technology has unleashed ugliness in us

[bcbm]

op-ed from leonard pitts jr over at the miami herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/09/1865465/technology-has-unleashed-ugliness.html):


There is another story here.


That it has escaped us thus far is not surprising. After all, the primary story, the obvious one, is compelling and sad.


In recent weeks, a string of teenagers have killed themselves after being tormented by classmates because they were, or were believed to be, gay. That includes 13-year-old Seth Walsh, who hanged himself, 13-year-old Asher Brown, who shot himself, 15-year-old Billy Lucas, who hanged himself. It includes Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers who leapt into the Hudson River after his roommate secretly ``webcammed'' him making out with another man in their dorm room and streamed it live.


Add in the bizarre case of Chris Armstrong, a gay University of Michigan student who is the target of ongoing harassment by no less august a personage than Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell, and it's not hard to understand why the headline here is about the bullying of gay young people. In a 2005 Harris Poll, a staggering 90 percent of gay students (versus 62 percent of straights) reported being harassed or assaulted in school. So, yes, the headline is appropriate.

But separate Tyler Clementi from the others and you'll see: There's also another story here.

Imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine that instead of a guy, Clementi was making love with a girl when his roommate, Dharun Ravi, went to another dorm room, remotely activated his webcam, and broadcast it to the world. With the distracting filter of homosexuality removed, a troubling question emerges.

Forget gay or straight. How do you do that to someone? Anyone? How do you broadcast someone's moment of intimacy or private indiscretion for the world to laugh at? And why?

As it happens, the Clementi tragedy was roughly coincident with a video that has been making the rounds in journalism circles. It takes place in a television newsroom. As a news reader is reporting in the foreground, an intern behind her, oblivious to the live camera, picks her nose and appears to eat what she finds. A link to the video reached my inbox with a note calling it hilarious.

I disagreed. After all, this wasn't a clip from some sitcom. This was a real person, a young woman, finding herself reduced to a national punch line, a laughingstock, all because of one ill-considered moment.

What she did was distasteful, yes. But the decision to share it with the whole wide world was worse.

Proof that these are not isolated incidents is as close as YouTube. There is always some video going around whose calculated effect is nothing more or less than humiliation on a global scale. Technology, it seems, has unleashed an ugliness in us.

In a Facebook, iPad, automated teller, self-serve, smartphone, e-mail, voice recognition kind of world, it is increasingly possible to make it through an entire day without the bother of having to interact with other human beings. Maybe as a result, we are forgetting how.

No, there is nothing new about pulling pranks.

What is new is the distance we now have from other people, this tendency to objectify them.

What is new is the worldwide reach technology now affords us.

And what is new is the cruelty, this willingness to casually destroy someone else with a few clicks of a mouse.

It is as if we have forgotten or never knew: people are not objects. They have feelings. They have intrinsic dignity and worth. And each of us is bound to respect that. There are things you just don't do to other people, and the fact that technology makes those things easy to do doesn't make that any less true.

So yes, there is another story here, and it is wrenching, simple, and self-evident: Tyler Clementi was a human being.

And he wasn't treated like one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cyberbullies are also human beings, who are perfectly capable of doing incredibly shitty things to each other regardless of technological aids.

Brushing aside the homophobia of the perpetrators to concentrate on the technological aspect is to miss the point. Homophobes by their very nature are less inclined to give homosexuals the same consideration they would give to heterosexuals, and doubtless the homophobic prankster would have found some other means of humiliating his victim if the internet wasn't available.

[Vanguard1917]

If the columnist thinks youtube has 'unleashed' any special homophobia, he's historically illiterate and should go back just a few decades -- years before youtube or mass internet -- to see what discrimination against gay people was really like back then. While it's tragic that anyone should feel forced to kill themselves over embarrasment about their sexuality, social attitudes towards homosexuality, in the West at least, have never in modern history been more tolerant than they are today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If the columnist thinks youtube has 'unleashed' any special homophobia, he's historically illiterate and should go back just a few decades -- years before youtube or mass internet -- to see what discrimination against gay people was really like back then. While it's tragic that anyone should feel forced to kill themselves over embarrasment about their sexuality, social attitudes towards homosexuality, in the West at least, have never in modern history been more tolerant than they are today.

Indeed. It wasn't that long ago, historically speaking, that homosexual activity was actually illegal in the UK - with Alan Turing being one of the most prominent victims of such laws, but doubtless many homosexuals unremembered by history suffered under such laws, which almost certainly would have been used as weapons by individuals against homosexuals.

[bcbm]

If the columnist thinks youtube has 'unleashed' any special homophobia


With the distracting filter of homosexuality removed, a troubling question emerges.

