Random pet peeve

[bubosquared]

Someone in childfree linked to this, and it annoys me. Not because he taunted the radical childfree, which is all good and well, but because of this:

Taunting child haters or deadbeat-dad lovers or the politically tightly-wound on the Web is a low-impact sport. It's just hot air and sparks. At the end of the day, I walk away from my computer and don't think about any of it anymore, and I sincerely hope for their own mental well-being that others I'm having a hissy-fit with do the same thing. Fundamentally, this is recreation. It's not the really real world.

Which is where I get irritated. Because it seems like I and mine (meaning you lot) are the only ones who don't think there are different rules online than in the "real world", because this isn't real, and these people aren't real, and people who take the Net too seriously are delusional.

Well, fuck that. Personally, I think people are delusional if they think that the medium of communication changes anything about the fundamental fact that yes, goddammit, there are other, real people on the other end of the world wide web. I wouldn't do or say anything online that I wouldn't do or say in "real life". If you want to troll and annoy the extremists, you have my blessing. But if you don't have the guts to do it in meatspace, but you're happy to do it online, then you're a coward.

I'm tired of people claiming others are "just" online friends. Are online friends worth less than "real life" friends? If you need to be able to see and touch someone to be friends with them, how damn shallow are you. (Note: reverse is not true. Being friends with someone and really wanting to see/meet/touch them, I understand. When it's a perogative for forming a friendship, it's shallow.) Ditto (times ten) for relationships.

Oh and those of you who like to be all homophic/racist/sexist/whatever because a) it's not really you, it's your internet "persona", and/or b) those aren't real people you're hurting, and sheesh, they take the internet way too seriously? When the Revolution comes, you will all me aprehended and forced to walk a Marsh of Shame. Or something. I'll think of something when I get to that.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
(Oscar Wilde)

Comments

[gal-montag.livejournal.com]

*scratches head* Are childfree those people who think that everyone should be allowed 1 child and then sterilized?

And deadbeat dad lovers? Dude, really? Because that's messed up.

And everything else you said. Word.

[mydarkstar.livejournal.com]

Childfree generally refers simply to those who don't want children - both Melle and I qualify there - but there are some people who call themselves "childfree" who tend to use it as an excuse to rant about how children are Satan personified, how no one should ever reproduce, etc, etc. Geesh.

A "word" from me, too, Melle.

[gal-montag.livejournal.com]

I just thought there was some kind or organization or something. Because the most outspoken people on the issue are total bastards who hate all children. And I find them weird and disturbing because of the vehemence they have for badly behaved children who are not badly behaved because they're evil, but because their parents let them be.

For the record, I don't want children either.

[i-amthecosmos.livejournal.com]

I'm part of the childfree community femgeek was talking about as well. I like kids, I just like to give them back when I'm finished. I don't advocate any sort of controls on parenting, because how could you possibly decide who's fit to have kids? I chose to be childfree, and other people have the right to make the choice to have them if they want.

Actually, very few childfree people seem to be baby-haters. Most are bad parent-haters!

Re:

[gal-montag.livejournal.com]

I didn't figure. I don't think most people are that evil towards children. It's unsettling to hear some of the things people have to say. (Bitching about having to hold the door open for people pushing strollers, like hello? That's not common courtsey anyway.)

[themyst.livejournal.com]

Those who say the internet is not real is saying I am not real.

I am Real.

[rsadelle]

I tend to think of my online friends as a group, but the "online" part is not a statement about quality, it's location. I have friends in Chapel Hill, friends in Chico, and friends online. None of them are more or less important, they're just in different places.

Re:

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

*nod* That's pretty much the way I think about it, too. My friends are, in my head, loosely divided into a bunch of groups. "RL" and "online" are the two main ones, but even then there's a lot of subcategories, most if not all of which are based on how/where we meet (online/RL/LJ/IRC/whatever), what we discuss (fandom/politics/...), and stuff like that. But I don't see my "politics" friends are more real or worth more than my fandom friends, or whatever.

[pelicanzed.livejournal.com]

Re: "just" online friends. You're right, but it can be difficult. A lot of people - me included - would rather have an actual face-to-face or even over-the-phone conversation with someone than one over the Internet. It's faster and more expressive. (And regular physicality in relationships is preferable - I don't think I could have a long-distance one.) Also, it's sometimes hard to put personality to person, over the Internet, if you've never met. And it is a lot easier to turn away from people on the net, by not reading what they write. Hence, it's easier to yell at them and not feel bad about it, since you don't need to ever face them again.

"Not the really real world" though. Heurgh. Words can hurt, whether verbal or written. Why is an argument less valid if it's typed? I'll say no more, because it's not you I want to yell at.

Re:

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean, and I've had lots of times when I hated distances and the fact that most of my closest friends live half a globe away from me, but that doesn't diminish the friendhsip, you know? (Not that I'm saying you're saying that. Just saying.:)

[sonatine.livejournal.com]

Ja. I respect John Scalzi a lot, but it's just something where so many people Just Don't Get It. I can't even call it a generational technological divide, because who's to say people like Noah (http://noahgrey.com/) (who's a good deal older than "we" [vague target demographic we] are) aren't "real?" It's all well and good to deal with living breathing people in front of you instead of words on a screen, but it doesn't make it any less "real" to those involved.

Word

[coneyislandbaby]

Honestly, there is no difference (beyond what we talk about on some levels) for me between online and offline friends. I feel close to the offline ones because I've known them for a long time, and I feel close to the online ones because we've been through some things no one else knows about. But I don't feel different about either set of friends.

I like what Ruth said. The online friends are the same as my friends who live in town, their locations are just different.