MY EXPERIENCE WITH NEWSGROUPS: Informative Intellectual Debates or Recreational
Wrestling Matches
Instructions
for this report
|
|
Re: Aggressive
Drivers
Date: 1999/03/04
Ê--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ê
I thought this was
why you kept your 3 seconds, or whatever, distance. And looking at the lanes
beside you can do you more harm than good. Most of the time they may behave the
same, but then one day they don't and then, crash.
I thought I said
this.. .I don't rely on them, I use them for helpful indicators if I notice
traffic is slowing down... 2 seconds is what I consider should be standard...
though I like more myself... for many reasons I have stated even besides
safety. If you're daydreaming you shouldn't be out driving at all. You sound
like one of those drivers who drive in a "bubble", which was
discussed in another thread.
No... but I have
ditzed out before... let a second or less pass and go... ack... brakes!
Actually, my worst habit is switching lanes at the last minute which I am
trying to cure myself of because I find I spend too much time worrying about
whether the lane next to me is clear rather than do I still have time to change
lanes... This is why you should look several cars ahead, so you know what's
going on. Blame the attitude change on the SUVs.
No, I won't, cause I
have seen the same attitude with beemers before SU
Secondly, I don't
like sudden stops. I don't like ending up really close to their bumper
when I stop.. and also I hate people who stop like an inch away from me cause
if they get rear ended, at that close so do I! It is a good idea to leave space
between cars even when stopped.
I can agree with
this.
No, I will not blame
the attitude on the SUVs, and looking ahead won't help me in what I was trying
to achieve. Sure, it will warn me traffic is stopping, but it won't give the
guy in front of me extra time to start moving again before I have to brake like
hanging back would... ONe is just safe.. the other one is nice on my
transmission, makes traffic flow better, and a hell of a lot safer. Look...
the dashes are cars
Car in front brakes... I know they are braking so I can brake too.. yeah, safe.
Car in front brakes,
car in back brakes.. I see them braking, I slow down some in the approach, by
the time I get there they are going again, I don't have to stop (sometimes
don't even have to change gears), nicer on my car (and sometimes the gas),
safer, and if people would hang back more traffic would flow better. Sure.. I
get some people who will take the spot, but I leave enough room it is not that
big of a deal! I really don't understand why people get so pissy about people
getting in front of them like that one car is going to make such a big
difference.
I wish you wouldn't
have said that, I always though you were a cool gal, driving a cool car, who Êenjoyed driving and not someone who
deliberately pisses people off just for the hell of it. I HATE
Oh.. it is not just to piss people off. I find tailgaters get the point and
back off, it is a lot more functional rather than pissing off. Secondly, I feel
safer at a slower speed if they are going to be that close. I don't feel safe
going faster when people are tailgating me. Give me room, I will go faster,
don't I will slow down for many reasons besides pissing the tailgater off (That
is just an added benefit).
So you do agree you
are doing it to piss people off.
No... I do not do it
to piss people off, it is the added benefit if they don't get the point.. there
is a difference. I find most tailgaters know when you slow down you are telling
them to back off and they usually do... very effective. Plus it gives the room
they are giving enough time to stop if you go slower. It is an added benefit to
the fact it is safer for me to slow down (that is if they don't get the point
in the first place). The main reason why I do it is to get people to back
off... really it seems like a message that people understand. if I could get a
bullhorn that said back the fuck off.. that would work to.
when people do that,
in my opinion that's one of the main reasons for road rage (number 2 or 3 on Êthe list). Oh, I totally disagree with road
rage (you should see me bitch my friend out cause eh doesn't believe the same..
he is very bad about road rage). So road rage doesn't exist according to you?
Well, I got news for you, it does. And pissing people off
O yeah it does...
where the hell did you get that? I see you like to stick words in people's mouths.
If I didn't say it existed, why did I just note I have a friend who does road
rage? Road rage to me is doing stuff like accelerating to some one's bumper
when they cut you off or tailgating severely (like a foot away) when they
aren't going the speed you want, or cutting them off severely, stuff like that.
Slowing down for a tailgater is getting a message across.
only makes it worse.
It's one thing to increase the distance to the car ahead to compensate for the
car behind you, but slowing down just piss them off so they will pass is not
the same thing.
