I love this article. It's wry, depressingly true in many respects, and delightfully quotable. Every time I read it I giggle and then shake my head a little and click out of the window before I start contemplating the deeper meaning of our potential label as a nation and/or generation of whiners.
But even though it contains marvelous tidbits like, "I want my goddamn apocalypse, and I want it now", the real reason I wanted to write about this article is because of the paragraph below:
You have but to take a peek in the comments section below this column, any column, any article on this or any news site whatsoever, to see just how mean and nasty we have become. It does not matter what the piece might be about. Obama's speech. High speed rail. Popular dog breeds. Your grandmother's cookies. The anonymous comments section of any major media site or popular blog will be so crammed with bile and bickering, accusation and pule, hatred and sneer you can't help but feel violently disappointed by the shocking lack of basic human kindness and respect, much less a sense of positivism or perspective.
I'm in far too good a mood to write about this topic with any real force or anger behind my words - though maybe that's exactly why I should write about it now, but I've had a post percolating for weeks about commenting and etiquette on the internet.
I'm blessed with generally polite commentors on this blog and I am very thankful for it. Not that you all always agree with me- that's neither desired nor expected; after all I've been training JP for nearly 9 years and he still disagrees with me all the time. But your disagreement (like his) is phrased thoughtfully rather than angrily or scornfully, and because of that, the comments section for my work/life posts are some of my favorites to read. And that's sadly rare for any site that allows anonymous comments and is read by a good number of anonymous people.
I actually banned anonymous comments for a period of about 6 hours after this post. I also deleted a lot of purely vitriolic tripe published by people whose opinions I decided did not deserve to be heard. Your First Amendment rights don't get you anywhere on my blog- it's not a public forum and I'm not the government, I get to moderate at will. But I don't want to delete. I don't want to have to squint my eyes and skim through every anonymous comment to check to see if I really want to read it or just delete it quickly. I don't want to think about the negative ones long after they're deleted and mentally draft and re-draft responses I'll never publish.
And what I don't understand- what I will never undersatnd- is the sense of entitlement some people feel to be mean just because we're online. I can't tell you how many times I've heard some variation of - well you're the one putting yourself out there so you should expect criticism (and impliedly deserve it). But why? I leave the house every day without a need to steel myself against criticism or nastiness from those I encounter. Is it possible someone will be rude to me? Of course, but it's not expected and certainly not accepted behavior the way some people seem to think it is on the internet. Are there two sets of rules? Are we really going to teach our children, the next generation will which likely have so much of their lives revolve around the internet, that it's important to be nice or polite to those we meet, but on the internet making someone feel like shit is perfectly okay? And it's more than okay, it's practically your duty.
I don't understand that. With any amount of thought and intelligence it is possible to disagree with someone, and disagree forcibly, without being insulting or sending them the electronic equivalent of a punch in the stomach. And this goes far beyond my little website- as I've said, I'm blessed with a pretty awesome community of readers whose comments I genuinely look forward to reading. But some of the big mommy blogger sites can get so nasty that I've stopped clicking on the comments. And isn't that sad? They're such an opportunity for discussion and commentary on parenthood and working and life.
I wonder what those sites will be like in the future. Will the internet become friendlier under a generation of children raised with the possibility of speaking anonymously and hopefully given the guidelines and ability to handle it? That's probably too optimistic, but I like to think it's possible. I definitely think that if some people's parents could read what they've been commenting to a person, a real live person, on the other end of the internet, they'd be put in time-out immediately.
Peppermint Bark
20 hours ago
That article is awesome! It reminds me of this clip from Conan that my husband showed me a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN0MpBQG3-E
ReplyDeleteAlthough it didn't seem to get ugly on that previous post until you responded with so much anger at the two people who expressed what seemed like just some sort of disappointment that you'd chosen an SUV. So, up until then, I'd say it was non-malicious disagreement for a while on that post.
ReplyDeleteWell said!
ReplyDeleteAnon, you didn't see the ones I deleted. And I still think that with slightly more effort those who were expressing "disappointment" could have done so in a way that was far less dismissive (like "I thought you were smart" and "you suck the hope out of the world") and far more thoughtful. It would have furthered their purpose much better, and I do believe that that effort would have been made in a real life conversation, which was the point of my musings.
