," "pseudo-skeptics" and "gatekeepers." On some forums, I've encountered mild derision but nonetheless generally circumspect / tolerant / useful responses. On other forums, (BAUT and, I think, physics forums?), I've been more or less told to piss off (quick or immediate ban, despite bringing up specific points of discussion I wanted answers to or opinions on). I've attempted inquiries to the site admins, but have not heard back from BAUT re: ban, and could not even find a "contact us" option on the other forum. Talk about zero transparency or accountability. The Habitable Zone was a bit more tolerant, though still decidedly mainstream. At the point I was posting there I was VERY new to EU and, frankly, didn't know much. I'd probably fare better if I were to go back today, as I know a bit more and have some actual references and specific issues to address. Maybe I should stop by there on a lark some day soon, see what comes of it...

Slashdot is a mixed bag on the best of days. Despite being a "geek" site, the responses to specific technical issues often border on the absurd or libelous. There's a hefty amount of derision leveled at non-mainstreamers, and in my experience little actual useful technical banter except by those either staunchly opposed to an idea or those already "converted" to the idea. The rest is usually fluff that wastes everybody's time and ends up burying most "useful conversation" (unless it starts early and gets marked "useful" / "insightful" / "funny" by enough people).

So, yeah, pretty mixed bag, really.

~Michael Gmirkin

[Solar]

Looks to me that Goodspeed's original topic/intent was simply misunderstood by some and derailed. That will happen with unmoderated venues. There is also input from younger "leet speakers" who's spelling technique is a shorthand of proper spelling stemming from brevity via the world of MMORPG gaming and modern cell phone text messaging. That is primarily where the high degree of emotionalism (knee-jerk attacks) dominates because the ability to enter into objective discourse is undeveloped.

It's part of the package on YouTube and/or Google video when you face the masses at large. Only an adult mind will understand what the original intent and respond accordingly. Don't let this frustrate you Goodspeed. Whenever you see leet speaking shorthand realize that you're talking to a younger generation (high school and under probably) using modern day technology 'Their' way. Every generation has this sort of 'rebellious' development that temporarily separates them from the establishment by giving them something unique to 'Their' generation.

Venues such as YouTube do not moderate this nor can one 'lecture' them on the proper use of english. They know what that is and as soon as you show signs of not understanding that they've got you and every manner of intelligent discourse becomes fodder for the "generation gap" because they simply don't know how (haven't learned yet) to formulate an argument for or against a topic in the manner you're accustomed to.

[Michael Goodspeed]

Hi there Solar,

Wow, your comments are timely, as they parallel my own thoughts perfectly. I've just finished the rough draft of a new article entitled, "The Internet & the Death of Communication," and here is a paragraph that dovetails nicely with your thoughts above (and incidentally, I'd appreciate any feedback you'd like to offer on these remarks):

"If cognition weeps over YouTube's most popular videos, it runs screaming 'Jesus Christ, hallelujah' over the YouTube comment sections. At a ratio optimistically figured at 7,897 to 1, the illiterate, debased, feverishly grotesque remarks outnumber the intelligent, reasonable, and recognizably human ones. It's no coincidence that today, an entire generation of youngsters have spent their lives primarily 'communicating' through quasi-shortand (sometimes called 'leet speaking') via the worlds of 'gaming,' text messaging, and Internet chat rooms. Not only is this language murder on the eyes and intellect, it is far from conducive to reasonable and substantive discourse. In fact, one wonders if young people whose native tongue is 'leet speaking' will EVER be equipped to use language properly or formulate intellectual arguments (not entirely unlike the CroMagnon man, whose lexicon presumably never rose above a collection of grunts and bellows)."

Too much???

[Divinity]

Hey Michael I think anyone with a serious message to transmit, who chooses the Internet as a medium, runs exactly the same risk as the one you have described above so well. The 'pearls before swine' argument is valid but I personally believe it's always worth the time/energy to try to do the best you can if the message is important enough simply because of the silent 'lurkers', i.e. the ones who won't comment but are ready to take on-board what you are telling them or trying to teach them. When you keep repeating the same message in different formats, or, as I do, sew 'seeds', eventually, the message starts to be taken seriously particularly when similar messages are being transmitted by other members of our forum here or other EU experts.

Recall, there are paid 'trolls' out there to discredit anyone wishing to emanate truth, particularly on this subject, as it's vital - we are talking about the nature of reality and our Universe - which Government would not take an interest in a credible alternative to the lies the establishment have put out for years? All authorities know the danger of the internet: freedom of information, global networking, cross-cultural kinships, conspiracy sites, and those ardent to get the truth out in all directions/fields despite threats/closures, etc. That's why the paid debunkers do it...to stop the likes of you from being effective. In fact, the ruder people are to you, the better the sign that you are threatening the establishment, in my mind, hahaha!

In my experience, if you come across as honest, credible and with no agenda other than to emit the truth, you will gain a steady and respectable audience but it does take time. I feel the odds you provide are a little harsh. Remember that many of the top guru's on the 'net have been doing it for near on ten years and I'm sure they came across similar problems earlier on in their careers.

In my mind, the message you are putting out is worthwhile enough to press on regardless as long as you don't take things personally (i.e. don't get hurt or burn yourself out).

And, despite what we might perceive as 'youthful ignorance', free speech is something I believe to be crucial in an open and free society. I never was one for censorship. Even if they can't necessarily express themselves eloquently, they still have a right to their opinion and sometimes, the opinion of the young is wiser than their parents,

Much love and gratitude to you for all you do,
Divinity

[moses]

What is the profile of the person that will look into EU and find truth ?
Not a mainstream scientist. Maybe a plasma physicist. And the kids
are conditioned. So it's an unusual beast we are after. Are we looking
in the right places for such people ? I think we can see a trend in this
forum as to the psychological profile of the people that have come here.
Curious people !
Mo