Rule of Mob
Ginghouse Altarhalt | 19.03.2008 23:08 | Indymedia | Repression | Social Struggles | Sheffield
It would be lovely to see some attempt by numerous posters to recognise the Mission Statement and act accordingly. But there is much evidence of of a near reversal of these principles and abuse thereof.
It is futile to argue the relative merits or drawbacks of free speech in respect of the BNP when free speech is so easily and readily suppressed in the pages of Indymedia. This happens particularly in the comments sections following individual articles. One might hope that articles might be followed by debate and discussion, where the borders of truth and possibility are fully explored in a spirit of mutual and assured respect. If only. No social contracts here, apparently.
Instead the hierarchy imposes itself, masked behind certainties and scoffing. There is a sad irony of intolerance, it seems, where certain “fighters” for “liberty” are only too ready to shout down opinions which conflict with their own, or do not run entirely concomitant with their chosen brand of dogma. One could not emulate a more vicious and caustic style of barracking without sound. That such perpetrators of intolerance are oblivious to the irony merely reinforces the impression.
It might be possible to characterise the kind of comment which is most likely to come in for attack as being generally of the pacifistic or pro active ilk, where the questions are perhaps more difficult to answer because a straight forward, black and white solution isn’t sought. But many are those that will settle for nothing other than the simplistic, where the Manichean Aristotelian logic of absolute GOOD versus absolute EVIL becomes mantra. Where the forces of GOOD cannot possibly do wrong, and EVIL serves only to be destroyed.
These tirades might take the nature of downright abuse and put downs, assumptions on your character and character assassination thereby, accusations of this and that, misquotes and sentences taken out of context, demands for qualification although it seems that any such qualification must run an equally noxious path, only to fuel further the hatred and antagonism which has already decided its end result long before you dared to question it. But that this is a form of out and out bullying is beyond question, as distasteful as any you might encounter where blinkered eyes reckon your destruction.
The reasons for such vitriol are probably self evident – if your entire identity is formulated around a belief system, like, say, the Inquisition, then you are going to resent any challenge to your identity and authority, and using the power of mob rule, whether bestowed or simply appropriated (as so many good things are!) you will seek to remove such challenges wholesale. For to take away what you oppose is to remove your very identity. Add to this paranoia and fear of the watchers, the listeners, the note takers, the ever present secret services, double agents, triple agents, agent provocateurs, coppers, Trolls, liberals, idiots, egomaniacs, god, the list goes on and on.
And let’s not forget the assertion that the Internet is in fact a poor conduit for communication given its blend of impersonal text and lack of human contact, and those who abuse such knowledge…
As popular as paraphrasing might be around here (and useful in counselling, too!) it seems pointless to give examples of this abuse when so many are already extant. You need only follow any thread of any length and it will take you on a tour of those attributes which should inspire shame. Shame that people need to appropriate “good” causes for their own peculiar advancement. Shame that no mores or ethics seem to hold sway. Shame that the boldest and bravest of lights should champion their piety whilst yielding so little humanity.
Instead the hierarchy imposes itself, masked behind certainties and scoffing. There is a sad irony of intolerance, it seems, where certain “fighters” for “liberty” are only too ready to shout down opinions which conflict with their own, or do not run entirely concomitant with their chosen brand of dogma. One could not emulate a more vicious and caustic style of barracking without sound. That such perpetrators of intolerance are oblivious to the irony merely reinforces the impression.
It might be possible to characterise the kind of comment which is most likely to come in for attack as being generally of the pacifistic or pro active ilk, where the questions are perhaps more difficult to answer because a straight forward, black and white solution isn’t sought. But many are those that will settle for nothing other than the simplistic, where the Manichean Aristotelian logic of absolute GOOD versus absolute EVIL becomes mantra. Where the forces of GOOD cannot possibly do wrong, and EVIL serves only to be destroyed.
These tirades might take the nature of downright abuse and put downs, assumptions on your character and character assassination thereby, accusations of this and that, misquotes and sentences taken out of context, demands for qualification although it seems that any such qualification must run an equally noxious path, only to fuel further the hatred and antagonism which has already decided its end result long before you dared to question it. But that this is a form of out and out bullying is beyond question, as distasteful as any you might encounter where blinkered eyes reckon your destruction.
The reasons for such vitriol are probably self evident – if your entire identity is formulated around a belief system, like, say, the Inquisition, then you are going to resent any challenge to your identity and authority, and using the power of mob rule, whether bestowed or simply appropriated (as so many good things are!) you will seek to remove such challenges wholesale. For to take away what you oppose is to remove your very identity. Add to this paranoia and fear of the watchers, the listeners, the note takers, the ever present secret services, double agents, triple agents, agent provocateurs, coppers, Trolls, liberals, idiots, egomaniacs, god, the list goes on and on.
And let’s not forget the assertion that the Internet is in fact a poor conduit for communication given its blend of impersonal text and lack of human contact, and those who abuse such knowledge…
As popular as paraphrasing might be around here (and useful in counselling, too!) it seems pointless to give examples of this abuse when so many are already extant. You need only follow any thread of any length and it will take you on a tour of those attributes which should inspire shame. Shame that people need to appropriate “good” causes for their own peculiar advancement. Shame that no mores or ethics seem to hold sway. Shame that the boldest and bravest of lights should champion their piety whilst yielding so little humanity.
Ginghouse Altarhalt