Monthly Archives: March 2010

Concur: The Virtue of Second Life

The great evil of the Internet, if the dissents are to be believed, lies in its opportunity for anonymity (York: “Hotgrrl81 unreservedly proclaims what real-world Jennifer Smith dares not whisper”; Benavides: “[E]xtremists can foster pernicious ideologies when not checked by . . . socially regulating ‘etiquette.’”). When we are not held personally accountable for ours

Dissent: The Perilous Price of Progress

The previous discussions conflate two separate but related concerns implicated by the echo-chamber phenomenon: first, that it calcifies political opinions; and second, that it fosters political extremism. I agree with Mr. Goodwin that modern media augment, rather than discourage, engagement with alternative ideas. However, this tale of optimism ignores the protective shroud the Web affords

DISSENT: OUR OWN PRIVATE IDAHOS

It’s reasonable to some extent to say that there is nothing wrong, as Bill states, with the Pope reading about Catholicism. But I would be troubled by a Pope who only reads pre-Council of Trent theology (Catholic though it may be). The Pope is, as many of us are, subject to the institution to which

What’s Wrong With the Internet: Part One

If there’s one thing that aging newspapermen, self-righteous politicians, and “civic-minded” pundits love to decry, it’s the pernicious effects on modern man of the internet echo chamber. To hear the neo-Nostradamus types tell it, the partisan love of dialogue ranks just below Pig-pen’s ablutomania, but with far less entertaining effects. We apparently are but days

Dissent: A few More Musings

This has been touched upon, in many ancillary ways, by the many thoughtful responses already up on this topic of the moral dilemma of Mr. Benavides’s wood, but I would like to reiterate the bewildering thicket of assumptions underlying the original question. (I’ll mention as a side note that the assumptions get to the heart

Dissent: The morality of a consumer butterfly

Quite frankly, Mr. Benavides’ presupposition that his ligneous acquisitions are inexorably redolent of an evil character stinks. This binary view would suggest that all objects of consumer desire are inherently good or bad, black or white. As tempting as this philosophy might be, even an armchair Aristotle could weave a million mother goose tales that