Depoll.com

It's hard to believe it's been 7 years since the events of September 11.  That day truly changed the way I look at the world.

I'm sure for some people it feels like ancient history, but to me, it's still fresh in my memory.  It still stuns me that 9/11 happened two weeks into my freshman year of High School.  So much has changed in my life since then.  But I don't really want to recount my experiences from that day -- instead, I'd like to share what today means to me.

To me, 9/11 is a day to remember the innocence of those who lost their lives in that devastating attack and the heroism of those who gave their lives in service to their community and country.  They were our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, friends, neighbors, and loved ones, and their memory and the memory of that day should never be forgotten.

Moreover, 9/11 is a day to remember and honor other heroes in our lives.  There were those who fought and survived the attacks.  There were also our families and friends and neighbors who comforted each other through the trauma that we experienced.  It was difficult, but heroic, for each of us to move on from that day, but I'm proud of the way we came together to love and support one another, and I've never been prouder to be an American.

I'd like to send a message to the men and women in military: thank you for your service.  You brave men and women make our lives possible, and every day you show us the kind of courage and selflessness that the rest of us aspire to.  You deserve all the support and respect we can muster.  Today, as last year, my thoughts are with you.  You are all true American heroes.

We must all remember the lessons of 9/11.  From them, and the memories and presence of our personal heroes, we can find strength and goodness in the world.

Finally, to those whose lives were taken 7 years ago today: rest in peace.

Labels: family, friends, Opinion, Personal

Permalink
posted by depoll @ 7:36 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

So, I don't do this too often (actually, I haven't so far on my blog), but today I was struck with some inspiration. Today, I just want to comment on some topics near and dear to my heart (as a geek). The title says it all. No, I didn't bleep out a curse word. The topic: Holy Wars (think I'm just making it up?  Try searching for it!  It's a well-known phenomenon). Those of you who are computer people are probably very familiar with this term, but I think it's one of those fascinating phenomena that you just have to stop and think about. That being said, here goes:

A Holy War (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HolyWar) is a fascinating social phenomenon that is born of Internet culture. At its core, a Holy War is a long, drawn out clash between two or more people over some strongly held beliefs. One of the most common examples in the "geek realm" that I've heard is that of the rivaling text editors: vi and emacs (or Windows vs. Mac... or Microsoft vs... Anything else). Proponents of each of the products will end up in a heated debate over e-mails, newsgroups. forums, IRC, or other media, and the argument rages on and on. Holy Wars have been known to span careers and generations. The vi vs. emacs debate has been going on since the products were first released in 1976! There are folks out there (trust me, I've met them, especially up at Berkeley) who engage in this particular war who weren't even BORN in 1976, let alone spent more than the last few years tinkering with the tools.

The battles of a Holy War are fought in the threads of a newsgroup, mailing list, IRC, forum, or other online medium. But how do they get started, and how are they played out? To address this question, let me first list the players I've witnessed that allow a Holy War to dominate a conversation:

• Instigator: In a Holy War, beliefs are already strongly held, so it doesn't take much to set off a battle. The Instigator usually kicks things off with a leading question or a snide comment. They need not be the ones who started the thread. For example, after reading a post where a user mentions he's using Windows, an Instigator might throw a seemingly innocent statement or question into their response, such as "I hope your presentation goes well, and that your [Windows machine] doesn't crash every 2 seconds, but maybe that's too much to ask." or "I hope your presentation goes well. Out of curiosity, what made you decide on a PC for your work over a Mac?" At this point, the Instigator may not intend anything more than to get a little rise out of readers, but his actions have inevitably led the conversation down a road from which there is no return.
• First Responder: The First Responder is the first guy on the scene with an opposing viewpoint. You know that little dig that the Instigator made in his post? Well, the First Responder is there to make sure he won't get away with it. The First Responder is often genuinely offended by the Instigator's remarks, however playful or innocent they may have been. So, the First Responder must do his duty and correct the Instigator, either by pointing out why he is wrong ("...Macs crash too..."), picking apart the Instigator's statement word-by-word and refuting each one ("...Technically, a Mac is a Personal Computer or 'PC', so your comment doesn't really make sense..."), or by providing a single-sentence rebuttal ("I've been using a PC for 5 years and it has never crashed on me.").
• Unwilling participants: No Holy War battle can ever really take place in private. There must always be some audience who will be subjected to the endless postings on the thread. Some of these folks will even find themselves drawn into the battle. Others will follow in silence, agreeing with one side while learning more about the other. And the rest? They'll just be annoyed that their inboxes/thread notifications/chat window has been filled to the brim with commentary that will never budge from the same 10 or 15 talking points. Should these unwilling participants reply to the thread asking that the conversation be taken offline or to another venue, they will immediately be attacked for increasing the traffic on the thread (after all, if you post to the thread asking people to stop posting, that makes you a hypocrite) or for trying to control the conversation, which, of course, is a restriction of free speech.
• Blacks and Whites: So named for their beliefs.  Everything to them is black and white, even when it's gray. These charming individuals are members of the newsgroup/mailing list/etc. who take it upon themselves to perpetuate the argument. By the time things really heat up, there's probably an 85% chance that the Instigator and the First Responder are no longer the main contributors to the discussion.

