Church in over their Heads again

Fanny Cradock

Nevore wrote: »

I don't think anyone tops themself over a superficial relationship. Far from it, I think this girl was obviously quite heavily emotionally invested in the matter at hand.
I stand by my original point, the medium is more or less irrelevant. When someone is so heavily invested, extreme results will happen. We've all heard the happy tales of people ending up married to their WoW guildies etc, suicides and the less headline grabbing mere cases of depression are the flipside to that.

I’m glad to see that soberness has made you more sympathetic OK, I never stated that she wasn’t heavily involved emotionally, nor did the good Archbishop. A superficial relationship doesn’t necessarily mean it is an apathetic one.

As for statement that the medium was “more or less irrelevant”, well, first you would have to qualify what is meant by “more or less” and then you would have to provide some evidence to back your belief up. If people – especially teenagers – are “heavily invested” in on-line relationships – where exists the possibility of some tragic outcome – then I think it behooves us to talk about it and not dismiss it as being more or less irrelevant. I’m quite sure that the parents and friends of this girl don’t see the medium as being more or less irrelevant.

I haven't found any decent study on suicide rates amongst those involved in specifically online relationships as opposed to traditional ones, no, so it's not an assumption. I tend to follow literature dealing with gaming rather than social networking (I don't social network ) but I did go and look.
This'll sound horrifically callous to you all no doubt, but someone commiting suicide over such a relationship, given the growing interconnectedness of the world, especially amongst younger people, and the sheer bulk of people indulging in such interactions, made a death a statistical inevitability.
Is it a horrible instance? God yes. Is it worthy of special attention, above and beyond what research is being carried out into social networking etc? In my opinion, no, and this would be where I diverge from the good sir raising the issue.

Ah, but you are engaging in a type of social networking right now! Anyway, I’m not sure why we are talking about “statistical inevitabilities”. We are talking about a wider issue prompted by the death of a girl. The thesis is not that facebook makes you kill yourself, it that social networking – more specifically an over reliance on it – can lead to impoverished real life interactions and the substitution of the substantive with the superficial. Suicide seems to be the worst case scenario, but what of other affects? Again, it is worth discussing the matter, and I don’t see much harm in this other than it possibly having a detrimental effect on Bebo´s share price.

Maybe it's just that I don't see social networking and online activities as any more powerful than normal interactions.

Well that is just fine, but other people are wary of it. So the debate must go on

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So can nuclear physics or a scalpel if used incorrectly. I'm with "the media is unimportant". It's forest for the trees. That teenager is probably no more invested in Myfacespacebo than I am in Boards. However, I have enough emotional maturity to deal with the trollish "I hope you dies" I get. Some poor kid doesn't..

No one is discussing nuclear physics or scalpels. You seem to be glossing over the point of what the Archbishop is saying for some ham-fisted attempt at an analogy. That you are sensible enough not to become overly emotionally attached to facebook or whatever, that really isn’t the experience of everybody, is it? Furthermore, as I’ve already said, the Archbishop isn’t simply stating that facebook = suicide, his point is rather more interesting than that.

BTW, I assume that you mean to say “medium”, because if you think that “the media is unimportant” then you really can see the wood for the trees. Believing that the medium of communication is unimportant presupposes that all forms of communication are equal – which they are not.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Edit- Not too happen with individualism being associated with mercenary activity, either.

Again, you miss the point about what type of “individualism” he is discussing. He’s not criticizing people who dye their hair red, pierce their nipples and listen to bad music. He is talking about those who maximally extract from the community all they can get and then move on. Come to think of it, it actually fits in quite nicely with what he had to say about impoverished relationships.

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No one is discussing nuclear physics or scalpels. You seem to be glossing over the point of what the Archbishop is saying for some ham-fisted attempt at an analogy. That you are sensible enough not to become overly emotionally attached to facebook or whatever, that really isn’t the experience of everybody, is it? Furthermore, as I’ve already said, the Archbishop isn’t simply stating that facebook = suicide, his point is rather more interesting than that.

BTW, I assume that you mean to say “medium”, because if you think that “the media is unimportant” then you really can see the wood for the trees. Believing that the medium of communication is unimportant presupposes that all forms of communication are equal – which they are not.



Again, you miss the point about what type of “individualism” he is discussing. He’s not criticizing people who dye their hair red, pierce their nipples and listen to bad music. He is talking about those who maximally extract from the community all they can get and then move on. Come to think of it, it actually fits in quite nicely with what he had to say about impoverished relationships.

We, I think, are making a similar point coming from different angles- I am saying the fact that a tool can be abused and why the abuse happened and how it could be prevented is more important than the tool itself. I simply think that saying the medium (facebook in this particular case) is the dangerous thing which needs examination is incorrect- there's a much deeper issue which is being washed over. Why did this teen have the social disconnect and have to put up with bullying in the first place? This happens all the time, in knee jerk reactions to tragedies over the years. The hysteria over Childs Play over Jamie Bolger for example.

I will openly admit the nuclear physics thing was a bit much, but the Judas Priest thing wasn't.


Why use individualism as a term at all so? If what he meant did not include the majority of people who would consider themselves individualists?

Fanny Cradock

Doctor DooM wrote: »

We, I think, are making a similar point coming from different angles- I am saying the fact that a tool can be abused and why the abuse happened and how it could be prevented is more important than the tool itself.