ReplyDeleteHi LL! I've been reading for a long time but have never posted until now. I just wanted to say "thank you" for writing your blog, and keeping it public. I started reading years ago when I was in law school. Now I'm expecting my first child, right around when your second is due. Your posts on work and life and kids have been very enjoyable. I hope you keep writing for a long time!
ReplyDeleteFair point, LL. --Anon 5:41.
ReplyDeleteI figure you're a nobody until somebody hates on you, anonymously or semi-anonymously. Yay! You're famous! :) But I don't allow "anonymous" comments, because I figure if you got somethin' to say, you ought to sign [at least someone's] name to it.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine being any, even minor, celebrity and having people write such horrible things about me. I loved that Tina Fey mentioned some online haters during one of her award show acceptance speeches, to the effect of "suck it!" Awesome.
I totally agree with what you wrote LL. I hope people will take your post to heart, and remember to be kind in all media. :)
ReplyDeleteI love your blog LL, but I must say I'm always a little concerned how incredibly angry you get whenever someone disagrees with you. This can happen out in the real world too...
ReplyDeletePlus you have to admit there is something a little ironic about the owner of a large SUV lecturing people on being decent to others.
LL, as you know, I agree completely. It is sad that the Internet forms a shield of anonymity so that certain people think they can be as mean as they want, as if they are not "talking" to a real, living, breathing human being on the other side. I don't understand why Internet etiquette should be any different than "in real life" etiquette. It is not - as our Moms taught us in Kindergarten, "treat others as you would wish to be treated" and "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to thank you for being so open and honest on your blog. Although we have never met in real life, I have really gotten to know you over the years and I enjoy sharing ups and downs with you.
P.S. Thanks for the hilarious article. Americans are certainly a dissatisfied bunch!
Stacy, I don't think I've ever been "incredibly angry" when someone has disagreed with me. I've been hurt, surprised, and annoyed by things people have written, but very rarely angry, much less incredibly so. I'm trying to think back on the times I've written in my own comments and usually it's to answer a question or respond to a disagreement that was phrased thoughtfully and made me think. I can really think of only one time I've written because I was upset and even then, that was motivated more by hurt than anger.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that disagreement happens in the real world. I live and work with people I disagree with all the time- my point was that it's usually phrased differently in those situations. I was really referring to the spiteful things people write in comments on blogs much bigger than mine that have no substantive value whatsoever- they're just hateful. I think those things would very rarely, if ever, be said in person and I don't see why some people think it's okay to tear someone down just because it's the internet. To me, the rules are the same in both worlds, or at least they should be.
And do you honestly think the owner of an SUV can't be a decent person, or by virtue of such ownership is suddenly completely devoid of moral authority? Because that is absurd.
Of course owners of SUVs can be decent people. However choosing and SUV is a clear example of putting yourself before the safety and welfare of others, and that choice I would say , no, is not decent. I've know too many people injured in auto accidents with SUVs to have any sympathy for people who make that choice. Let alone the air pollution, climate change etc.
ReplyDeleteMaybe its just because I didn't see the posts you deleted but I don't see anything in those comments that I don't see day to day in the real world
Hey LL - I read your blog a lot and from what I get, you are an extremely polite, thoughtful, and aware person. Other people out there (including people who post overly nasty comments) - not so much! It's as simple as that :)
ReplyDeleteLL you and I touched on this briefly yesterday. I'm always surprised at what topics and comments will really set people off. I remember reading an article about the poop-mud at ACL Festival 2009 and how mad the commenters were at the festival promoters, the city AND EACH OTHER! I actually laughed it was so ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think the anonymity of the online world makes some people feel protected to share their own thoughts without consequences, and they just let the insults roll like verbal diarrhea. Additionally, it is easier to get mad at another anonymous online commenter that they don't know because they don't see them as a real person...they dont know their personality or background story.
Luckily your followers are respectful of you because they feel they know you. :)
I read the thread relating to the initial SUV and saw some of the comments that were deleted. They were DEFINITELY out of hand and uncalled for. In fact, I chatted with LL about it afterwards, as I was very surprised by the tone of some of the comments.