So, these are the main characters in a Holy War. What began as a playful jab or an innocent question rapidly spirals out of control. Threads will last for days, weeks, or even longer! The participants will write volumes in text. And this isn't just respectful debate, it's an all-out slugfest. Blacks will insult Whites' opinions. Whites will insult Blacks' opinions. Whites will cheer on their main proponents, and Blacks will do the same. Chaos will ensue, and with no end in sight.

At this point, one of three things can happen:

1. The Holy War rapidly degenerates into a Flame War, wherein Blacks and Whites take turns insulting each others' professional and personal opinions. This too will last for a long time, but unless the thread gets back to the original Holy War topic, Flame Wars are destined to fizzle and die (much like their names would imply) as the participants run out of insults to fuel the flames or back away in shame.
2. Godwin's Law is realized and the conversation ends shortly thereafter (keep reading for a more detailed explanation)
3. The Saints come marching in.

To me, (3) represents such an important shift in the nature of the battle in a Holy War that it needs its own description. Up to this point, the battle has been vicious and inches ever closer to becoming a Flame War. Observing this quality or impending fate, the Saints must take it upon themselves to inform the Blacks and Whites that they need to "grow up" and learn to "respect each others' differences". Alternatively, they may simply suggest that Holy Wars should never be fought, as they are unwinnable, and so the offending thread should be terminated so as not to perpetuate the cycle. Saints will take the high road, and demonstrate how civil people would act in a situation like this.

But the tragic downfall of Saints, who are correctly advertising the Agree to Disagree philosophy, is that they are really Instigators in disguise. After all, it is inevitable that after a Saint has entered the conversation, someone will take issue with the fact that they're trying to dampen a legitimate discussion or to restrict free speech. And, of course, there is no belief that we hold more dear than that of open discourse and freedom of speech (or basic civility and reason, on the opposing side)!  Those who would prefer to perpetuate the debate will claim that they're merely having a rousing intellectual discussion. And so the original Holy War is hijacked by a larger, more deeply ingrained war, drawing more participants, bringing Blacks and Whites of the previous war together, somehow involving politics, and perpetuating the spamming of the communication channel.

So how on earth can such a conversation come to a close? What is to become of the never-ending thread?

Enter Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." I think we can all agree that it doesn't get much worse than Nazis or Hitler, unless you consider the topics in a Holy War (Oops, I just Godwin-ed myself!). Such a comparison is so extreme that participants finally see that there is no arguing with people who would haphazardly invoke the tragedy of the Holocaust or Nazi Germany, instantaneously making the conversation about 100 times more boring, and eventually killing all interest in the thread.

But how does Godwin's Law come to fruition? Well it leads back to my previous point about the consequence of a Saint entering the dialogue. As the new, freedom-of-speech vs. human civility Holy War reaches a boiling point, it is inevitable that someone will compare the restriction of such speech to the tyrannical rule of the Nazis. It may take a few messages back and forth, but it will happen. At this point, the conversation is dead and gone. And in the meantime, the War has taken as collateral the entire forum/mailing list/chat, driving away new subscribers and veterans alike. After all, they know that once a Holy War has been fought on fresh, virgin ground, another is destined to arise there (if it hasn't already during the few months that the first one was going on).

So how can I sum up this grim fate for online discussion? It seems to me that it's all about communication in the digital age. Whether it's members of the open-source community, teenage geeks in angst, or die-hard fans who just want to be heard, every Holy War will inevitably reduce to a fight over what's appropriate to say and who's allowed to say it. I would not be shocked to learn that any group that puts large amounts of emphasis on open communication and needing to be heard would run into problems such as those described above (Holy Wars: not just for geeks anymore). In the end, the only thing that will bring a Holy War battle to a close is an invocation of Godwin's Law.  After all, when it comes to Holy Wars, it's only appropriate that God Wins!

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you enjoyed my tongue-in-cheek ranting. If the response is good, maybe I'll keep it up.

Labels: Computers, Humor, Opinion

Permalink
posted by depoll @ 3:37 AM 2 Comments Links to this post