The Degradation of Political Debate

[On Guard for Thee]

It's nice to read that O'Reilly and Limbaugh have such a large Canadian audience.

Oh yeah we love those game shows up here. They're hilarious.

[On Guard for Thee]

Any debate I saw with harper against his foes, harper was always polite while the others were just flinging mud. That 1st debate where they allowed Ms May, she was as rude as they come.

I don't know if you watch QP at all but in those debates Harper never leaves his "talking points". You may find it polite, I find it irritating and boring. Especially when he says"I've been very clear" over and ovcer, and then is anything butr clear. I think he is most "polite" when he has something to hide. Come to think of it, he IS often polite.

[-1=e^ipi]

How many people actually read this 'article'?

Third, online anonymity, in social media and news comment streams, should be abolished. That is a step that publishers can take. It would require some re-jigging, and might crimp online traffic at the outset. But it would have an immediate salutary effect on the quality of public debate in Canada, and would also target bullies.

This idiot wants to abolish online anonymity. Seriously? Online anonymity is one of the greatest traits of the internet. It allows people to say what they think without fear of intimidation or violence. It allows persecuted groups of people to communicate with each other and share their ideas. Abolish anonymity and you create an environment of less free discussion and of people not touching 'taboo' subjects or not wanting to explain their unpopular opinion for fear of offending someone.

[Big Guy]

The issue seems to cross political lines;

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/16/political-nastiness-is-getting-us-nowhere

[Big Guy]

How many people actually read this 'article'?

This idiot wants to abolish online anonymity. Seriously? Online anonymity is one of the greatest traits of the internet. It allows people to say what they think without fear of intimidation or violence. It allows persecuted groups of people to communicate with each other and share their ideas. Abolish anonymity and you create an environment of less free discussion and of people not touching 'taboo' subjects or not wanting to explain their unpopular opinion for fear of offending someone.

It also allows posters the freedom to insult, demean, ridicule, undermine and slander anyone without accepting the responsibility of their anonymous attacks or for the accuracy of their assertions. Like any other tool of communications it can be used for positive and negative agendas. I have learned to differentiate information provided through a verifiable source and information and opinions shared anonymously.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Big Guy

[-1=e^ipi]

It also allows posters the freedom to insult, demean, ridicule, undermine and slander anyone without accepting the responsibility of their anonymous attacks or for the accuracy of their assertions. Like any other tool of communications it can be used for positive and negative agendas. I have learned to differentiate information provided through a verifiable source and information and opinions shared anonymously.

I.e. you want truth to take the back seat to 'not hurting anyone's feelings'.

Abolishing anonymity just gives people more ammo to use as ad hominem fallacies rather than actually address the points being raised by someone else.

[BubberMiley]

What idiocy? Like 911 trutherism?

Probably the outright lies for starters, like the one that the autopsy proved Michael Brown was running at the cop or the one that marijuana is secretly LSD.

[Big Guy]

I.e. you want truth to take the back seat to 'not hurting anyone's feelings'.

...

Feelings depend on the individual. I want those cowards who hide behind anonymity to post something that causes a financial impact on someone to be outed and compensate those who they have injured.

We had a situation recently with a local provider where someone impugned the integrity of a local businessman. The businessman asked for the identity of the individual and was refused. The businessman then sued the provider for damages. The provider quickly shared the name and address of the person paying for that account. The businessman than took the now NOT anonymous poster to court and was assessed damages.

There is no where in any Internet provider a guarantee to maintain the anonymity of a client.

I fully agree with that policy.

The person/people who provide the medium for anonymous posters are responsible for the content of the posts which appear on their sites.

That is why all opinion boards and owners of web sites have moderators.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Big Guy

[-1=e^ipi]

Feelings depend on the individual. I want those cowards who hide behind anonymity to post something that causes a financial impact on someone to be outed and compensate those who they have injured.

Except this isn't what Michael Den Tandt (the writer of the article) was advocating. He wants complete abolishment of anonymity in social media and news comments.

We had a situation recently with a local provider where someone impugned the integrity of a local businessman. The businessman asked for the identity of the individual and was refused. The businessman then sued the provider for damages. The provider quickly shared the name and address of the person paying for that account. The businessman than took the now NOT anonymous poster to court and was assessed damages.

Defamation and committing crimes is one thing, abolishing anonymity is another.

There is no where in any Internet provider a guarantee to maintain the anonymity of a client.

No, but maybe there should be. Perhaps Canada needs an online bill of rights.

The person/people who provide the medium for anonymous posters are responsible for the content of the posts which appear on their sites.

Which they shouldn't. The law is completely messed up. This is why freedominon.ca was shut down.

That is why all opinion boards and owners of web sites have moderators.

Not all of them...

[Shady]

Probably the outright lies for starters, like the one that the autopsy proved Michael Brown was running at the cop or the one that marijuana is secretly LSD.

I will participate in your thread drift once. Nobody said that marijuana is secretly LSD. And Brown's head was tilted down, which the forensic specialits indicated is a running posture. But I did have a laugh at the forum truther complaining about some type of "idiocy" of commentators mentioned. Irony knows no bounds I guess!

[On Guard for Thee]

I will participate in your thread drift once. Nobody said that marijuana is secretly LSD. And Brown's head was tilted down, which the forensic specialits indicated is a running posture. But I did have a laugh at the forum truther complaining about some type of "idiocy" of commentators mentioned. Irony knows no bounds I guess!

