One of my favorite bloggers (even though he's riding with the tide in underestimating President Bush) is Thomas P.M. Barnett. He's a genuine thinker who can really roll when he gets going and I'm always fascinated to see that or, in this case, observe it from his writings. He has just analogized the blogosphere to high school, and he's right on the money:
I understand that the blogosphere, despite its pretensions, is by and large uninterested in that sort of dialogue [RattlerGator: discussions that acknowledge there rarely are magic-bullet solutions and no theory or concept is completely applicable to a particular problem]. It's all about hits--despite the claim of "alternative media," the dynamics are pretty much the same as the standard venues. Fine and dandy. It's a free world and all. And you're certainly free yourself to engage them on these direct points. It's just that I find that when I do, the subject gets farther and farther away from useful conversation the longer I pursue it. Pretty soon, I'm reading comments and cross-posts that are so off from the original concept that I wonder what the hell I'm doing engaging in this destructive conversation with strangers (most of whom won't use their real names and I ask you, Would you accept that from someone you engaged in conversation over beers at a party?).
And frankly, that's how I look at the blogosphere, which--again--is probably old-fashioned and not respective enough of its growing heft. To me, it's just a big party with lotsa conversations about three beers in. Fun as hell. Often very profound. But the vast majority of it leaves your brain by the next morning.
I will confess: I didn't like high school. I thought it was all really artificial and fake and queer as the day was long. It was this warped universe of unreality, where "So-and-so said you're a real two-face" is the sort of social dynamic that ruled your day.
The blogosphere is frighteningly like high school: some cool people who are always nice to you, a few that seem strangely intent on persecuting you, and an undifferentiated mass that seems to move from fight to fight (always so happy to chant, "fight! fight! fight!).
I wish I took it all more seriously, but I can't. I have loads of opportunity in my various day jobs to have seriously deep and exploratory conversations and interaction with a host of dedicated practitioners in my chosen field. I find those interactions eminently satifisfying and validating. Not in any "I'm always right" sense, because I'm not, but rather in a sort of "you're onto something and I want to help" sense.
And there's the thing: people will always be people. Some you take to, many you don't. If you're an opinionated person (I certainly am), it pays to be accepting of other opinions even as you disagree with them. I may call somebody a punk ass surrender monkey online, because that's genuinely how I feel, but I'll never forget that it's possible that sap-sucker is right and I am wrong. My original online activity was on a sports board and the same point made my Barnett applies there. People can get so upset and want to fight -- all because you have a contrary opinion. They may hide behind the fact that you presented the opinion in a "disrespectful" way, but it all comes back to the opinion.
It is high school, and I can deal with that. Especially because I can get to nuggets offered up by the likes of Barnett and decide for myself if he's made a point that's a mile wide but an inch thick (e.g., he agrees with the presumed popular opinion on President Bush).
Comments