Subject:
|
Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:59:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
554 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- at
> least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little bit
> with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social
> Engineer" hacker. If I understand his goals and intentions correctly, he
> specifically set out to cause a disruption or, more accurately, to make
> himself into a mirror with which to show people a side of themselves that
> they didn't want to see, with disruption as the side-effect which proves his
> points in his mind. I'm not trying to judge these goals as being noble or
> ignoble, just to understand them as best I can. Thus, it would do absolutely
> no good to try to persuade him not to repeat his past mistakes, because in his
> mind there were no mistakes -- only in our minds were there "mistakes."
I recognize that you're just the messenger, rather than the purveyor of this
mindset, but such "social engineering" as Matt describes it is also known as
sociopathy. The fact that it can be couched in politically correct rhetoric
doesn't excuse the fact that it's simply rude in context.
Within the community of Pro Wrestling, it's not improper to headbutt someone
or clothesline them into the canvas, whereas in many other social circles it
would be considered at least passingly rude, whatever the alleged goal.
Kafka (whom I cite cautiously, because he's over-quoted to the point of
nausea) identifies the "outsider" as the most important figure in a community,
in that the "outsider" unites the others into a cohesive whole. If one adopts
a subtractive view of community (that is, we're only a community because we
dislike the same thing) then this theory can hold some water. If, however,
one views a community in a cumulative way (we're a community because we like
the same thing) then a "social engineering" approach of the type we've
recently witnessed is simply flawed.
> I don't think he wants help or needs help. He seems to be a very intelligent
> person who knows what he is doing and does it very well (meaning I gather
> that he achieves his objectives). Unfortunately, the "social engineering"
> he does isn't something which sits well here (or in RTL, for that matter).
It depends what kind of "help" we're discussing, and at any rate I don't
think any of us is qualified to assess his realworld psyche, other than to say
he appears to have a sizable chip on his shoulder, and he's not inarticulate.
The hostility he demonstrated suggests any number of other character issues,
but we have no access to their source. To paraphrase Larry, Matt's intent is
irrelevant--only the outcome is significant (which, to start another debate,
basically sums up my entire viewpoint re: authorial/artistic "intention"--
thanks, Lar!) We all know that Matt's psychological state is not for us to
diagnose; we have neither the right nor responsibility to do so. However, we
are entitled to discuss the effect his postings have had on our "community."
If his goal, as stated, is simply to rock the boat and try to cause
disruption, then I feel comfortable dismissing his postings as self-indulgent
and juvenile, regardless of how intelligent he might actually be.
> He's not a "problem individual" to be helped or reformed -- he's playing a
> different game -- a higher level, meta-game outside the normal rules.
I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion. There are many in the
community who "get" what he was trying to do--you're one of them, Todd; I
believe Larry is also, and I'm pretty sure I am (just to name a few)--we "get"
it, but we don't buy into it.
There are certain artistic theories that pursue the scrupulous reproduction
or portrayal of really bad art, be it music, painting, sculpture, or what have
you. Some of these artists may have considerable skill, but the problem is
that, even if their reproduction is good, it's a reproduction of crap. That,
I think, is part of the problem here. Matt's portrayal of an ugly game may
have been very faithful to the subject, but it's still only faithful to
ugliness, and in the end it's not especially helpful to a community, even as a
warped mirror. The mirror, after all, reflects only what Matt chose to
reflect with it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