It was said on here that pot is LSD. And you don't have to be a forensic anybody to know that your head tilted down happens as you fall after being shot multiple times.

[Remiel]

The thing that Den Tandt fails to take into consideration, and which I have seen discussed elsewhere, is that many of the most virulent hate- and fear-mongers on the Internet are not anonymous. Mens rights activists and white supremacists tend to me more than happy to use their real names when they are attacking, defaming, and sometimes threatening others. Women on the Internet absolute need to have some measure of anonymity to retreat to because anyone who pays any attention at all knows the level of oppression they face for voicing their views on many topics.

Also, to address a point from earlier: Stephen Harper is not polite. He is just good at hiding his smugness with intentional blandness and monotone. There is no such thing as politely making a mockery of answering questions.

[Shady]

It was said on here that pot is LSD. And you don't have to be a forensic anybody to know that your head tilted down happens as you fall after being shot multiple times.

Well, whoever said pot is LSD doesn't know what they're talking about. The forensic specialist noted that the head was tilted down before shots were fired that hit it. I suggest you read the report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/18/autopsy-michael-brown-shot-six-times-twice-in-the-head/?hpid=z2

Wrong thread for this stuff though.

[-1=e^ipi]

the most virulent hate- and fear-mongers on the Internet are not anonymous. Mens rights activists

Oh no! The evil men's rights activists! How dare they advocate such hateful positions such as gender equality! *sarcasm*

Women on the Internet absolute need to have some measure of anonymity

All humans should have access to anonymity. It isn't a female-only issue.

Edited August 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[BubberMiley]

Well, whoever said pot is LSD doesn't know what they're talking about.

I realize that you just plagiarized the post from Family Guy without attribution, so you probably didn't even know what you were copying and pasting.

I suggest you read the report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/18/autopsy-michael-brown-shot-six-times-twice-in-the-head/?hpid=z2

And what does the source you cite say? "“It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.” Anybody who interprets that to be proof he was charging toward the officer can only be deliberately misleading people. On topic, this is a fundamental part of what's wrong with political discourse today. People, particularly those on the right, think that their audience are simpletons and lazy and won't bother to check the facts, so they'll say whatever it is they wish to be true as fact and hope no one calls them on it. I suppose it can be an effective tool on the Internet, as a lot of the audience are simpletons and lazy, but it certainly makes the discourse descend into a pit of lying blather.

[Bonam]

Anonymity is a key feature of the internet and any attempt to systematically eliminate it will simply result in people using other services that continue to allow anonymity.

[BubberMiley]

Anonymity is a key feature of the internet and any attempt to systematically eliminate it will simply result in people using other services that continue to allow anonymity.

Like public bathroom walls? Edited August 19, 2014 by BubberMiley

[Argus]

Feelings depend on the individual. I want those cowards who hide behind anonymity to post something that causes a financial impact on someone to be outed and compensate those who they have injured.

That's already the case when things move to a legal stage. No, what you want is to be able to post things which are really dumb without anyone pointing out how really dumb they are. You want people to give dumb posts respect, and to post long, thoughtful comments on dumb posts as if they were articulate expressions of intelligent opinion. Most of us couldn't bother. When we see a dumb post we either ignore it or just say something brief and dismissive. Sorry if that hurts you're feelings.

[Big Guy]

Anonymity is a key feature of the internet and any attempt to systematically eliminate it will simply result in people using other services that continue to allow anonymity.

Some interesting points of view;

“Some of the venomous commentary by these individuals may be a need to anonymously exert superiority over others,” he said in an email message. “Underneath most of this negativity is the belief that, ‘My needs are more important than your needs, and I don’t cooperate because I am right in my judgments.’ Road rage offers that same level of quasi-anonymity.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/twitter-making-us-meaner-uncivil-discourse-age-social-media-909856

So I assume that the reaction should be the same as being targeted by someone with road rage – ignore them.

[PIK]

Like public bathroom walls?

LOL

[-1=e^ipi]

Anonymity is a key feature of the internet and any attempt to systematically eliminate it will simply result in people using other services that continue to allow anonymity.

Yes. It would be very difficult to implement. It would require a level of government control over the internet comparable to North Korea.

If that ever did occur, I would hope that the population would rise up and overthrow the government.

[Remiel]

Oh no! The evil men's rights activists! How dare they advocate such hateful positions such as gender equality! *sarcasm*

Way to be ignorant of how the Internet really works.

[-1=e^ipi]

Way to be ignorant of how the Internet really works.

Way to be ignorant of men's rights.

Edit: yes, just call people ignorant rather than try to back up claims with evidence and reason.

Edited August 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Remiel]

Way to be ignorant of men's rights.

Edit: yes, just call people ignorant rather than try to back up claims with evidence and reason.

If only men's rights activists were really about protecting men's rights and not about harassing women online. And no amount of describing what can be seen is going to convince someone who is willfully blind to the facts.

[-1=e^ipi]

If only men's rights activists were really about protecting men's rights and not about harassing women online.

You mean like discussion and debate? Oh the horror. The radical feminists should just be able to state their opinions without opposition. *sarcasm*

And no amount of describing what can be seen is going to convince someone who is willfully blind to the facts.

Again, provide evidence.

Edited August 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi