That would be funWilbefast wrote:It'll be like "Man of the Year" only with Dylan Moran instead of Robin Williams. Actually - maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. What would the world be like if a cynical Irishman were president of the USA?
We love you for itWilbefast wrote:Don't listen to me though - I'm biased - I'm losing a little bit more of my faith in humanity each time some incoherent tripe that was penned in half a minute and not even spell-checked stimulates immense discussion. Am I wasting my time trying to write things that actually read well?
People like being angry, but people also like beer, and neither of them are good in large quantities. And flaming isn't a good way to channel your anger.Wilbefast wrote:I guess people just enjoy being angry - so maybe we should be thanking the trolls
Maybe it's just me, but the creator of a thread seems to automatically gain a higher status than the replier. People seem to compensate for this by making their language more extreme, hence, flaming. I think this is one reason why blog comment threads and some letters sections are so depressing and uncivilised: the gap in perceived status between the original poster and all repliers is too great. This is also why face-to-face debates are more likely to go well (and less likely to be reduced to insults): you can see that the other person is human, completely and truly, and they want to treat them as such. On the internet, you're talking to a wall of text and filling in the gaps. Studies show that to interpret what someone is saying, people look primarily at the visual aspect (facial expressions, body language etc.), then at the audio cues (tone of voice), then at the actual words being spoken. If you take away the two biggest modes of communication, there's bound to be trouble.