And what is wrong
with making them pass? I mean if they are so idiotical they would rather stay
behind me than pass me then I will go slow enough for the space they are
leaving me... And if they cannot pass me, chances are I am stuck behind another
slow person and can't do anything anyways. So what the fuck am I supposed to
do? MOst likely I am in the right lane too, exiting, so I can't very well get
in the left lane and miss my exit. And most situations like this slowing down
some won't ruin traffic (a lot yes.. btu slowing down a lot is just to piss
people off) and it will make it so at least they have more time to brake and
they won't hit me at as fast a speed. I will slow down if I feel it is safer
that way. As I said, pissing them off is an added benefit to something that
actually is safer(and usually it doesn't come down to that, usually they just
back off, which is much nicer anyways as that is really what I want).
This selection contains a discussion between camaroz28 and Tigress. The beginning of the conversation is a little argumentative, but becomes more and more hostile as the discussions continues. When Tigress mentions that she likes to leave a lot of room in front of her to help eliminate sudden stops, camaroz28 voices her opinion on the matter saying that Tigress shouldn't deliberately try to piss people off. I think camaroz28 is out of line here because she is assuming that Tigress drives slow to intentionally annoy people. Although Tigress later admits that pissing people off is an added bonus, that is certainly not her main concern. She drives slow because she believes that it encourages tailgaters to pass her, and it makes her feel safer. Camaroz28 then claims that Tigress is contributing to road rage by driving slow. The rest of the conversation continues in this manner. Although I believe that Tigress could have refrained from using profanity in her speech, camaroz28 is to blame here. Camaroz28 is obviously looking for an argument by placing word's in Tigress's mouth. For one thing why is driving slow, if it makes one feel safer on the road, a crime? If you don't like the speed someone is going then by all means pass them. Tigress is not saying that no one can pass her, in fact she encourages it. Camaroz28 needs to stop, listen, and learn before he/she opens their mouth next time.
Camaroz28 is making a fundamental attribution error. This person is
overestimating the internal attributions and underestimating the external
attributions. What I mean by this is that Camaroz28 is placing
blame on Tigress herself, rather than taking into consideration the outside
factors that surround her. Camaroz28 believes that Tigress intentionally
drives slow to aggravate other drivers, while failing to consider that perhaps
she is driving slower to prevent impatient drivers from tailgating her.
When Tigress tries to explain herself, Camaroz28 continues to rationalize
her previous argument so that her schema (of people who purposely drive slow)
stays consistent. Tigress's behavior can also be analyzed, she is
actively engaging in self justification. She becomes very defensive
because Camaroz28 is attacking her self-concept. She experiences
dissonance and thus is motivated to justify her behavior.
Re:
Left-laners cause road rage!
Date: 1999/02/08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should never let other driver's bad habits
change your own driving habits. That's why I wouldn't speed up for some
idiot on my rear bumper, especially if I was already speeding, which is
likely. Yes, in most cases, I could tromp on it and/or downshift and
leave my tailgater miles behind me. But why, exactly, should I do
that? And it seems especially stupid to try to prevent someone from
passing you, even if you are speeding and they are passing you illegally on the
right. Yes, in most cases, I could prevent slower cars from getting in
front of me approaching hills/corners. I guess my point is that I
*shouldn't have
to*, and I don't think it's a good idea, safety wise. Hint: If you drive
a Corolla (or similar), DON'T cut in front of a Galant pproaching a hill.
Unless you need a "push" up the hill, that is.
(!) -Dave
On hotmail dot com,
I am user "davec2".
And I am approaching
a hill. Sometimes, the shitbox driver gets frustrated and passes me on
the right (I let him/her, as I don't want to provoke road rage) and then I have
to SLOW DOWN for the hill, orÊ What a
load of {rationalization}. Since your car has all that power, why must
you frustrate another driver like that?
If I were king, it would be illegal to ALLOW yourself to be passed on the
right. Shit or get off the pot, I say!
