Wowoowowow, brilliant. One of your best pieces, really. Okay, I feel better. For some reason I was afraid you were going to get down in the gutter with some of the racists on PW or like some of those nutjob cops on BushBK. Carry on! Can't wait to see the rest! Love you, MSTG.
Here is the intro and first of what will be several incidents of nonsense described in the article:
For the first time in the history of any nation, a significant portion of our citizenry is in perpetual and unfiltered contact with a significant portion of the citizenry of other nations. This is almost certain to bring a fundamental change to the manner in which America communicates with the outside world; rather than being conducted by employees of the State Department, a ring of well-connected diplomats, and those media prominent enough to be heard overseas, foreign relations will become an eternal sort of process, conducted at a million points of contact each day and with each point communicating a different opinion and a unique manner of presentation.
All of this has the potential to accomplish a great deal of what governments often attempt on their own by way of diplomacy. If half of Ugana gets on the internet tomorrow and the world's non-Ugandans find them charming and reasonable, Uganda is that much more likely to win trade concessions, financial assistance, and student visas with which to get the fuck out of Uganda. And before any conflict can arise between two nations, there will have been an informal and scattered yet nonetheless tremendous "talking phase" between the respective memberships of those populations that would end up doing the actual fighting.
That is what the Clinton-era AT&T commercials would have you believe, anyway, and to some extent it is true, or at least potentially so. But there also exists the very strong possibility that Ugandans will prove themselves to be boring or emotionally needy, causing them to lose out on tourism and become the subject of international ridicule. And perhaps two populations that suddenly find themselves in constant contact will discover that each hates the other very much, making war not only necessary but desirable. Utopia is a fine prospect if you're handling an information technology firm's marketing campaign, but it tends not to translate well to real life.
How will Americans look as the globalization of the internet brings a billion new foreigners in close contact with those of us who express our political views online, no matter the medium? Some of us will seem reasonable and well-intentioned, and to the extent that this comes through, our standing will increase. Some of us will seem unreasonable and downright mean-spirited, and to that extent we will suffer from the ill will of the rest of the world at the very time in which we most need it to achieve our national objectives. Some of us will appear both benevolent and malicious at various times, as those of us who have acted poorly on the internet are all too aware.
On the whole, though, we are in danger of presenting a bad face. This nation, like many others, is home to millions of strange, unhappy people of bad character and worse debate skills, and it would appear that every single one of them has a broadband connection.
For the last two years, I have been commenting at a popular blog called Protein Wisdom, which, though written from a largely classical liberal bent, is frequented by a crowd that's probably best described as conservative. Over the course of this time, I have made every effort to engage in honest debate without resort to incivility, saving my various lame attempts at barbed wit for those who conduct themselves badly. This has been confirmed by blog founder Jeff Goldstein, who on Friday noted that I "like to debate, and are civil in so doing," although he does express reservations about my methods and intent. "I don't think you are always as invested in the question under discussion as you are invested in the act of debating," he wrote. "And like any skilled rhetorician you have retreated to semantics when your position weakens. As have I." Likewise, contributor Dan Collins, who ran the blog for a while in Goldstein's absence and with whom I have debated on several occasions, noted on Friday that "I have always found you civil at PW," adding that "you argue in good faith, and make the effort to inform yourself and to consider other people's views." All of which is to say that I am a swell guy whom you would probably not mind dating your daughter.
Bearing in mind my your-daughter compatibility, the largely negative and often incompetent reaction I received is illustrative of a number of things, several of which you probably already knew without my help:
1. It is impossible to argue with a crowd of people who are constantly reinforcing each other's opinions.
2. Large groups of like-minded people, even when presented with facts to the contrary, will nonetheless advance false assertions.
3. The blogosphere can not only be a useful means of advancing information that might otherwise be left untouched by the traditional media, but may also be a means by which nonsense is incubated, spread, and implemented.
4. It is important to ridicule people who damage the national discourse.
5. The internet is serious business.
It should be noted at this point, and will be related more thoroughly later, that Protein Wisdom was picked for this article not because it is some unusually terrible venue for online discussion; in fact, it caters to one of the most collectively cerebral audiences one may find within the right side of the blogosphere. Several commenters conducted themselves with perpetual poise and good faith, and blog chieftain Dan Collins in particular was not only exceedingly civil, but also quick to correct any minor errors on his part when alerted to them, even when alerted to them in the irritating and unnecessarily verbose manner in which I like to alert people to their minor errors.
In a series of follow-up articles, we'll take a look at how many of the dynamics listed above are universal to the blogosphere; why several editors of The New Republic are nonetheless wrong about their fear of "blogofascism," as one of them has called it; what the folks at Protein Wisdom have to say in response to this article; and perhaps something else. Incidentally, all of this is filler intended to disguise the fact that I am actually just airing my various inconsequential internet debate grievances. I mean, uh:
The Thomas Paine Affair
Protein Wisdom contributor Darleen Click, who has been running the site for a while now, at some point got into the habit of characterizing ACORN as a "criminal enterprise," presumably because some of its employees were found to have committed crimes while on the job. I suggested that, if this was how "criminal enterprise" is to be defined, then the Catholic Church must also be a criminal enterprise insomuch as that many of its employees were also found to have committed crimes while on the job, and that these crimes were not only of a more serious nature, but also seemingly more widespread even when taking into account the relative size of the church. This made several people very angry, leading me to be denounced as some sort of anti-papist, which I am. I noted in response that Thomas Paine and other Founding Fathers were just as distrustful of the church as I; some fellow retorted that Thomas Paine was not a Founding Father; I replied that many historians disagree, and further noted that Paine "has long been referred to as the Father of the American Revolution for a reason;" the same fellow proposed that this could be because "people dont know what the fuck theyre talking about;" I explained that it was Thomas Jefferson who first described him as such, and further implied that Thomas Jefferson may have known what he was talking about insomuch as that he is Thomas Jefferson. The Point: If ACORN is a criminal enterprise, then so are plenty of other things that the gang at PW would probably not want to see referred to as a criminal organization. Incidentally, ACORN is indeed kind of a criminal enterprise insomuch as that it is an enterprise with several employees that have broken the law in the course of their duties- just like the Nixon Administration, the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration, the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, the other Bush Administration, and, according to my watch, the Obama Administration, and also the Catholic Church. So maybe we should save the term "criminal enterprise" for those enterprises that are involved first and foremost in crime, such as the Crips or that incorrigible gang of older fellows on my dad's side of the family who worked for Lyndon Johnson before he was president. Oh, and the Johnson Administration. So, yeah, let's save it for the Crips and the Johnson Administration.