Foruming

"Arguing with trolls in forums is like winning the gold in the Special Olympics.  Sure, you're the champion, but you're still a retard."

^ Maybe that isn't the most politically-correct way of describing it, but it's quite an accurate description of what usually happens when the relative anonymity offered by online forums is taken advantage of by trolls on one hand, and hot-headed and impulsive (but otherwise sensible and educated) people on the other.

Nevertheless, I still find myself going for the "gold in the Special Olympics" whenever I encounter the former, if only to make people aware that there is such a thing as a well-thought opinion on certain issues.  It is astonishing how plain stupidity is almost commonplace in online forums.  Show a dash of common sense and reason, and you are immediately hailed as smart and intelligent.  It's a boost to one's ego, yes.  But you'd later on realize how depressing the whole thing is.

Curiously, I spend a lot of time on sex-related topics not really because I particularly like the topic (although that's true, in a way), but because it is those topics where I fight with the least number of people.  The two major categories of topics that I find myself arguing most passionately in are: (1) politics and current events; and (2) religion and spirituality.

By far, the most annoying line given by forumers is this - "It's my opinion."  This is usually resorted to when one runs out of arguments and is meant to stop the exchange of opinions when it comes to a point where the most sensible course of action is to say "Yes, I was wrong.", but one is just too stubborn to admit it.  A lot of people don't seem to realize that the freedom to give one's opinion is a right enjoyed by everyone, and if one finds it proper to give one's view on an issue, other people have all the right to give an opposing view.

Here's a partial list of topics where I encounter the most number of trolls:

1.   Jose Rizal as national hero
My apologies to Andres Bonifacio fans, but whenever I encounter someone who claims that the Great Plebeian should be national hero instead of the allegedly "American-sponsored" Jose Rizal, I immediately assume a lack of education on his/her part.  Suffice to say, the whole point of the pro-Bonifacio camp is that their hero was brave and wanted independence, while Rizal didn't want separation from Spain and was "chosen" by the Americans because of his less-violent manner of pushing for change.

While there is a grain of truth (and a very small grain at that) on the pro-Bonifacio argument, it is rather a gross oversimplification of the ideals and achievements of both men.  (I will later on blog about this topic.)  I fault the nationalist activists of the 60s and 70s for the perpetuation of this criminal ignorance that has managed to permeate the national consciousness.  The idea that engaging in violence is much more heroic than academic excellence and non-violent struggle is the reason why people like Manny Pacquiao get a hero's welcome and Erap and Lito Lapid become successful politicians, while the best and the brightest minds in the country are relatively nameless.

2.  Separation of Church and State
I have blogged at length about this topic before, and this can be accessed here. The topic usually is framed within the context of the population debates, with the allegation that the whole population mess is the fault of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines.  This is stupid.  Does Congress seek the approval of the Church on an official basis before they pass laws?  No.  Is the President officially required to seek the approval of the Church before signing a bill into law?  No.   If we can allow animal rights groups to preach about not killing animals, then why not allow the Church to speak out about protecting human life in accordance with their beliefs?

3.  Marcos was not bad
Variations of this topic title would include "Marcos is the greatest president", "Ninoy is not a hero", "Edsa Revolution: a mistake", and other similar idiocies.  One particularly boneheaded train of thought I spotted (which is repeated in Erap's case) is the observation that just because the one who succeeded Marcos didn't live up to expectations means that the ousted president probably wasn't bad.  Cory was lame, and for sure she might have been beholden to certain interests, but I'd take the Cory era (with all it's coups d'etat) anytime over the Philippines during Marcos' time - where criticizing or ridiculing the dictatorship (or even just disturbing the peace) would get you meted a penalty ranging from the inane (riding a bicycle around a track oval until you get exhausted) to the deadly (summary execution).

Let me just note that I come from a family that benefitted from Marcos being in power and would have benefitted more had Marcos remained in power.  If there's any bias I am having, it should be for Marcos, and not against him.  But one gets wiser as one grows older.

4.  Catholics worship idols
We can perhaps blame folk Catholicism for the persistence of the notion that we Catholics venerate the physical images rather than the One represented.  But to go to the point of ignoring official teaching and rely on a flawed understanding to form an opinion of the entire group is, you guessed it, stupid.  Mainstream Protestants have already largely abandoned this line of attack, but it seems to be still en vogue among the so-called "Born-Agains" and certain other Christian and pseudo-Christian congregations (like the INC).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I'm supposed to add a few more, but I realized this blog is getting to be too long already and that I've been composing this for the longest time as I've always been interrupted with work.

I'll probably talk about this again some other time.