In the scenario you describe, you could have pulled over to allow the faster
driver on your rear bumper (what, you think he was dropped there by a
helicopter?) to pass, or you could have sped up to keep from blocking the left
lane and pulled over for him when it was more appropriate to do so. [ Dave ]
In this selection, Dave in responding to a previous conversation that he had with another person (lets call him X to avoid confusion). In an early discussion, Dave mentioned the frustration he had when a car illegally passed him, just prior to approaching a hill. Then when they got to the hill, Dave had to slow down because the car in front of him did not have any power. Subject X believes that instead of complaining, Dave could have simple pulled over to allow the tailgating driver to pass, or sped up and pulled over after the hill so that the speedy driver could go on his way. This leads us into Dave's recent argument, he does not feel that it is his responsibility to have to speed up for some other driver who is in a rush, especially if he is already speeding. He believes that one should not have to change their driving habits for someone else. He will not prevent other drivers from passing him, but advises them not to cut in front of a car with more power right before a steep hill, unless they want a push from behind.
In my opinion, both Dave and X need to be less defensive and more carefree. Even though I think Dave's argument (about not changing your driving habits for someone else's habits) was reasonable, I can still sense some hostility, which was especially evident in the early discussion. Dave appears to be preoccupied with cars and how much power they have. He briefly mentions that he does not speed up for cars because it is dangerous, but safety does not seem to be his priority. He seems to be more concerned about being in control and not allowing other drivers to influence him, especially if it is one that has less power than his. He is probably partaking in this newsgroup to talk more about cars and speed, rather than to discuss the main issue. If you ask me, Dave has some valid points, but he still has some growing up to do.
Re: Watch out for
the Road Rage Pigs!
Date: 1999/02/18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But first, how about you *define* what a
"road rage" incident is....seems nobody else has bothered to do
so...you'd be the first. It can take any number of forms: Aggressive speeding
(cutting in and out), tailgating, hand and fist gestures of a discourteous
type, brake jamming games, boxing following traffic in deliberately, really all
types of operator aberrations designed specifically to annoy, harass, or
negatively impact other drivers on the highway.
Nope, I don't buy that. That's just bad driving and there's rarely "rage"
involved.
But of course there is - are we going to split the semantic now as to
"rage" vs. "anger" vs. "aggression" - that seems pointless.
Not really. I don't much care for the idea of "demonization" of
simple aggressive driving, nor do I care for the "desensitization" to
the *real* problem drivers. I think we should reserve "road
rage" for *real* events of rage on the highways, not every petty incident
of bad driving or rude behavior.
And I maintain it's
a trend of burgeoning proportions - whether we call it "rage" or
"bad manners" is not the point. Ever note
how many people run the red on a turn signal these days? Amazing!
I reserve "road
rage" for people like the one who pulled up beside someone and shot them
in the head, or the one on the Turnpike who waived an Uzi at another driver
coming into Boulder recently. THAT'S "road rage".
Ok - we are going to split the semantic...
One needs to be careful about definitions, particularly when lives are at risk.
Not necessarily -
a trend is a trend.
The discussion between Chris and Scott was extremely lengthy, thus I just posted a portion of the conversation that I felt was most relevant to the topic (road rage). The disagreement between Chris and Scott, begins with their interpretation of road rage. Chris believes that it can be a number of things such as: aggressive speeding, tailgating, slamming on the brakes, and hand/fist gestures. Scott, on the other hand, feels that those incidents are merely acts of bad driving and that there is rarely "rage" involved. I agree with Chris that Scott in getting too caught up in the semantics of the word "rage." Although these aggressive acts may not be of great magnitude, such as shooting someone in the head, it is these smaller aggressive acts that usually lead up to the final demise.
There does not seem to be any psychological concepts that underlie Chris and
Scott's behavior in this particular part of the conversation. The problem
here seems to be more about a difference in perspective. They both have
different definitions for road rage. The debate escalates and the
conversation continues on because neither party is willing to back down on
their beliefs. It becomes apparent, later in the conversation, that both
Chris and Scott are experiencing Self-Evaluation Maintenance. According
to the Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory, one's self-concept is being
threatened by another individual's behavior. Thus, they Chris and Scott
adhere to their belief so that they will not experience any dissonance.
Re:
you're kooks!
