By
Jackson Rohrbaugh
February 19, 2008
Our society is addicted to anonymity. It only takes a quick look around to see the ways in which we are becoming more separate and lonely as individuals.
The last time I walked into my favorite café, it was a forest of blue and white laptop screens. Behind them hunched their owners, peering over keyboards, faces illuminated. On nearly every head, there was a pair of headphones. Friends who had come together were cordoned off from one another into little electronic cocoons. Sense stimulation clutched the attention of everyone there. The patrons had music in their ears, glowing monitors before their eyes, and keyboards under their fingers. Many were doing homework, and one noble champion was riding a dragon in World of Warcraft. I think he was sporting a unicorn shirt.
The disturbing part of this scene was that no one was really talking. I had a flashback to reading 1984 for a brief instant because the place looked so darn robotic and regimented. At one point in their history, cafés were places to convene and discuss. People argued, flung their hands up inquisitively, made grand proclamations and occasionally listened. Now we have widespread absorption of Facebook, MySpace, and make-believe games instead of impassioned and heartfelt debate.
Anonymity is a cherished companion that goes everywhere with you. This is especially true in the case of iPods. If you walk around our campus, you will have a tough time finding iPod-less students. It’s getting harder to have conversations with people, especially when they fire up their beloved plastic rectangle the minute class is over, effectively shutting the world out. For me, it used to be awesome having a soundtrack everywhere I went, but the novelty has been wearing off. Talking to real people is much more exciting than playing tired songs repeatedly.
The Internet has created an absurd amount of pointless diversions. How many hours have we collectively wasted as a society watching YouTube? Online games account for the most wasted time, especially the more immersive ones. Second Life is a popular game that attempts to completely plunge the user into a projected reality. The name alone is disturbing; just in case your real life isn’t good enough, make another imaginary one! People can buy land, start businesses, convert real money to fake money for use in the online world, and have relationships with other characters. World of Warcraft gets derided for the fanatical devotion of its players, and justly so. At least “Magic: The Gathering” cards and Dungeons & Dragons required you to be there face-to-face with other thin-bearded players in your grandma’s basement.
Comment and discussion boards are some of the more infuriating and anonymous outlets in our society. I feel the sting of these as a writer for The Daily, because if someone wants to whine himself or herself into a furor over an opinion he or she disagrees with, the reader can slap it right at the bottom of my online column.
Because people don’t have to attach their name to a viewpoint, they can sit on their scoffing laurels and hurl insults and ill-informed critiques under false monikers. It lessens the responsibility of the reader and raises the collective scrutiny aimed at writers. On sites like YouTube, blathering and misspelled “comment wars” stretch for pages. Why do people devote considerable time to competing against other faceless usernames?
This competition is strong in communities like Xbox Live. The amount of people online at any one time to play Halo 3 is astounding. At the time of this writing, the community is nearly 65,000. I don’t mean to prattle on against videogames, but isn’t it strange that all these people are essentially wasting time? And instead of contributing to a real community, they are wandering in an alternate reality that locks their persona behind a television screen.
If I had my way, we’d limit video games that didn’t bring friends together or teach them anything valid, or at the very least keep people from spending hundreds of hours playing them. Certain comment boards online would have to at least carry the names of the people leaving messages, so they couldn’t be petty little twits. I’d start a café with no Wi-Fi and no laptops allowed. Instead, on every table there would be books and a card with something interesting to talk about written on it.
I encourage you to find ways to decrease your own anonymity. Turn the iPod off for a while and strike up a conversation with someone new. Peel yourself out of that computer chair and have a stroll to the counter of the nearest dive. If it means you’re going to see some human faces and speak with real words, more power to you.
[Reach columnist Jackson Rohrbaugh at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
18 Comments
#1 Anonymous
on February 18, 2008 at 9:55 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I agree. There should be more personal responsibility online.
#2 s
on February 18, 2008 at 10:52 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I think you are confusing "anonymous" with
"isolated".
#3 Russ Wung
on February 19, 2008 at 1:23 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Comment #1: clever name.
I think a lot of people have difficulty getting the first word out. If there's something going on or some implied common ground (say, at a bus stop or an organized event) you can mention that to start a conversation but if you're just chillin in a common area it's all but impossible. You can even come off as creepy if you try to start something.
I've had very, very interesting conversations with random people though. It's too bad people are shy, but here's a reason: there's always someone talking to you with an agenda in mind--the larouchies are an obvious example, but there's also various political/religious groups. Even if I sympathize n the broadest sense I'd rather not be trifled with attempts to get me involved in anything.
It's definitely a "don't bother me" cue when a person's wearing headphones or using an electronic device. I've got noise canceling headphones and it REALLY cuts me off. I usually don't use them unless I'm walking somewhere or on the bus.
Also agree 100% with your comments about people arguing on the internet. I'm always amused when someone tries to start a debate with me on facebook about some political issue... sorry, I have a life!
