We. Are. Peoria (Area)

RPlant wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:37 pm "I think open Internet message boards that allow anonymous users are simply irredeemable", says the guy responding to a user named "RambleOn"? Sure we know who she is based upon old posts, but not by immediate identity.

cjsummers wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:28 pm

RPlant wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:37 pm "I think open Internet message boards that allow anonymous users are simply irredeemable", says the guy responding to a user named "RambleOn"? Sure we know who she is based upon old posts, but not by immediate identity.

She's pseudonymous, not anonymous.

LovelyRita wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:55 am Anonymity. That's what I was curious about. Your distaste for anonymity.

cjsummers wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:47 am

LovelyRita wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:55 am Anonymity. That's what I was curious about. Your distaste for anonymity.

Anonymity, especially on the internet, frees people from all social constraint. In psychological terms, it creates deindividuation (on both sides). As a result, comments escalate quickly to be cruder, slanderous, unsympathetic for the feelings of others, etc. It just creates a very toxic atmosphere. People act differently when they are anonymous or the person they're communicating with is anonymous--differently than they would if the person was known, and way different than they would if they were meeting in person. I'm obviously speaking in generalizations--there are always psychopaths and sociopaths out there--but most people are more reserved, polite, and concerned for the feelings of others when dealing with a person one on one in real life.

My feelings as to the pitfalls of anonymity are not new--I've had these reservations ever since I was faced with the ramifications when I had my blog many years ago. The only thing that's new for me is that I used to think one could overcome the pitfalls through judicious use of moderating and appeals to reason. What's new is that I don't think there's any way to overcome it. I think it's irredeemable. The only way to have a civil discussion (overall) is for people to use their real names and be known to each other. Of course when emotions rise, there will be things said that are regretted, but usually there will be an effort to restore the relationship once things cool down. What doesn't happen is the escalation of rhetoric just for the fun of it (unless someone is a sociopath, as mentioned earlier).

I no longer think that open, anonymous Internet forums create anything approaching a real community, nor do they foster a civil discussion of ideas. They're just a place for people to come and vent--not to listen or engage with others in any meaningful way.

I'm sure others feel differently, and that's cool. These are just my conclusions, and why I've pretty much decided not to take part in these forums anymore. Although I'll probably continue to check them out of a long-ingrained habit, and may be tempted to vent myself once in a while, in spite of what I just said.

DennisinMH wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:13 pm

timeforethics wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:54 pm I agree! It also does not help that some folks are not using the same name they were using on PDC. That makes accountability even less likely.

I pretty much figured out who one lady is from PDC. (Not Rita)

timeforethics wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:04 pm

cjsummers wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:47 am

LovelyRita wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:55 am Anonymity. That's what I was curious about. Your distaste for anonymity.

Anonymity, especially on the internet, frees people from all social constraint. In psychological terms, it creates deindividuation (on both sides). As a result, comments escalate quickly to be cruder, slanderous, unsympathetic for the feelings of others, etc. It just creates a very toxic atmosphere. People act differently when they are anonymous or the person they're communicating with is anonymous--differently than they would if the person was known, and way different than they would if they were meeting in person. I'm obviously speaking in generalizations--there are always psychopaths and sociopaths out there--but most people are more reserved, polite, and concerned for the feelings of others when dealing with a person one on one in real life.

My feelings as to the pitfalls of anonymity are not new--I've had these reservations ever since I was faced with the ramifications when I had my blog many years ago. The only thing that's new for me is that I used to think one could overcome the pitfalls through judicious use of moderating and appeals to reason. What's new is that I don't think there's any way to overcome it. I think it's irredeemable. The only way to have a civil discussion (overall) is for people to use their real names and be known to each other. Of course when emotions rise, there will be things said that are regretted, but usually there will be an effort to restore the relationship once things cool down. What doesn't happen is the escalation of rhetoric just for the fun of it (unless someone is a sociopath, as mentioned earlier).

I no longer think that open, anonymous Internet forums create anything approaching a real community, nor do they foster a civil discussion of ideas. They're just a place for people to come and vent--not to listen or engage with others in any meaningful way.

I'm sure others feel differently, and that's cool. These are just my conclusions, and why I've pretty much decided not to take part in these forums anymore. Although I'll probably continue to check them out of a long-ingrained habit, and may be tempted to vent myself once in a while, in spite of what I just said.

CJ, I appreciate your thoughts on this and agree 100%

Dave wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:28 pm Wait...you mean to tell me the new PDC replacement website is still filled with political scholars too old to have functional neuro-plasticity trying to convince each other to see things in a different way?!?

I, for one, am just glad no one had registered my old PDC username already...