Even at the time of BBS’s and at the dawn of internet in the 1990’s flame wars were more moderated. Certainly the fact that there was more attrition (online world wasn’t always available as you had to be in front of a computer), and costs played a factor.
Yes, this was a practical application of the idea of "time equals, or costs, money".
I remember the days of dial up internet connections, and the fact that if you were online that way, nobody could contact the family by phone; actually, nobody could use the phone.
One thing that I remember is that even the most aggressive flames were more articulated than the current Facebook wars of back and forth of idiotic comments. In order to “win” an argument on a bulletin board - and garner some support from other users - one had to at least attempt to express some sort of basic reasoning behind controversial statements. Obviously, then as of now, no one really won an online argument, but at least there was some food for thought.
A perennial complaint.
But yes, I find myself in agreement with you.
Nowadays half of the heated conversations are one-liners, memes, or plain insults.
A heartfelt and profound amen to that.
Insults and one liners - ugh; this is no substitute for conversation and informed (and preferably reasoned) discussion and debate.
And memes are seldom either clever or funny, and rarely apt.
All true about snail mail but when studying the Cold War and Russian revolution we studied some of Lenin's polemical articles flaming other Marxists, Darwin's famous book launched a few flame debates as well most famously with Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce. 🤣
Now, I am laughing, reading what you have written.
I used to teach Russian and Soviet history, and do indeeed recall that Lenin was a vicious, wounding and vehement polemicist; for such a polite and courteous man in his personal life, he was brutal - ruthless and venomous, in fact, verbally violent when engaged in what passed for political debate, especially with those whom others might have deemed his closest potential allies.
Honestly, I find polemics and even provocations quite interesting. Sometimes they do advance thought as they function as a challenge to an authority or something that is a standard for no good reason.
Agreed, yes.
Although the Galileo story didn’t go exactly as most people believe (wasn’t tortured, never said “eppur si muove”, his penance was light, never lost money etc, and his scientific theories had little to do with it - plus he was wrong), his trolling of authority (calling the king/pope Simplicio wasn’t really a nice thing to do) spawned the advancement of science and expression thereof. Certainly, it’s also a dialectical weapon that must be used very carefully, as very few people are capable of using it effectively.
Ah, yes, Galileo.
Now, yes, I had known that he wasn't tortured, but as a teenager reading (and influenced by) both Bronowski (Ascent of Man) - I loved his gentle yet barbed quote to the effect that Galileo "had rather more children than would have been considered entirely fitting for a bachelor" - and - er - Brecht, (that play), I confess that I was a (fervent) fan.
Mind you, it didn't help that it took the Vatican ages to remedy their own teaching on some of these matters.