Well, the Archbishop seems to be saying that the tool itself should be put under microscope in order to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring and also to stop the rot, as he sees it, in the quality of social interaction. We interact with a tool like the internet, it pivots on our will but we also pivot on its function. A gun, like the internet is also a tool but one simply doesn't ignore its role in a shooting to concentrate on the individual that pulled the trigger.

One doesn't continue manufacturing a kids toy, hedge-trimmer or whatever that has been reported as involved in the injury of an individual through a fault. We all would hope that the manufacture would investigate the claims and take action if needed.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I simply think that saying the medium (facebook in this particular case) is the dangerous thing which needs examination is incorrect- there's a much deeper issue which is being washed over. Why did this teen have the social disconnect and have to put up with bullying in the first place? This happens all the time, in knee jerk reactions to tragedies over the years. The hysteria over Childs Play over Jamie Bolger for example.

I certainly haven't detected any hysteria in the Archbishops words, nor anyone here for that matter - excluding the OP's hyperbolic thread title, of course. Yes, there certainly is a deeper issue here. Why you think it's being washed over is anyone's guess. Do you suppose he is saying that facebook or whoever is directly responsible for this suicide? Considering he has been directly involved in trying to protect vulnerable children over the past 8 or so years it seems a good bet to assume that he is more than aware of the complexities involved in cases like this than either of us.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why use individualism as a term at all so? If what he meant did not include the majority of people who would consider themselves individualists?

Without meaning to be ratty, he probably used it because he thought people would understand the context in which it was intended. It's not nuclear physics, you know

Again, I just can't shake the feeling that if this came from anyone but a member of the clergy we wouldn't necessarily be having this same debate. Despite this gut feeling, I'm still perplexed as to why there is so much resistance when the idea is floated that we simply discuss the pros and cons associated with a new communication tool.

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, the Archbishop seems to be saying that the tool itself should be put under microscope in order to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring and also to stop the rot, as he sees it, in the quality of social interaction. We interact with a tool like the internet, it pivots on our will but we also pivot on its function. A gun, like the internet is also a tool but one simply doesn't ignore its role in a shooting to concentrate on the individual that pulled the trigger.

Interesting you should use that analogy- in my argument about blaming the wrong thing, surely the prime example is Mariyln Manson's persecution for the Columbine Massacre- when surely what should have been examined closely was gun culture or perhaps the pressures on school kids in America. But the easiest thing to blame was Manson.

(I realise there was plenty of people who didn't do this- but there was also plenty of people who did.)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One doesn't continue manufacturing a kids toy, hedge-trimmer or whatever that has been reported as involved in the injury of an individual through a fault. We all would hope that the manufacture would investigate the claims and take action if needed.

I believe it is your turn to use the same ham fisted analogy a hedge trimmer or childs toy could be used to hurt someone else no matter how much you tried to make them safe- as long as the person using them had the intent to do harm. Just like MyFacespacebo.

(Thanks, now I have a mental image of being bludgeoned to death with an Optimus Prime)

I certainly haven't detected any hysteria in the Archbishops words, nor anyone here for that matter - excluding the OP's hyperbolic thread title, of course. Yes, there certainly is a deeper issue here. Why you think it's being washed over is anyone's guess. Do you suppose he is saying that facebook or whoever is directly responsible for this suicide? Considering he has been directly involved in trying to protect vulnerable children over the past 8 or so years it seems a good bet to assume that he is more than aware of the complexities involved in cases like this than either of us.

I agree the OP was over the top. I do not think it is being delibrately washed over- I think the easiest thing to blame is being blamed. If you get me. The Archbishop could be spending time trying to end bullying itself.

I get that his actions have pure intent, I just think it's aimed wrong.

Without meaning to be ratty, he probably used it because he thought people would understand the context in which it was intended. It's not nuclear physics, you know

Again, I just can't shake the feeling that if this came from anyone but a member of the clergy we wouldn't necessarily be having this same debate. Despite this gut feeling, I'm still perplexed as to why there is so much resistance when the idea is floated that we simply discuss the pros and cons associated with a new communication tool.

I would be having this same debate, because as far as I am concerned we have here a small reflection of the cases I mentioned before- something innocent being blamed for a tragedy. I do of course think there's a big discussion to be had about how social networking does change the human dynamic.

I do agree that simply shouting "Stupid church with their stupid opinions and their human hair and their heads full of eyeballs coming over here" doesn't help anyone. It might be... satisfying for those who bear grudge against the Catholic church, but ultimately it just makes those involved seem uninformed or petty.

Although I don't think the changes made by social networking are as drastic as people make out- I met up with Boardsies last week, I will be this weekend and I will be the weekend after. Boards facilitates my life, not the other way round.


And here's an interesting thought- seeing as we both are involved in stamping out bullying on a form of social networking, surely we're experts in this, too?

Splendour

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They update it every day with things such as "I'm going for a walk now".

I joined facebook a few weeks ago and I jsut don't get it! Seriously, who cares if you're going for a walk or having a shower of whatever?!! I dunno, I just don't get it when used in this context.

Splendour

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Use a phone and email I say, but I'm a traditionalist

Gosh-how utterly old fashioned of you