ReplyDeleteThe point of LL's thread about the SUV was about her husband and how they got their first new car in a decade. It is the kind of situation where a "Congrats!" or "Wow, JP is a great husband" or no comment at all would have sufficed. LL was not asking for feedback or approval on her family's choice of vehicle. And even if a commenter felt like expressing his or her point of view on the SUV issue, they could have said it nicer. Just as in real life, when people don't ask for my input, I don't give it - even if I don't necessarily agree with that person's decision. In real life, if a friend pulled up in her new SUV, would you berate her for buying an SUV, even if you disagreed with her decision? I doubt it... Had LL posted, "Hey we're debating between this large SUV and a minivan, what do you think?" or "Gosh, JP really loves this SUV. What do you think? Should we get it?" some of the comments would have been more appropriate.
I see LT's point about how disapproving comments weren't directly on point, but maybe some of the commenters think that just making people feel some responsibility, or face the fact that their decisions do have consequences for other people, is more important than proper netiquette sometimes. The reason many people still buy SUVs is because they haven't had someone tell them all the bad effects that such buying decisions have on the rest of the planet and world. Climate change is just one thing (albiet pretty big), but if I'm in an accident in my Hyundai Elantra with a big SUV, I'm toast. Is the solution to have everyone drive big cars? That seems dumb.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be nice if cars were like a magician's box and a little smart car could hold multiple kids, adults, strollers, pets, groceries and miscellaneous items? If that were possible, maybe then everyone could be forced to drive small cars. But it's just as easy for little car drivers to say that SUV drivers are "putting [themselves] before the safety and welfare of others" as it is for big SUV drivers to say that people who drive little cars endanger themselves and their passengers by taking their deathtraps on the freeway where they know big cars pose a threat if they were to collide. It makes me laugh to think there are actually people out there who judge your worth as a person based on the car you buy.
ReplyDeleteI always thought anonymous commenting followed this theory to a T:
ReplyDeletehttp://sc.tri-bit.com/Image:greaterinternetfuckwadtheory.jpg
Maria (and others), I used to love small cars and resented SUVs every bit as much as you do. I hated how I couldn't see over an SUV when I was trying to make a turn while driving a little 2 door Neon (old style). I felt vulnerable on the highway next to SUVs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, small cars simply don't work for families. We currently have a Toyota Rav-4 (a small SUV) and a Toyota Matrix (a hatchback Corolla). Neither car is well equipped for 3 carseats - the Rav-4 doesn't even have a proper seatbelt for the middle seat. We currently have 2 kids with one on the way. Right now, we have one in a booster seat and one in a full size carseat. Nowadays, kids are in booster seats untilt hey are 8! Only the Rav-4 is big enough for car trips with the four of us because it fits our luggage. The Matrix only works for around town when we don't need a lot of "stuff." Even then, neither car is big enough for us to take a single extra person. When we go ANYWHERE, even with just my 4'11", 90 lb. mom, we need an extra car. I'm thinking that's pretty bad for our carbon footprint - probably worse to take a Matrix and a Honda Civic (my Mom's car) than a single large SUV that fits everybody.
So, what we plan to do is trade in the Matrix (we like the trunk space of the Rav-4) and get a minivan or an SUV with a spacious 3rd row seat. Yep, it's a heck of a lot bigger than your Elantra or someone else's Mini, but we simply can't fit in a sedan. Before you cast stones, you have to think about the amount of thought that goes into a car purchase. I doubt LL purchased her car blindly - she commented that a primary consideration was her need to haul 2 kids, 2 large dogs, relatives etc. She did what is best for her family and you do what is best for yours.
It's interesting, the phenomenon of hideously rude and content-free anonymous comments. Of course, they've been around forever (cave walls, bathroom stalls, personal ads...) but the intertubes gave these scribblers an infinite and even interactive audience. Joy! But it strikes me that when things like comment opportunities on big blogs first appeared, the internets were still pretty new and relatively few people had their own blog, Facebook walls were not even a thought, and the whole experience was more one of viewing rather than real participation. Now, even my mother has a Facebook page, and the experience is more personal for everyone -- we almost all have some space out there in which people can leave comments.