Date: 1999/03/03
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Grinder was a little harsh in
using the word "kook" but the points he made in his posting were
quite on-target. My prediction is that there will be some problems related to
Y2K, but the media is blowing things out of proportion. It is most definitely
not the end of the world. Because of all the media hype, I find myself
answering y2k-related questions all the time, usually posed by people who don't
even understand what the problem is. I had to answer a checklist of questions
from a guy who didn't know the difference between hardware and software. Yuck!
Re: you're kooks!
Date: 1999/03/03
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally have to agree with Marty on
that. There is no harm in being a little (or a lot) prepared for what
might happen next year, and it certainly does not make anyone a 'kook'.
It is ALWAYS good to be a little prepared for things. If not Y2k, then an
ice storm or some major power outage. I worked at a grocery store last
summer and, after a VERY severe thinderstorm which knocked most of the power
out of the town I was in, people were stripping the shelves of food because no
body believes in being even the slightest bit prepared.
So, tell me,
Grinder, and anybody else who considers people who are concerned over Y2k, what
makes people 'kooks'? Would you say the same for people who rush to the
store for a few days worth of food when the weather channel is predicting a
sever thunderstorm within the next 24 hours? When something even bigger
than that is being predicted, is it not wise to be even a little MORE prepared?
Just a thought...
Re: you're kooks!
Date: 1999/03/04
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay dewd. Its your problem now.
End-of-the-WORLD??
We're talking computer glitches, not the earth getting hit by an asteroid! The
world has been around for 4,500,000 or so milleniums without coming to an
end. Most of those we're without the human race, and none required
computers.
I can't believe this paranoid crap. You are going to feel like the
suckers you are when this turns out to be no big deal. Generators and
camping gear will sure be cheap on Jan 2, 2000 though ;-)
Nothing run by computers can't be run without them. It will be
inconvenient, not the collapse of civilization. This ng should be alt.y2k-pain-in-the-butt
That would be more realistic. Payrolls and schedules will get screwed up
here and there. A few folks will hit reset, enter a date by hand, or
switch an automatic system to manual. End of story.
If you are worried about the millenium for other reasons, consider that:
1- it starts in 2001, not 2000 since there was no year 0.
2- Lots of people predicted the world would end in 666
and 1000. That was b.s. too.
3- The Apocalypse - if you are thinking about the second
coming 2000 years after the first, you're too late. The early Christians
screwed up when they set up the calendar. The biblical millenium already
happened about 30 years ago. You are outnumbered by Buddhists, Muslims, and
Hindus anyway, so why should God end the world just for you?
4- If we had 8 fingers instead of 10 it would be the
third millenium already. If we had twelve, you'd have to worry for quite
a while more. Base 10 just happens to give us a bunch of 0s in a row next
year. They're only numbers, they won't bite.
5- Maybe you are just an idiot. Maybe you believe
in UFOs, aliens, angels, psychics, Atlantis, tv preachers, and new age
crap. For you Y2K is another thing to fret about beyond your own failures
and boredom. Flame me now all you want, but I will be laughing at you
next year. When you realize that you have been believing something that
has been proven false, I hope you will re-evaluate the other lies you have been
clinging to. I doubt it though, because the one constant in all loonies
is the ability to disregard the obvious and justify the absurd.
There are many
problems in the world right now that threaten the future of the human race -
overpopulation, violence, disease, rape of the environment, nuclear
proliferation, etc. The year 2000 is not one of them. Update your damn
software and move on. Let's stop talking crazy and go do >something
useful. [ Grinder ]
PS - If you really want to be a trend-setter, start working on the "year
10,000 problem". I can hear it now ..."why did those morons
limit the year to four digits?"... at least by then the other bugs in
Windows might be fixed.
I included three different responses from the newsgroup: you're kooks, this gives you the chance to view different opinions on the Y-2K matter. The first response was from tepperware, and this person agrees with Grinder that the Y-2K problem is being blown out of proportion. The person does mention that Grinder was a little harsh with his explanations. The next author, Aubrey Rice, criticizes Grinder, saying that it is better to be safe than sorry. She believes that it doesn't hurt to prepare for Y-2K, the way that you would for a natural disaster. The third discussion, I provided, allows readers, to take a look at Grinder's opinion of Y-2K. As anyone could see, Grinder's behavior inappropriate. He is very critical and basically thinks that anyone who is concerned about Y-2K is an idiot.
