Not so long ago, I was chatting with a blogging colleague of mine who, after discussing our similar woes with trolling in our comments (mine, thankfully, are pretty light…his aren’t), said to me:
“When did I become the enemy?”
Certainly, with a great deal of severe evil in the world, people trying to take advantage of others everyday, spammers, phishers and other online creeps, rapists, bashers, child molesters, wife beaters and other horrid criminals that make the world unsafe, terrorism, and governments that torture and beat their citizens into silence…how does someone who is actually trying to change a little pocket of their world become the enemy?
I’ve heard some strange support from people recently: “Well, I may not always agree with what Kathy says, but she doesn’t deserve the death threats.”
What is there not to agree with? (everyone is concentrating on this line, which was just my own stupid joke that didn’t come across that way - so I’m striking it)
Maybe you don’t like an approach. Find it too positive and upbeat. Sure, like the rest of us who have faith in humankind, it may appear naive, but from my perspective, we need a heckuvalot more of that positivity in the world. As Kathy said to me:
“The world doesn’t need more rage.”
Absolutely.
So, why do people turn their hatred and rage and energy against people like Kathy? Like Robert? Like Michael? Like Violet? Like Scott? Why target people who actually do something about the crappy status quo?
Well, I have a few ideas, but maybe you’ll have more:
- They like the attention. Yeah, well, if they spent time making hateful remarks about a big corporation polluting, they would probably be ignored or lost in the sea of concerned citizens. By attacking an individual, it’s pretty certain that they will get some sort of response.
- They are envious. The targets of these attacks have usually gained some level of notoriety on a subject the attacker may have been talking about for years without attention. Instead of examining why they hadn’t reached the same notoriety (and “because people are idiots” isn’t a satisfactory answer), the frustration is turned towards those who have.
- They are angry (with themselves). It’s hard to be angry with yourself. I know. I’ve been there before. It is a feeling that spirals. There are very few places that anger can go.
- They want instant gratification. When you release that anger in a way that gets the attention (see #1) and you see instant results. These results give instant gratification: a quick rush of power. For most of us, it is followed by an instant feeling of guilt (feeling like a bully), but some disempowered people can swallow this feeling in favour of the powerful one.
- They are afraid. If you think there is a right way to do something, but instead of doing it, you spend your energy on attacking those who are doing it ‘wrong’, it seems a pretty poor use of your expertise…unless you are afraid you are wrong. I think these attacks are a form of procrastination.
I’m trying to be empathetic here. We’ve all felt envious. We’ve all enjoyed attention. We’ve all been afraid. But most of us understand that spending time and energy attacking people working towards something positive and good is a waste of time and energy.
A closing thought from Iris, a very insightful commenter, here:
How is it possible that just by expressing a thought, an idea, or just a stand you get people to react with so much hatred and lunacy? This is beyond my understanding.
It’s beyond mine, too, Iris.
:: P.S. I am differentiating this type of attack from the really really horrific stuff that went down just recently, too. There is an extra level of mental illness that is involved in those attacks…as well as the actual evil that emerged after this started with the black hat hackers who chose to expose SSNs and addresses, wishing to encourage true, physical harm.
8 Comments
Damn it Miss Rogue! I find myself in disagreement with you again.
First of all,
“What is there not to agree with?”
If you were talking about a post of mine I’d take issue with this. A blogger no one ever disagrees with is a failed blogger - a blogger with nothing to say. Any strong idea is worth a debate and we should welcome debate. It’s an opportunity to test our opinions and ideas, to flesh them out and refine them, and to learn.
“The world doesn’t need more rage.”
I respectfully suggest that anger (against injustice) provided the impetus for at least some of the books you list as your favourites, and many other important works and actions. I think anger has its place if it’s tempered with some intelligence and applied logic. Was MLK wrong to get angry about racism? Where would we be without that anger?
Who decides what’s positive and what isn’t? Is questioning something an act of negativity?
There are a great many circumstances where being “upbeat” is just not appropriate. And, if you’re trying too hard to be upbeat, doesn’t that damage your objectivity? (These are general points, not a view about Kathy Sierra. I am not familiar with her work and therefore have formed no opinion on it.)
Of course rage - even legitimate rage - can be misused or misdirected. I still believe you should rethink some of the stuff you’ve posted about Locke, Herrell et al. They’re human beings too. No one deserves to be tried in the media.
Best, Steven
“What is there not to agree with? Maybe you don’t like her approach. Find her too positive and upbeat.”
Or maybe it’s for reasons that seem completely valid to them (else they wouldn’t think that way), and seem crazy to you? Personally I like Kathy and think she’s one of the shining stars in the blogosphere.
But that doesn’t mean that I think something is ‘wrong’ with anyone that disgrees with her. I also think Doc Searls is a super nice guy, and smart to boot, but I disagree with many of his ideas on marketing.
My point is, if someone disagrees with Kathy’s approach, that doesn’t mean there’s anything ‘wrong’ with them (or Kathy), just that not everyone agrees with her approach. And recall that Kathy herself has said that if everyone agrees with you, you probably aren’t a very good writer.
Tara: I think you missed the point Ideas are Deadly remember Socrates and a thousand probably millions more beheaded, burnt at the stake because they had IDEAS. Yep they are deadly because they frighten people and threaten the status quo of your little mind or your political views ro you name it. To Kathy keep fighting, its easy for me the idiots haven’t started on me.
Love to all radical ideas and thinkers.
Roger Wilks
I have a feeling this will come out disjointed, fractured and long winded but here goes; I agree with you Tara, and Kathy, on the “world does not need more rage.” Rage destroys and hurts. It shrinks and condenses.
I also agree with Steven, making a distinction between rage and anger, that anger can be used as a positive force. However, I feel the world needs more models on how to appropriately channel anger into positive action. I believe it was Ghandi who said something along the lines of “everything I accomplished began because I was angry.” There’s a model for you.
And these are opinions let’s remember. We’re not changing the fundamental, scientific laws of the Universe while we message our words on our little blogs. We’re expressing our thoughts, emotions and positions. Looking at it from a “right” or “wrong” position seems to be a flawed model to go by. I may disagree with Kathy on occasion. I may disagree with you but this doesn’t make you “wrong” or me “right.” Indeed, there’s really no way to tell. “Right” and “best” may be two of the more misguided words in the English language.
But what happened to Kathy, regardless of the legal “was it a death threat or not”, was cruelty. These people’s words and actions were cruel. Just because someone laughs and applauds when you beat another down doesn’t justify and cleanse your actions of spite and venom.
I feel people need to listen to each other more. It really doesn’t take a lot of time or effort. Listen to each other. Listening is not accepting. It’s just taking it in and letting it go. I guess I’ve never really understand why people get angry at others opinions. It’s not like I have to accept and effectuate every opinion and position someone utters.
I sorta see people who attack and beat others down as that long blonde haired Graduate in the bar scene from Good Will Hunting. The jerk who kept reciting other scholar’s opinions to make himself look good at the expense of Will’s friend. Until Will put him in his place by pointing out that he hadn’t formed an opinion of his own. The Graduates identity was enmeshed with other people’s thoughts and ideas. He hadn’t figured out the world on his own terms yet so lacked an ability to allow mystery to simply be. He had to vigorously defend via attacking another because he was unsure of who he was. He was translating the world he lived in, not transforming the world.
Stand naked and be okay with it. There’s nothing to fight with closed fists and harsh words and cruelty is never an appropriate response though, unfortunately, it is always justifiable given someone’s model of the world.
Anyway, guess because I haven’t commented here in a long while I felt at liberty to begin writing a dissertation in your comments. My apologies Tara. Keep up your fine work and wonderful thoughts. Cheers.
One of the strengths and great pleasures unleashed by blogging is the opportunity for discussion and commentary. But when the commentary starts to focus on the person rather than the ideas, a line is crossed.
Rage writing is easy. It can be powerful and empowering for the writer. But it is also inward looking. Writing outwards, in the way that Kathy does, requires more bravery. It requires looking towards the horizon, not focusing on a target. It means putting your ideas and your credibility on the line — but it should never, in a civil society, mean putting your life on the line.
Thanks for your perspective on the debate, Tara.
Human rights is what we are all practising. Opinions is what we leash out. And self-justification is what many are going for.
Some just don’t like mature discussions.
You are kidding with this, aren’t you? I presume you see the contradiction and are just making a sort of tongue in cheek joke? Tara?
I spend a lot of time talking to young people on the internet and I don’t mind saying so. I’m very proud of all I’ve managed to accomplish with dozens of young people all around the world and have friendships with some of them that have lasted the better part of a decade.
But to some, particularly women, this is unacceptable.
See, I don’t flirt and I don’t respond to flirting. I’m just not interested in that sort of thing online. In a nutshell, I don’t understand it.
So how does that translate to my conversations with young people being so obviously a case of “grooming”, “abusive dependency”, “inadequate personality” or “intellectual deficiency”?
These women are spreading so many lies about me that the hopeful males they attract are adding their own brand of vitriol with pictures and trolling and violations of the privacy of young people they don’t even know.
Why is it that these women - and so many many like them - all translate everything males do online as being sex-based or sexually motivated?
Am I looking to get my rocks off when I’m playing Vanguard???
One Trackback
Big Stink In Little China…
What showed up instead, en masse, was a lot of ego-underbelly. The dark side of narcissism. Disowned, projected content, with that fabulous mob-mentality willingness to point the finger….