ReplyDeleteSo my thought (I have one!) is that perhaps over time some of the culture of extreme rudeness will wane, some of the rough edges will be modified by the pressures and forces of "civilization." It will be interesting to see, as people absorb the horrible and tragic stories of people driven to suicide by anonymous comments, of careers aborted and miseries endured, whether people begin to feel that just as in the real world a certain minimum level of civility is a prerequisite for civilization to endure (the same root word there is no accident), the same may be true in the virtual world.
In the meantime, thank goodness for the delete button.
Actually, before the advent of SUVs, families got along fine. People owned minivans and station wagons. Sorry, but a person in a small car is much less likely to die in a crash with a minivan than an SUV, not to mention they get better gas mileage. You're kidding yourself if you think an SUV is your only option. You don't think there are people with families that don't drive SUVs?? If you are choosing it because it is more convenient for you, don't be intellectually dishonest and say there are no other options.
ReplyDeleteLL,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observations, and would like to add one. I think the problem is worse than you describe. It's not just that internet anonymity encourages commenters to be rude and uncivil in expressing their views, it is also that it encourages juvenile and uncivil ways of thinking. In a civil society, people are supposed to be able to disagree about moral questions without believing each other to be immoral people. This, I had thought, was elementary. But no.
Now, you have (presumably educated) commenters whose thought process works like this: (1) I hold position X. (2) I have reasons for my position. I think those reasons are morally right. (3) Anyone who disagrees with X is immoral, selfish, and ought to be ashamed of himself. (4) I should tell him so. I will do so in a tone and at a volume that conveys not just my disagreement, but his unrighteousness.
I'm totally with you about the rudeness and lack of manners it requies to go from (3) to (4). But, in my view, the perniciousness of the move from (2) to (3) is the greater cause for pessimism. Of course there are fundamental moral questions for which that sort of logic is probably appropriate. There are also questions for which it obviously is not. It's safe to say that the vast majority of lawful choices fall into this category, where you can have strong opinions about a policy without failing to acknowledge a permissible range of disagreement about how people should behave.
I suspect that mouthing off without social consequences attached to condemning someone encourages people not just to ignore that step, but to stop thinking about it at all. That is why your SUV detractors---who are, by the way, splendid caricatures of themselves---are so demoralizing to me.
--Matt
Do you think there could be any possible gain to hearing things people might feel but too afraid to tell you in person? Particularly when it comes to questions of morality?
ReplyDeleteWhat's more rude? Not caring whether you're having a larger than necessary (not convenient) impact on the environment and foreign policy and being more dangerous to others on the road, or sharing with others that you think that SUVs are just bad for society? I seriously doubt that most people who are anti-SUV actually think that people who choose to drive them are "immoral." It is a cause for concern, however, when people begin convincing themselves (and trying to convince others) that there are no options to parents besides SUVs. This is just not the case (as a mother of 3, I am well aware). To deride everyone who thinks SUVs are harmful and tries to persuade others of the same is simply engaging in the exact behavior you claim to be lamenting.
ReplyDeleteJust a response to Maria - we used to be able to get by with smaller vehicles for more kids because there weren't car seats. I remember growing up sitting in the back of a van without any seat belt. My parents could easily fit all four of us that way. But, now with car seats, you can't fit three kids in a single row most of the time. We bought an SUV recently because we wanted something that would carry three kids. We looked for what had a third row and still had decent gas mileage. We are happy with our choice - bought a slightly used American vehicle. I try to make my trips as gas-efficient as possible and don't just go driving around town in it. But, we needed a vehicle that would carry 3 kids. A minivan would have held us just fine, but our SUV doesn't get much worse gas mileage than that (1mpg)!
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone in this thread who is hammering LL for buying an SUV buys ONLY organic milk and produce, eats no meat, and uses only green energy. Otherwise, you're putting your own convenience ahead of society and the earth, and you're selfish and lacking in morals.