It's also true that not having a name to your comments tends to degrade the quality of said comments. If you read the pages of the National Review, the Wall Street Journal or even the Daily the average letter is much more intelligent (no matter what viewpoint it espouses) than the mish-mash of one-liners and drive-by insults that gets tossed around online. We columnists, of course, are a focal point for such things, although I wouldn't elevate them to the level of "scrutiny".
We are not only anonymous but also isolated as "s" mentions.
#4 Jennifer
on February 19, 2008 at 2:20 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
You rail against the people in the cafe sitting there, not discussing politics...but rail against online political discussions as "wasted time." What's so bad about eschewing face-to-face with strangers? Maybe people listening to their iPods on the bus have full, busy, productive lives and engage in meaningful conversation with the people they have chosen - their friends and colleagues - and use the headphones so they don't have to listen to the Luddite philosophy major seated next to them pontificating about our "isolation" as we're surrounded and innundated with more information than has ever been available in the history of humanity.
#5 internet person
on February 19, 2008 at 2:56 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
thanks to my anonymity, i can call your column terrible without any fear of reprisal! i could even go so far as to attack you personally, perhaps calling you a talentless twit of a writer who's using his window into the public eye to whine about how no one will talk to him!
it's ok to be lonely, you worthless fellow, you, but please take more proactive steps to remedy the situation instead of wasting space on the opinion page that could be used for something less pathetic.
p.s.
your hatred of the internet is so totally 1990s.
#6 internet person
on February 19, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
just kidding man, i'm sorry I just realized what i said was stupid and meaningless. I must think I'm really hot stuff, but if I'm being honest with you, I'm really not, and also, i was offended that you were so against video games, because i love them. so, sorry about that. keep up the good writing.
Cheers
#7 internet person
on February 19, 2008 at 8:06 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
just kidding with the just kidding. i AM hot stuff, because i just tricked you all into thinking that i was actually apologizing. anywyzzz back to halo 3, n0obzz. n0ob n0ob n0ob n0ob
#8 Bryan Lund
on February 19, 2008 at 11:10 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I find it amusing that you complain about people who "hurl insults and ill-informed critiques", yet you do exactly that in this column. A WoW player wearing a unicorn shirt? I highly doubt that, but hey, maybe it's true. Later on you imply that all MTG or D&D players are pathetic low lives who live in their grandmothers basement. Is resorting to prejudiced stereotypes really the way to get your point across? Maybe next week you can talk about how black people love fried chicken and malt liquor, or perhaps how girls suck at math.
If your aim is for respectable journalism you really should leave the hate-mongering and bigotry at home.
p.s. I'm pretty sure coffee shops stopped being forums for the free exchange of ideas after the 1960's ended.
#9 Bryan Lund's Grandmother
on February 19, 2008 at 11:40 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
It's nice having Bryan live with me, because before the Megadeath blasts in his lair while he courageously begins another 10 hour dragon-slaying marathon, I cherish the few precious moments I briefly get to see the whites of his eyes. They're hidden behind his the long black hair that veils his boyish face, but as he comes home and sees me washing his favorite unicorn t-shirt, he will sometimes smile.
I think the writer's point is that while wifi and video games are not bad, it's our relentless inability to keep these tools in moderation that has cost us what we really ought to value most, authentic community and relationship with real people. He uses levity and stereotypes not because he hates people, but because they can...deep breath...illustrate truth. It's ignorant to generalize a group to describe one individual, but it's just as naive to deny consistencies in the way we our social groups behave. Dismount that high white unicorn of total acceptance, and acknowledge that making collective observations about the way that groups of humans relate and behave can have truth and value. Especially when its funny.
Whether I'm an asian exchange student or a white German-car owner from Mercer Island, I can admit that people like me can be generalized, and if my emotional intelligence is healthy, I can even laugh at it.
#10 My Name Is Tyler Cooper ON THE INTERNET
on February 20, 2008 at 1:04 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I find it hard to make a connection between "doing homework in a quiet and friendly atmosphere" and "1984", but let's move aside from that. I've personally spent hours with friends watching videos on YouTube, sans headphones and anonymity. While society as a whole has spent a lot of time in individual isolation at some website or game, so much so have they done in just about everything else that entertains, such as playing an instrument, or taking a morning jog.
Planing on reading a book, or even an article in the opinion column? Well, put it down. It's isolating you from the world. You'd best stick to loud arguments, or we, as a society, will never flourish.
#11 Bryan Lund
on February 20, 2008 at 1:36 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
While the writer may have been trying to make that point, do you (yes, you "grandma") really believe that the manner in which it was presented is intellectual or even appropriate for a campus newspaper? Now I'm no prude, but this article seems like it would be more appropriate for the Weekly Enema (a now defunct student newspaper). So before you decide to belittle me, maybe you should consider the level of academic journalism you are supporting.
#12 ALL AMERICAN
on February 20, 2008 at 2:41 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I feel the sting of this article as reader of The Daily, because if someone wants to whine himself into a furor over an opinion 99% of people would disagree with, the Daily will hire him to write a column and slap it on their website.