Grinder obviously has some self-esteem issues to deal with. It is as if
he thinks that by putting others down, it will make him seem smarter and more
logical. It actually has an adverse effect, he comes across as an
arrogant jerk. He has to know that this kind of attitude is going to
upset others and promote negative feedback. I can't really blame his
behavior on the newsgroup topic either because tepperware agreed with Grinder,
but expressed his opinion in much more subtle manner. Even Aubrey Rice,
who had more reason to be outraged, voiced her disagreement, but was not
condescending like Grinder. Maybe Grinder suffers from inferiority
complex, because he needs to criticize others in other to feel superior.
Re: Y2K Crisis --
Serious, or a Joke?
Date: 1999/02/28
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Heck is all this Y2K fuss? You can
probably imagine the almost unfathomable consequences to this happening. An
integral computer system that was started up on January 1st, 1990 might look at
the date on Jan 1st, 2000 and say: Hey, it's the year 1900 - so I've been running
now for negative 80 years?!?
You dumb fuckin
idiot! That's DUMB! The computer Would Not care how long it's been running!
Credit cards that
you try and use may be rejected because the system would see that they had
expired 96 years ago, in 1904, when they are, in fact, supposed to expire in
2004. Systems all over could shut down or malfunction causing unprecedented
chaos.
BullShit1 If anything they would see that they are supposed to expire in 2004
and the present date would read 1900! The card Would Never Expire!
You're so fucking NOT
Computer Literate!
First of all, I want to appologize to viewers who were offended by the profanity. The reason why I picked this discussion, however, was not because I agree with the author, but rather because it showed such an excellent example of flaming. Info-maniac seems to be filled with so much hostility. The person that he/she is conversing with, does not appear to be filled with the same rage. June is conducting herself in a mature and more sophisticated fashion. The question then is what prompts individuals to behave in such an unruly manner? Info-maniac appears to be getting some kind of satisfaction by using vulgar language. I must applaud June, however, because even though Info-maniac is obviously trying to provoke her, she continues to remain calm and professional.
Info-maniac's behavior is very similar to Grinder's (from selection 4), perhaps
I was wrong in saying that the topic of the newsgroup has nothing to do with
their attitude. Y-2K in a controversial issue, everyone has many
different opinions on what will happen on January 1, 2000. Maybe they are
so outraged over all the fuss that the media has made and these impersonal,
anonymous newsgroups are the only way to let out their frustrations.
Another theory of mine, that is contrary to my previous statement, is that
these defensive individuals are actually using reverse psychology on
themselves. They may actually be scared to death of the Y-2K bug, and
thus are trying frantically to convince themselves otherwise. Just
something to think about!
Re:
Y2K IS A SCAM
Date: 1999/02/24
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y2K is a scam!!!!! You're a fine one to
talk. Has anyone ever told you that the words"your" and
"self" are supposed to be one word? Please educate yourself. Y2K is
indeed a scam. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sleeping in on New
Year's Day instead of worrying about it.
Re: Y2K IS A SCAM
Date: 1999/02/24
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
your is a wordself is a wordYourself is
also a word.i was not talking about yourself. i was talking about your self.it
is obvious that you understood. communication is nothing moredifficult than a
sender sending an idea and a reciever recieving the idea.I sentyour
recievedtherefore we communicated,beg my pardon if i am not as anal as you are.
All I have to say, is how silly can some people be. They will find anything and everything to pick a fight. Whether yourself is two words, one, or both, is irrelevant. This argument is so petty and both parties have lost sight of the purpose of this newsgroup (to discuss the Y-2K problem).
Baba Booey started the argument by trying to weaken Guess who's credibility by
pointing out his grammar flaws, and instructing him to educate
himself. Baba Booey is clearly trying to make Guess who appear less
credible, so that other viewer will see Guess who's original statement (that Y-2K
is a serious problem) as inaccurate. Thus Baba Booey's intent is to
disregard Guess who's statement and to validate his claim that Y-2K is a
scam. Guess who's following remark demonstrates that he is undergoing
self affirmation. According to the Self-Affirmation Theory, a threat to
the self-concept produces dissonance, and individuals are motivated to reduce
that dissonance by affirming competence in a related area. Guess who is
trying to compensate for the cut-down made by Baba Booey by proclaiming that
his intent was to communicate with someone, which is exactly what he did.