ReplyDeleteI have been following this thread about SUVS and rude anonymous comments and at first I told myself I would say nothing. Unfortunatley, I can't help myself, I have to say something! First off, on the rude comment situation - who cares about anonymous comments and comments on the internet in general? The comments are just words and even when a name is left are usually written by someone who doesn't even konw the author of the blog or article they are commenting on. Rude comments are hilarious, I love them. LL, it is a compliment that so many people would get fired up and leave rude comemnts on your blog - think of the time they took out of their day to do that. Second, on the SUV situation. I am a proud drive of a hybrid and I love it. I have a young child in a car seat and two dogs and we can travel on long car trips just fine in our hybrid hatchback. I know that things will become more tight when a second baby rolls around, but we will make it work. That being said, I understand that people sometimes need larger cars; however, there are more environmentally friendly alternatives. Has anyone ever hear of a a hybrid SUV? We should all do the very best we can for this earth because we did not inherit the earth from our parents we are borrowing it from our children. That being said, there is always more we can do for this planet, even my pompous Prius driving self!
ReplyDelete-Crystal
A reply to Stephanie:
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of things I find puzzling about your comment. Most importantly, I think you mistake the meaning of the word "rude." I mean by this word, as I suspect most people do, to refer to social discourtesy, not to "not caring [about the things you think a person shoud care about]." In other words, you make the word "rude" just another word for "bad"---so expansive as to make it a useless word.
Then you explain that, surely, not caring about environmental harms is more "rude" (which is just to say, "worse") than "sharing with others [your beliefs about environmental policy]." The unspoken conclusion, I guess, is that since SUV-buying is "worse" than being a good-natured advocate for sound policy, all this anonymous internet-bashing is ok. (Of course, that doesn't make sense even on its own terms, since it's possible for two things to be "rude" or "bad" at the same time, even if one is worse than the other.)
This argument exactly illustrates LL's point, along with the problem I meant to highlight before. First, it ought to be possible to disagree with a person's choices or beliefs without saying that he is "rude" (or whatever synonym for "bad" or "immoral" you like) for not coming to the same conclusions that you do. That was my point. LL's point, as I understood it, was much more important: some ways of expressing disagreement are discourteous, so you shouldn't engage in them no matter what you think of the person's choices. That is to say, it is vital that the distinction between rudeness and wrongness be maintained; your comparison is pernicious exactly because it eliminates that distinction, and logically would allow any amount harshness in "sharing" your views so long as you think it's not as "bad" as the thing you're complaining about. Rules of social courtesy exist so that we do not have to engage in this sort of weighing exercise everytime someone says something insulting.
Last, on a different note, I didn't follow your point about "necessary" versus "convenient" environmental impact. I had always understood the argument against SUVs to be a consequentialist one: these cause more harms than goods, so they are socially inconvenient, but people drive them anyway because they can force other people to suffer the harms while they get all the benefits. Well, if that's true, what it means is that there may be an optimal number of SUVs out there that isn't zero. No one really disputes that; for example, I'd guess an ambulance is probably even less fuel-efficient but serves an important function that justifies the environmental harm. All this absolutism among the negative comments strikes me as sort of weird for this reason. It's possible to think we should have a public policy about SUVs that reduces their number (say by increasing costs) without reflexively concluding that no one should buy one. Maybe LL is one of the people who should.
Matt, don't you think that your blatant condescension is a little socially discourteous? I honestly don't even think you read my post -- it really is too "puzzling" for you to follow? I certainly wasn't advocating for people who are jackasses on the internet. In fact, I clearly stated that most people who are not in favor of SUVs do not think the people that drive them are immoral. And I think it is impolite, no matter how you want to define the word "rude," to put others in danger for your own convenience. My point is I don't understand why we should care more about anonymous hurt feelings over the internet than the lives of actual people. Is that too impolite to say?
ReplyDeleteTo clarify: it is not necessary for the vast majority of people to drive SUVs, but it is simply more convenient for them.
I was trying to get across the point of saying we could agree without calling the other person names or deriding them. To say it again, though, when those who are pro-SUV stoop to the same level and just blast anyone who expresses an opinion different than theirs, they are engaging in the same behavior of which they claim to disapprove. Do you disagree?
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteOn reflection I probably did come off as condescending, and I apologize. I meant to attack the argument (which I assure you I did indeed read) and not the person making it, but I probably didn't do that well. Of course I agree with you that the same standard applies to people on either side of the SUV debate.
I will not retreat from the substance of my point, though, which is this: the theory of "what's a little hurt feelings compared with people's lives" has no limit; you could as easily say it about any point of political disagreement with anyone. Don't like people eating meat? Well why not tell a carnivore so in a restaurant? After all, what's a little hurt feelings and embarassment for a stranger next to the humane treatment of animals? Think school vouchers are a good idea? Why not yell at a teachers union representative the next time you see one? After all, what's a little hurt feelings next to the education of our children? And so on. Being on the internet has nothing to do with it under this harm-weighing theory. So I reject the theory, and I think you should too.
Matt, I think you're missing my point though, which maybe is not coming across very well. I DON'T think that people should be mean or yell or any of those things, but the world would be a much worse place if people were too afraid of being polite and let that friend or stranger who had too much to drink drive home, endangering others on the road. Where is the limit to your argument?? The bottom line is there is a judgment call to be made in both directions, but the extremes of both of our arguments would be bad for society.
ReplyDeleteI do think that it is healthy and productive sometimes for people to be faced with someone who disapproves strongly with them on an issue because it makes people think and reconsider their opinions based on things that perhaps they have never thought about. Sometimes, people actually change their minds. To surround yourself with only "yes men" is problematic.
Fair enough. I agree that's healthy "sometimes" but I guess I don't think anonymous internet commenting is one of those occasions. People like to have friends and colleagues that confront them with different points of view, to be sure. But those people are invested in the continued civility of the relationship, and have done something to earn the first person's respect and attention. The anonymous internet stranger has not, which is why I think it's not at all the same. And I think the original point is that people are much more caustic online than they would be in person; that strikes me as a bad thing. Anyway, I'm content to let you have the last word.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I don't think your argument holds any water at all. It's all a matter of degrees, and you are just setting the line in one place where others would set it differently.
ReplyDeleteWould you not think it strange if people had not agressivly (and rudely) disagreed about civil rights in the 1960s? Just because you don't find this issue as pressing as that is just a symptom of your ideology rather than some overarching theory about how people should relate to each other.
Matt, to be honest I think sometimes the only time people have enough guts to say what they think should be said is when it is in a more or less anonymous forum. I think that people probably react more harshly than they should online because it is an outlet for them that they wouldn't normally say in person (which is probably the essence of LL's whole point). And if your point was just that people unnecessarily and ridiculously behave like complete jerks online because they mask themselves anonymously, then I think we are in agreement 100%. I just don't think that all comments that make people uncomfortable or that make people feel judged are inappropriate. There is a line to be drawn between venting and just expressing one's opinion -- whether that may be annoying to anyone else. I think we are probably closer on this issue than we think, Matt.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is a good time to jump back in to my comments (which while fascinating, have become somewhat disassociated from my original post) and note that I very much agree that disagreement is valuable. And I think the online forum is valuable precisely because it allows people to disagree and express themselves with more freedom and more thought than they might ever be able to do in person. This is why I like blogging and why I usually enjoy the commentors on my own blog so much, especially on those posts when people offer points of view different than mine (like the working v. staying home posts that I mentioned).
ReplyDeleteWhat I lament and simply don't understand are the vicious comments. The ones that contribute nothing to the conversation and instead attack without any attempt at reason or substance. I can't imagine thinking up some of the things people leave as comments on personal blogs, much less sending them to another human being, and I don't understand why they would think such things are okay or to be expected. (To a lesser extent I also don't understand the comments that are rude or dismissive and would still argue that it is possible to disagree forcibly with someone without stooping to rudeness. And would note that if you manage to do so, your views are probably far more likely to be considered by the person you are addressing. But I still publish rude comments as long as they have a point to them; the types of comments I was referring to in my post aren't published anywhere on this blog.)
But back to the main point, it is because I think other views are important that it makes me sad that I now stay away from the comment sections on certain websites. And that is a loss because the posts that seem to attract the most "bile and bickering...hatred and sneer" are the ones that could have produced the most interesting conversations.