Also, gg (that's Internet for "good game") on first critiquing anonymous people in a cafe, and going as far as comparing their situation to "1984", and then follow it up later on with this:
"If I had my way, we’d limit video games that didn’t bring friends together or teach them anything valid, or at the very least keep people from spending hundreds of hours playing them. Certain comment boards online would have to at least carry the names of the people leaving messages, so they couldn’t be petty little twits. I’d start a café with no Wi-Fi and no laptops allowed. Instead, on every table there would be books and a card with something interesting to talk about written on it."
So you would limit individual freedoms on the grounds that you personally believe it detrimental, threaten the sanctity of freedom of speech (a pittance, to forbid the contrary opinions of the 'petty little twits'), take a few steps backwards on the technological timeline, and mandate reading materials and subject matter to the masses?
#13 ALL AMERICAN
on February 20, 2008 at 2:42 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Actually, I agree with you, but I feel like you missed the forest for a couple trees. You already hit upon some of the dangers of a society where "choice" and "independence" reign, and I think it's time we make those improvements. But why stop there?
For instance: society is so free and open, but is it beneficial? People with nothing but a shared interest are communicating online, but imagine how much more gainful those interactions could be if we could group like individuals? Imagine the benefit a black man can bring to a group of white men: he has nothing in common with them, so how fulfilling can their interactions be? But place that same black man in a restaurant, bar, school, or church with other black men, and you would see a world of difference! Their shared experience of the world creates a community with the depth of the ocean - and surely that overshadows the conflict and strife that would result from the clash of two colors!
But then, that's being too narrow-minded. If we're dedicated to social change, then we have a responsibility to think of the big social issues. Think about the ailments of modern society: terrorism, drug use, and homosexuality. We have the ability to end them all, if we can only sit for a moment and think rationally. The root of terror is religion: so-called "holy" books like the Qu'ran and the craven priests of Satan who hide behind them nurture evil into suicide bombers and Osama bin Ladens. That's a fact: name one Christian who ever blew up the World Trade Center! (9/11. I will never forget.) Christianity, by contrast, teaches love and compassion for one's fellow man. Which would you choose?
Drug use is even easier to solve: addiction is a purely genetic disorder. Gene therapy and careful selection of traits could make it a thing of the past - homosexuality too! Imagine - the sin of sodomy becomes a thing of the past. What a wonderful world that would be! We could create a future where everyone is perfect and there is no suffering, if we could simply have the good will to act on our foresights.
Society teems with injustice, but we could create justice. What is important isn't the price we pay for a perfect society, but the richness we earn. When we reside in a world of Supermen, and sadness and difference are obscure and foreign words, we will share no regrets.
#14 jeremy nephews
on February 20, 2008 at 2:51 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Man, frakkin' sheeple. Why don't you go listen to more Carlos Mencia before you post on the internet again you trolls?
Theirs a lot of wisdom in what he's saying, imho! If you guys don't like it you can kiss my but because we live in America and unlike some people who are pretending to be Americans I believe in the power of free speech and telling it like it is and the only person doing that is Jackson Rohrbaugh!
#15 jeremy nephews
on February 20, 2008 at 2:54 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
p.s. Anyone here have stairs in there house?
#16 Anonymous
on February 20, 2008 at 2:59 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
9/11
#17 caz
on February 20, 2008 at 3:05 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I'm not sure what to think of this. I want to say you sort of have a point I can agree with but giving any legitimacy to this pile of tripe makes me feel rather sick. I cannot fathom how anyone could produce something quite this terrible in any form of seriousness. I cannot _believe_ this university would accept someone who creates such pathetic arguments.
This leads me to one, and only one, possible conclusion, brother troll. Bravo, my brother. Bra---Vo.
#18 soyoung
on February 20, 2008 at 4:25 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
I am protected.
Anyways, I find it ironic that you are scorning others for acting "anonymous," but you yourself are an active member of this "anonymous" community, and you yourself partake in these "pointless" diversions. Take this article for example. Though you post your real name and have an email address linked to the bottom of the column, you are no more anonymous than any of the people responding to your post. I am not questioning your validity as a person in real life, but rather the online moniker, a journalist for a school newspaper, that you seem so happy to indulge in.
If you want to question the interactions other people partake in on the internet, I feel that it would be an important step to first evaluate your own online self. The thoughts and ideas you post on this column reflect a small portion of yourself. That is, the portion you feel is relevant to the "status" you have achieved as a journalist for quite possibly, the biggest joke of a publication the University of Washington has seen in several years, but that's beyond the point. Your online persona is one that you probably hold very high. Lets face it, you probably wanted to be a journalist for some time. However, the interactions that you are attaining through this medium are likely even more anonymous than the World of Warcraft player you seemed to find "lonely." I mean, for gods sake, even WoW players voice chat with each other. You are as anonymous as any person commenting back on your article. Has anyone you had never met before ever approached you in real life to discuss your article? I'm quite certain the answer is no, and very sure you would have been shut up a long time ago if you tried to tell people they were alienated from one another because you hold an unnecessarily biased and quite preposterous opinion.
By the way, if you think you're so much better than the internet, why don't you delete your facebook, livejournal, and myspace? They _must_ be wasting _soooo_ much of your life.
Post a comment