As a multi-year lurker, I'm finally moved to post:
Might I suggest that the ‘social’ problems which this thread is evolving to debate are an inevitable consequence of the ‘progress’ made during the past decade in the field of personal communications.
I would suggest that it is this communication technology which both feeds and encourages the constant insatiable desire for immediate gratification, that in turn causes a vast number of people to want to discuss, analyse, decide and communicate (or what passes for that process in their minds) ad nauseum.
Moreover they appear to engage in the process without regard for whether they have anything factual or positive to contribute.
I assume that in their mind they have validated their right to respond (contribute?) by artificially enhancing the (perceived by them) value of their contribution.
It’s no different to the irritatingly big-mouthed thick kid at school who would ‘contribute’ because he knew no better. The only difference is that on the internet there aren’t thirty other kids to instantly shout the kid down so that after he’s done it a few times he knows his place in life.
I frequent a couple of specialist car web-sites where, when an owner reports a particular problem and asks for advice, it is almost guaranteed that he will receive such helpful replies as “can’t help you myself but I hope you get it fixed…”, or; “it’s a shame you’re not in Aberdeen, cos my local garage is wonderful with these”, or even; “…yeah, my old <insert make and model> used to do that, but we sold the car before we figured out what was causing it.”
Do these people really think that such ‘contributions’ are what the internet was invented to facilitate?? Well yes, actually, clearly they do!
And let’s be honest; there are some discussions on here relating to the weapons and sensors capabilities of some of our own platforms that contain very little more than ill informed conjecture and disinformation – some of it from those presumably serving who ought to know better. Some of it also containing a level of political naïveté that is breathtaking when one considers that it relates to potential export opportunities.
(Those who recognise me from my handle will also know that I am moderately well informed and could offer correction – but have resisted the temptation thus far )
I appreciate that none of the examples above relate to anything more than metal and money, and can in no way be compared to a tragedy that involves a loss of life or lives.
Unfortunately I fear that the modern media that allows us to engage in such mass discussion, often in such inane ways, has also, possibly unwittingly, allowed us to spectate and then speculate with a feeling of remoteness and detachment that can to the unwary result in a form of autism where the emotional aspect or consequence is ignored – much to the discomfort and/or fury of others.
Thus when the subject is a tragic event such as Saturday’s (RIP Flt Lt Egging); and when emotions are running high, some of the speculation is done without thought for human social norms, personal etiquette or common courtesy.
The fact that it is done in ignorance is, I entirely agree, no defence, but I must ask you: what are the alternatives?
- Switch off the internet?
- Put a 48 hour delay into all reported news?
- Shout the thick kid down by means of a brief temporary ban until the lesson is learnt?
- Take a personal decision not to contribute further (after all it’s their loss, isn’t it?)?
- Go off and form a carefully guarded clique into which only the virtuous are permitted entry? (bit blooming lonely in there isn’t it Billy?)
I don’t pretend to have the answer, but we must recognise and possibly tolerate the social malaise that sadly comes hand-in-hand with the benefit of instant communications for all without the benefit of instant brains for all.
End of sermon