Forget gay or straight. How do you do that to someone? Anyone? How do you broadcast someone's moment of intimacy or private indiscretion for the world to laugh at? And why?

did y'all even read the column? because nothing said here has anything to do with the point that he was trying to make...


What is new is the distance we now have from other people, this tendency to objectify them.

What is new is the worldwide reach technology now affords us.

And what is new is the cruelty, this willingness to casually destroy someone else with a few clicks of a mouse.

It is as if we have forgotten or never knew: people are not objects. They have feelings. They have intrinsic dignity and worth. And each of us is bound to respect that. There are things you just don't do to other people, and the fact that technology makes those things easy to do doesn't make that any less true.

So yes, there is another story here, and it is wrenching, simple, and self-evident: Tyler Clementi was a human being.

And he wasn't treated like one.

[Quail]

I suppose perhaps part of humiliating people online is that you're kind of disconnected from doing it. It's less personal. A little like when I shop online, I spend more money, because it's easy just to click and I don't handle any money.

That isn't to say that the victims of such humiliation wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way if the internet didn't exist though.

[Tatarin]

What does this have to do with technology? Isn't it more a case of discrimination?

[bcbm]

read. the. article.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

read. the. article.

The article dismisses as tangential the essential element of those events - the homophobia of the perpetrators.

I mean seriously, do you honestly expect someone who thinks homosexuals less worthy of consideration to fully think through the implications of their actions? If one thinks that homosexuals are somehow "less than human" then it is small wonder that it is so easy for homophobes to treat them in such a rotten way...

[bcbm]

you're completely missing the point

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you're completely missing the point

Well, humour me.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

Well, humour me.

NoXion isn't missing the point in the slightest it's just that you bcbm are using this op-ed piece to further what I feel is close to a very primmie argument. Anyway these videos can be hurtful as I learned first hand.Let me show you an example...


While still serving in the army a video was made by one of my friends on my camcorder. In it he was having (pretty hardcore) sex with a young lady who I recognised as the reason for him making a visit to the med clinic on monday. So in the spirit of getting my own back for locking me out of our hotel room that weekend I started distributing DVD copies around camp the upshot of which one reached the CSM whose daughter was the female star. So inadvertantly I embarassed someone in authority (bonus) and his daughter. The ugliness dosen't result from tech it results from human nature with the upshot that I'm not a very good friend. This prank in itself resulted in retaliation which is possibly what happened here.

[9]

I don't know, I don't think its a product of technology; technology just makes it easier insofar as it makes mass communication etc. easier/possible. But I just think of high school. I was always very bad at it personally, but I had friends who were capable of saying and doing the most unbelievably cruel shit to people right to their faces without flinching, and then laughing about it later on. Plenty of people learn to dehumanize other people just fine face-to-face... and even outside of a large social context. People who are capable of beating the shit out of their spouse/partner, for example. I really don't think the problem is technology.

This is sort of rich, though:


Originally Posted by Fullmetal Anarchist
you bcbm are using this op-ed piece to further what I feel is close to a very primmie argument...[...]

Originally Posted by Fullmetal Anarchist
The ugliness dosen't result from tech it results from human nature...

[¿Que?]

This is a tough one. I would say that the internet has brought new opportunities for shitty people to be shitty in new and excitingly shitty ways.

[Tatarin]

This is a tough one. I would say that the internet has brought new opportunities for shitty people to be shitty in new and excitingly shitty ways.

Exactly. Again I ask, what does this have to do with technology itself? Would this be the case in a society where HBT would be as accepted as hetero? Is the webcam, by itself, filming and uploading this content on YouTube and other places?

Not that I can see. What I read is a society brainwashed by what should be the standard behavior and standard appeal attack those it considers "outsiders". It shows that not much have changed for the past 50 years. Just as cops have it easier with stunners now than say 20 years ago. It's just easier for the assailants to attack the innocent.

And how would it change? By forbidding webcams and YouTube? How would that help anything?

Technology, it seems, has unleashed an ugliness in us.

So society was perfect before technology? There were no homophobes before the invention of the computer?

In a Facebook, iPad, automated teller, self-serve, smartphone, e-mail, voice recognition kind of world, it is increasingly possible to make it through an entire day without the bother of having to interact with other human beings. Maybe as a result, we are forgetting how.

This pretty much says it all. It's the stupid humans! We are all soo stupid to invent these things before even thinking about the future consequences!

And what is new is the cruelty, this willingness to casually destroy someone else with a few clicks of a mouse.

Just as cops have a sudden willingness of using their stunners now that they have them?

There are things you just don't do to other people, and the fact that technology makes those things easy to do doesn't make that any less true.

So now they're claiming that technology only makes it easier?

It's the same as the gun argument. Guns are used by state power to ensure the domination of capitalism - so does that make the gun evil in itself?

[bcbm]

i'm pretty sure the point mr. pitts is trying to make is that technology has increased the ease with which we simply objectify and destroy other lives and that we need to be aware of this and struggle against this sort of dehumanization.

[¿Que?]

So yes, there is another story here, and it is wrenching, simple, and self-evident: Tyler Clementi was a human being.

And he wasn't treated like one.
This I think is the basic point. It has to do with "humanity" so to speak. But wtf is humanity, anyway. We exist in a matrix of hierarchy which produces our positionality or some such thing. I mean, has this idea been thrown into the trash bin already?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i'm pretty sure the point mr. pitts is trying to make is that technology has increased the ease with which we simply objectify and destroy other lives and that we need to be aware of this and struggle against this sort of dehumanization.

Actually, displaying little or no empathy because there isn't a human being suffering right there in front of you is in fact a very human trait indeed!

If we want to combat it, by far the best way is to go beyond being merely human.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I'm not sure that homophobes were generally more inclined towards treating homosexuals as human beings before the internet. I mean, I think that NoXion's comment was absolutely justified based on what was in fact quoted in response: "It is as if we have forgotten or never knew: people are not objects. They have feelings. They have intrinsic dignity and worth. And each of us is bound to respect that. There are things you just don't do to other people, and the fact that technology makes those things easy to do doesn't make that any less true." Homophobes have always respected this intrinsic dignity and worth, after all. They've always, I suppose, respected the fact that there's things you just don't do to other people. Sure, the internet allows a worldwide reach, but nonetheless this worldwide reach is generally rather superfluous: what leads to the suicides is the immediately surrounding society. That is, the face-to-face one.


In a Facebook, iPad, automated teller, self-serve, smartphone, e-mail, voice recognition kind of world, it is increasingly possible to make it through an entire day without the bother of having to interact with other human beings. Maybe as a result, we are forgetting how.The problem with Facebook and such is that they don't serve to accelerate this process sufficiently, and nonetheless involve generally fairly inane social interaction. I think that books are a far preferable way of isolating people and cutting down on excess social interaction, while allowing the cultivation of the individual's mental faculties. But that's probably off topic; anyhow, the reason for these suicides seems to be moreso that we can't escape the bother of having to interact with our immediate society.

[Omi]

Homophobes have always respected this intrinsic dignity and worth, after all. They've always, I suppose, respected the fact that there's things you just don't do to other people.

What do you mean exactly? I do hope it's the opposite of what you are saying.:confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you mean exactly? I do hope it's the opposite of what you are saying.:confused:

I believe he is being sarcastic.

[Ravachol]

I don't think the alienation of 'controlled social interaction' like facebook,instant messaging (or internet fora :rolleyes:) is specific to controlled social interaction on the technological terrain alone.

Society and it's structure (both social and physical) as a whole, molded,shaped and directed by the imperative of accumulation, has given rise to a highly alienated form of 'community' in all it's spheres. Consider the isolated highrises where hundreds of people live together without ever speaking to eachother, interacting or sharing any sense of 'community'. Consider the workplaces, with their controlled assembly lines for the material worker and their cubicles for the immaterial worker where 'community' is sperated and controlled, subjected to the logic of Capital. Consider the city, constantly redeveloped and restructred to suit the specific needs of Capital, eg. through the process of gentrification, breaking up communities and restructering them artificially.

As Tiqqun said it in 'Introduction to Civil War':



Society no longer exists, at least in the sense of a differentiated whole. There is only a tangle of norms and mechanisms through which THEY hold together the scattered tatters of the global biopolitical fabric, through which THEY prevent its violent disintegration.
(..)
There is no community except in singular relations. The community doesn’t exist. There is only community, community that circulates.

GLOSS α: Community never refers to a collection of bodies conceived independently of their world. It refers to the nature of the relations between these bodies and between these bodies and their world.


Alienation, seperation and domination aren't specific attributes of 'technology', they're the result of all developments under the logic of Capital.

[Tatarin]

I don't deny that it has indeed become more efficient to objectify people through technology, sure. But it is still a sign of society, not technology. Yet another 'reversed' example of this would be "internet piracy" - since people do not see the real object, it becomes easier to just take it. No one sees you and you don't have to uphold any appearances. To this could be counted hacking and viruses - "it's machines, not people" kind of thing.

What is needed is a society that accepts humans as humans, no matter their sexual preferences. Society must be shaped to accept HBT as a sexual freedom everyone has right to, and it must also accept the personal sphere. Our media is violently shaped for racism, anti-sexuality and discrimination. Commercials are shaped that way too. In fact, pretty much is shaped that way. Is it then such a big mystery why people act like this in real life?

The argument is still the gun argument. In a just society most guns would probably rust away. In unequal societies, they seem to be used all the time. The difference with communication technology is that it is simply more advanced.