Guess who's display of success is an attempt to win back his credibility.
Re: Y2K scoffers
Date: 1999/02/28
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had basically the same results as you in talking to the unconcerned and the
uninitiated. I don't bother anymore trying to reason or explain the potential
consequences of doing nothing unless they come and ask me. Good plan. If
something catastrophic happens (which i doubt), then the more people that die,
the less problems the survivors will have to deal with. Yea i know it
sounds ruthless but that's the way of the world. The romans didn't
realize they were loosing until it was to late either.
Comment:
I was shocked when I read the comment made by Cheysull, "If something catastrophic happens, then the more people that die, the less problems the survivors will have to deal with." Although this person does recognize that the comment was ruthless, Cheysull believes that is the way the world works. It is one thing to decide not to preach the importance of preparation for Y-2K, but it another things to rationalize the death of precious lives.
One possible explanation for Cheysull's behavior, is that he/she is very
frustrated over the fact that people refuse to take the Y-2K problem
seriously. This person is probably so fed up that he has come to the end
of his ropes. He has given up arguing with people and is now trying to
rationalize the worst case scenario. Again we can consider the topic of
this newsgroup to be a contributing factor in the individual's behavior.
He feels very strongly about his belief and is thus taking things to extremes
in order to justify them.
Selection 8: Internet Pornography
Re: Internet
Pornography
Date: 1999/02/11
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, it seems very unlikely it can be upheld. But I see no reason why the
UK cannot restrict the Internet, at least as far as domestic sites, ISPs and
subscribers are concerned.
I see no reason why
they can't. I can see lots of reasons why they shouldn't.
This is unrealistic.
You cannot expect parents to supervise a teenage child's every moment on a PC
any more than you can expect them to see their children over the road every
day.
But you can expect
them to take responsibility for not doing so.
You shouldn't let
your child cross the road alone until they are capable of doing so safely.
You shouldn't let
your child have unsupervised internet access until they are capable of dealing
with it safely.
A responsible parent
teached their child to cross the road safely, they don't shovethe poor bugger
out alone then capaign for cars to be banned.
I found this discussion to quite interesting. Pete and Richard both had good arguments and were quite convincing. I personally believe that pornography should be restricted, not necessarily banned, but that people should at be given the option of purchasing filtering devices. I don't think that filtering devices violate any civil rights because if you don't want anything to be blocked, then you don't have to install a filtering tool. I do not, however, think that filtering devices can be substitutes for parents, relieving them of any responsibilities. After all, these devices can help to make the internet a safe environment for children, but they are not foolproof. In that respect, I agree with Richard that parents need to take a more active role in their child's interest, and educate them about what is right and what is wrong. Pete argues that parents cannot regulate what their teenage child does every second of the day, that's true, but if they raised their child correctly then they should be given them the trust they have earned.
I also felt that these two men (Pete, and Richard) conducted themselves very
well. Even though they disagreed, they still treated one another with
respect. This was a good example of newsgroups used as a way to express
oneself in an intellectual and mature fashion. I found that I took what
these men had to say far more seriously than those who engaged in flaming.
Selection 9: Internet Pornography
Re:
It's Incredible What The U.S. Government Allows
Date: 1999/03/02
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Mr. Bloodspear, I would like to say that my previous response to your
inane post, posted under the name "God", which I admit was sarcastic
and patronizing, was done only because I felt utter disgust at your sniveling
point of view.
Mr. Garvin, I
believe you are sincere in what you say and you raise some excellent points.
You seem to be of the opinion that the U.S. government is incapable of
censoring the material I mentioned without "micro-managing" every
aspect of a citizen's life.
Why should the
government censor anything? And given the government's lack of
respect for the individual, yes, I think they are incapable of censoring
without "micro-managing" every aspect of a person's life.
The main reason why
the CDA failed was because it was too broad and, if enacted, would have
censored all kinds of material. I'd like to think there is the possibility of
regulating the internet without caving in to the Christian rightwingers and
offending the ACLU'ers. i.e. censoring only what YOU see as obscene.
