"Helen Pidd’s recent article about cyberstalking and cyberbullying... was an important wake-up call about how the Internet must be monitored more diligently in the digital age."Monitored more diligently by whom? Who gets to define use or abuse, and what would enforcement look like? Here's the thing Dan - you can't skip over the political manifestation of that precept and then expect everything will just be fine and dandy for everyone. That is very dangerous, class A political power you're playing with in your little sand pit there even if your eyes are too under-developed to distinguish the colours and I don't give a fragrance of monkey turd about your pathetic poem.
Friday 1 October 2010
Dan Bloom
5 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dr Fagan,
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
RE: "Helen Pidd’s recent article about cyberstalking and cyberbullying... was an important wake-up call about how the Internet must be monitored more diligently in the digital age."
Dr Fagan, you wrote, and see my CAPS for COMMENTS: "Monitored more diligently by whom? I JUST MEAN THAT WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO KEEP CYBERBULLIES AND CYBERSTALKERS from PREYING ON PEOPLE ONLINE, THAT's ALL. Of course, i am NOT talking about govt censorship etc. this idea is just to help teens and kids who might be victims of bullying. A classroom tool. MORE CLEAR NOW? .... Who gets to define use or abuse, and what would enforcement look like? AGAIN, NOT COPS OR FBI OR GOVT. I AM ALL FOR FREE SPEECH, BUT NOT FOR FREE HATE SPEECH OR ANONYMOUS HATE ONLINE, THAT NEEDS TO BE CHECKED. BUT HOW? I DONT HAVE ANSWERS, JUST QUESTIONS....Here's the thing Dan - you can't skip over the political manifestation of that precept and then expect everything will just be fine and dandy for everyone. I AGREE WITH YOU DR FAGAN. 100 percent.....That is very dangerous, class A political power you're playing with. YES YES DR FAGAN THIS LETTER AND POEM IS JUST FOR KIDS AND TEENS, NOT FOR US ADULTS. I AGREE, WE SHOULD NOT CENSOR THE NET. BUT what do to about cyberbullying and such like where kids end up killing themselves? is there a way to make the Net more safe for kids and teens? THAT is all i am talking about. not politics. MORE CLEAR NOW? - dan
First of all, you may not address me as "Dr". I'm not a doctor, and neither do I hold a PhD.
ReplyDelete"MORE CLEAR NOW?"
Well you claim to be against government censorship of the web, but I have no choice but to hold that in some doubt given the fact that you did not explicitly reject this implication in your piece (and it is the obvious direction to look in at a time when people have become so small that they routinely look to government for answers to just about every size of problem they might encounter).
As to the actual problem of kids getting bullied, the first thing to do is to identify it accurately; the phrase "hate speech" must be rejected because it is so sloppy and wide-open that it invites the political creation of endless new "problems" rather than the closing down of one specific social problem. Secondly, stipulating to the online bullying of kids rather than bullying in general (e.g. in the school playground), I believe that the use of social pressure, e.g. confronting and ostracizing bullies on such sites as facebook and twitter would work; kids can help each other to do this and such practical application of ethics is part of growing up.
On the problem of bullying more generally though, two things are especially salient, the first of which is the absence of self-esteem among victims which prevents them from standing up for themselves. Self-esteem must be earned, and, just like adults, kids need both freedom and opportunity to develop skills and competencies so that that self-esteem may be earned. I submit that compulsory schooling is in this sense often counter-productive. Secondly, the absence of a proper framework of clearly understood ethical principles from which kids may learn to reason about the rights and wrongs of who is doing what is a great source of confusion among, and thus weakness to the more vulnerable kids. Again, I don't believe that the compulsion inherent to state schooling is any help at all with this. Why force kids to go to what is effectively a part-time prison?
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteYour comment above well said and I see your points. my NOTES in CAPS: re"
"Well you claim to be against government censorship of the web, but I have no choice but to hold that in some doubt given the fact that you did not explicitly reject this implication in your piece .....I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, GOOD POINT....I AM ONLY CONCENRED ABOUT CLASSROOM BULLYING ETC.....I DID NOT MAKE THAT CLEAR, AND YOU ARE RIGHT....(and it is the obvious direction to look in at a time when people have become so small that they routinely look to government for answers to just about every size of problem they might encounter). YES YES, GOOD POINT. SEE THE RECENT PTT NEWS TODAY IN CHINA POST BACK PAGE WHERE A LOCAL BBS BOARD WAS CENSORED BY GOVT OR POLICE OR WHO. VERY TROUBLING. DID YOU SEE THAT STORY?
As to the actual problem of kids getting bullied, the first thing to do is to identify it accurately; the phrase "hate speech" must be rejected because it is so sloppy and wide-open that it invites the political creation of endless new "problems" rather than the closing down of one specific social problem. ....GOOD POINT. HATE SPEECH IS THE WRONG TERM, I AGREE.....Secondly, stipulating to the online bullying of kids rather than bullying in general (e.g. in the school playground), I believe that the use of social pressure, e.g. confronting and ostracizing bullies on such sites as facebook and twitter would work; kids can help each other to do this and such practical application of ethics is part of growing up....WELL SAID: re [''I believe that the use of social pressure, e.g. confronting and ostracizing bullies on such sites as facebook and twitter would work; kids can help each other to do this and such practical application of ethics is part of growing up.'']I AGREE WITH YOU.
On the problem of bullying more generally though, two things are especially salient, the first of which is the absence of self-esteem among victims which prevents them from standing up for themselves. THAT IS ONE MAJOR PROBLEM, YES......Self-esteem must be earned, and, just like adults, kids need both freedom and opportunity to develop skills and competencies so that that self-esteem may be earned. TRUE......I submit that compulsory schooling is in this sense often counter-productive. I AGREE! SO TRUE!..... Secondly, the absence of a proper framework of clearly understood ethical principles from which kids may learn to reason about the rights and wrongs of who is doing what is a great source of confusion among, and thus weakness to the more vulnerable kids. WELL SAID..... Again, I don't believe that the compulsion inherent to state schooling is any help at all with this. Why force kids to go to what is effectively a part-time prison? SIGH. I HATED SCHOOL TOO. IT WAS A PRISON. WELL SAID.
over and out, more later. thanks for good feedback, pro and con. cheers,
Dan
Well let me qualify all my good points with a crude one: sometimes the most effective way to deal with a bully is just to punch him in the face... it's a simple remedy, repeat as necessary.
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDelete