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.