Let me
explain: I can within a matter of 5 minutes find MPEGs and pictures of
people eating feces and smearing on themselves; I can find MPEGs and pictures
of needles being jammed through breasts; I can find people who have been
murdered and who have committed suicide. I will tell you that I can find
all of this for free and without adult verification.
Let me
explain: with the exception of people who have been murdered, EACH AND
EVERY PERSON YOU SEE IN THESE PICTURES ARE THERE BY THEIR OWN CHOICE ! That's
right. bonehead; some people get off on eating feces, on having needles jammed
through their breasts. and suicide is, after all, an individual choice.
By your examples you
seem to think child pornography and torture pornography actually help to
placate the viewer from going out and committing real crimes.
It probably
does. Fantasy takes the place of reality.
The people who make
and/or distribute child pornography and torture-death material are making a
profit. They are selling to a certain segment of society who likes this
material.
There is no selling
going on here. There is no monetary market for extreme
pornography, It is done by and for people who enjoy that type of
material. The exception is of hard core European porn, but even that is
done by and for people in the "scene". Nobody is getting rich.
Through studies
they've shown that violence on television can increase violent behavior in the
children who watch it.
Most people viewing
this are not children. Adults can and do differentiate between fantasy
and reality.
Just as there are
parents who don't supervise what their children watch on TV there are parents who
don't supervise what their children watch on the internet.
That is no reason
for censorship. Watch your own children.
And I'll say>this
Mr. Garvin: Just because a person might possibly "get off" on these
things doesn't mean its right.
Again, YOU are going
to tell me what is right and wrong. You're writing term papers and I've
lived almost 60 years, and YOU are telling ME right from wrong ?!?! Kid,
I've forgotten more than you know.
Since I'm not a
lawyer (and generally>don't care for the breed here) I'm ill equipped to
suggest exactly what measures specifically should be taken to change the
current obscenity laws and regulate the internet.
Bravo ! You certainly
are ill equipped.
I believe, at the
very least, the following material should be obscene, if it isn't already, and
banned from the internet and stronger enforcement activities against those who
put it on the internet---including servers:
Servers ? Why not just arrest the telephone company because of phone sex
? In fact, the telephone company is a server. Why not arrest the
makers of ink and paper, because some pornography is printed on paper with ink
? You obviously have no idea of the role of an ISP or news server.
(a) Photographic
depictions of mutilation, death, etc., which are not related to a legitimate
medical site.
(b) Photographic depictions of bestiality
(c) Photographic depictions of scatology not related to legitimate medical
sites
(d) Photographic depictions of vomiting and eating/smearing other bodily wastes
and products.
Again, it is YOU who
is determining what is obscene. What about anti abortion sites that
target doctors and their families ? What about Moslems who cut off the
hands of thieves, or other extremities for doing other things ? There are
lots of things that go on in this world that I consider obscene, but I don't
want to ban them.
But I also believe
if the internet continues to have everything and anything on it, this will
ultimately play into the hands of the rightwingers. Maybe. But I'll
be damned if I'll lay down to those mother fuckers.
Look, believing in
freedom about something that you agree with is easy. Believing in freedom
about something you despise, is difficult. But one man's garbage is another
man's pie.
Be tolerant,
Bloodspear.
This particular discussion, between Mr. Garvin and Bloodspear was also about internet pornography censorship. Some of the subject matter was a bit disturbing, I did not realize that kind of sick stuff was out there, and easily accessible. At first I thought Mr. Garvin was some dirty man who actively took part in internet pornography, but as I read on, he made some valid arguments. I especially liked his last three sentences, it gave me something to think about. Who am I to say, what should be banned, just because I disagree with it. However, I do think that I should have the option of using filtering devices. I do not have kids now, but when I do I certainly do not want them looking at these disturbing web sites. I know it is ultimately the parents responsibility to educate their children. I don't believe the filtering tools can ever be a substitute for that, but it can serve as an aid.
Selection 10: Internet Pornography
Internet
Pornography and censorship - a study
Date: 1999/02/13
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello there, My name is Brian and I am a university student writing mymaster's
thesis on the social impacts of the internet. I will try to keepthese questions
brief and responses would be appreciated.If there are strong community
standards opposed to pornography, why arepornography sites growing so fast in
participation and popularity? Ifindividuals are aware of the community
sanctioning of pornography, why do theyprivately access it at home?More
specifically these answers must be answered as well:á Does anyone want to
hazard a guess as to the number of hits eachpornographic site on the web gets?
á Fact or fiction: males access thesesites more than females? á What is the
general age and socio-economic statusof the individuals accessing these sites?
á Is the internet the primarysource of pornography for these people, or just
one of many? á Is internetpornography preferable to other forms of pornography
(for example- videos)? áAlthough evidence is conflicting, is their any reason
why we should ban orregualte access to these "smut sites"?Thank you
to all who may answer.Feel free to send answers directly to my e-mail
address.Brian.
Re: Internet
Pornography and censorship - a study
Date: 1999/02/14
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello there, My name is Brian and I am a university student writing my master's
thesis on the social impacts of the internet. I will try to keep these
questions brief and responses would be appreciated.
Hello, Brian.
Is your thesis committee aware that you're completely hosing your methodology
by soliciting answers to quantifying questions from a public newsgroup totally
unrelated to the subject, and whose members would therefore only be able to
provide sheer guesswork? Or are you looking for completely useless responses to
compare against those you'll obtain from the only place that makes any sense,
the owners of such sites? That'd make : for a hell of a t-test, wouldn't it?
Your thesis committee should spank you. If they're aware you're obtaining data
this way, they should be spanked too.
It does appear to be
some kind of "social science" and so completely useless data is not
unexpected. [ Eric Johnson ]
Re: Internet
Pornography and censorship - a study
Date: 1999/02/14
Ê
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, but deliberate solicition of useless data is rather pointless, not to
mention blowing any validity of conclusions drawn from the overall survey. I'd
give it a 1. [ Doug ]
I thought this was an interesting selection because it demonstrated that newsgroups can also be used to obtain data for research. You may be wondering how valid this data could be, and if it is generalizable to the population. There were a few others who felt the same way, like Dennis and Doug. Eric on the other hand felt that because Brian was interested in obtaining the social impact of the internet, then collecting data through a public newsgroup was appropriate. I think that Brian's methodology is someone valid, because after all, newsgroups do target people who are frequent internet users. As long as this is not his only source of collection information then I think his thesis could be accurate. If this is his only source however, then I might question the accuracy, and reliability of it.
Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Generations
This exercise allowed me to investigate several topics that I became acquainted with throughout out this course. I first became interested in road rage after Dr. James gave us an interesting lecture one day. I decided to select this topic because I was curious to see what others opinions were on this matter. My second topic choice came about because I had done my oral presentation on the Y-2K problem. As I was gathering information for my oral report, I realized what a controversial topic this was. I new I would be able to find some great examples of flaming on this issue, thus it became my second topic selection. Finally, I decided on my third topic as result of some our weekly online discussions. Students had some very interesting things to say and various explanations for their beliefs. I was also doing my second oral presentation on content control, so the more exposure to this topic, the better prepared I would be for my oral.
I learned a lot about social behaviors and the way people act when placed in a
certain environment. There were several situations when the individuals
in the newsgroups behaved in an inappropriate manner. They used profanity
and were very defensive. As mentioned several times throughout my
reviews, these people were probably experience some kind of dissonance or
disruption with their self-concept and thus became motivated to justify their
belief/behavior in any way possible. It is also easier to let go of any inhibitions
and to just say what you feel, when the other person is not right in front of
you.
Then there were others who conducted themselves in a respectful and civilized
fashion. They may not always have disagreed with the other party, but
they remained considerate. Under these circumstances, I believe
newsgroups can be beneficial. They hold more merit in my eyes because
there is valid information and arguments being presented, in and intellectual
and serious manner.
Here are some suggestions for future generations:
- Start early because there is a lot of information to read and follow up on.
- Take a look at past generations to get ideas on how to set up your newsgroups report.
- Search for newsgroup topics that are of interest to you because if you have no interest in the topic then it is going to be a long and boring process.
- Familiarize yourself with some psychological concepts by looking through old psychology notes or books.
|
My Home Page My Generations File My Newsgroups File My Oral Presentation File My Report1: (type title) My Report2: (type title) Icons Folder My Class Home Page Dr. Leon James Home Page E-mail button |