Shriver speaks about anger, exclusion and violence

[Tarantella]

This very influential author has got it absolutely right about society today: the anger which motivates people who feel ignored and excluded, which causes some to make bombs and others to spray bile on the internet. And with her usual prescience, Shriver describes the experiences many of us recognize from our engagement with the internet. There are a lot of sad people out there!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/10007469/The-Boston-bombs-we-shall-not-yield-to-those-powered-by-hate.html

[eighthobstruction]

Lionel Shriver is very disappointed in some of us....Well at least we are not killing 68 million people over the period of 6 years as we did 1939-45....

At least Lionel has a well remunerated job, a direction, a faith [?, in something no doubt], a family and friends, a 'voice', a status that allows her to give forth 1000 words on what is interesting her this week....

....I make no comment on the appalling horrific unjustified bombing last week, there can be no way to condone it (surely)....

....And I do note Lionels 'Take a look at the shrill, venomous threads that run after articles just like this one.' I find some of what she says obvious, I agree with some and I am offended by some of it. Lionels 'the lone voices of reason', does not really chime in with other things she is saying. On the face of it the article is a simple reflection on the weeks events, but some of her assumptions are not mine , and in a subtle way contradictory;. within the text of the article, or so it appears to me....

[teamsaint]

Most people who are excluded from the "good things" in life behave far far better than those in power deserve most of the time.

Thankfully, though, we have organisations like the telegraph to put us right on these things.

[eighthobstruction]

Lionel Shriver has a new book out this week.....[that's a factual statement, not a dig]....

[amateur51]

Lionel Shriver has a new book out this week.....[that's a factual statement, not a dig]....

Yes I noticed that too, at the bottom of the article.

[Tarantella]

Lionel Shriver is very disappointed in some of us....Well at least we are not killing 68 million people over the period of 6 years as we did 1939-45....

At least Lionel has a well remunerated job, a direction, a faith [?, in something no doubt], a family and friends, a 'voice', a status that allows her to give forth 1000 words on what is interesting her this week....

....I make no comment on the appalling horrific unjustified bombing last week, there can be no way to condone it (surely)....

....And I do note Lionels 'Take a look at the shrill, venomous threads that run after articles just like this one.' I find some of what she says obvious, I agree with some and I am offended by some of it. Lionels 'the lone voices of reason', does not really chime in with other things she is saying. On the face of it the article is a simple reflection on the weeks events, but some of her assumptions are not mine , and in a subtle way contradictory;. within the text of the article, or so it appears to me....

Shriver is not talking about war. I do feel that this kind of moral relativism is very unhelpful in society. People use this tactic merely to justify bad behaviour.

She does make a very valid link between people who feel left out, excluded, "under-appreciated" and the shrill, venomous comments one finds, totally anonymously (unlike the writer herself) on the internet. I totally agree this is all part of the narrative of grievance and victimhood which is so pervasive in modern life. Discussion is now taking place in Australia about the nature of freedom of the press and how the internet itself and the 'citizen journalist' can get away with the most appalling libel and slander, with little or no consequences.

[eighthobstruction]

Shriver is not talking about war. (If she was then the UK would have to squirm here too, I would think.)

She does make a very valid link between people who feel left out, excluded, "under-appreciated" and the shrill, venomous comments one finds, totally anonymously (unlike the writer herself) on the internet. I totally agree this is all part of the narrative of grievance and victimhood which is so pervasive in modern life. Discussion is now taking place in Australia about the nature of freedom of the press and how the internet itself and the 'citizen journalist' can get away with the most appalling libel and slander, with little or no consequences.

Yes, we had our share of similar libel/slander issues and of course divisiveness/polarities of Thatcher....internet bullying....it is a problem....(at the same time though what comes next, people listening and recording peoples conversations in pubs)....they'll have their work cut out pulling together some coherent legislation on these issues....

[Tarantella]

Yes, we had our share of similar libel/slander issues and of course divisiveness/polarities of Thatcher....internet bullying....it is a problem....(at the same time though what comes next, people listening and recording peoples conversations in pubs)....they'll have their work cut out pulling together some coherent legislation on these issues....

(I see you used my quote before I edited this!) I think you're drawing a long bow between the written word re slander, vitriol, libel and people talking intimately in pubs. You don't need to fear tactics of totalitarian governments re what you say to others!! What we're talking about here is the very visible sign of people feeling angry and excluded and venting that in print versus the kind of regulations to which the commercial media is increasingly subject. To me this smacks of hypocrisy. And please don't reply that the Murdoch press needs sanctions as this will simply take the spotlight away from the individual responsibility of those who use the internet. In short, a red herring.

[Sydney Grew]

Is not "Lionel" a boy's name?

[Tarantella]

Is not "Lionel" a boy's name?

That may be, but Lionel is very much an attractive, intelligent female. Have a look for yourself!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10009273/Lionel-Shriver-social-media-makes-teenagers-neurotic.html

[Bryn]

That may be, but Lionel is very much an attractive, intelligent female. Have a look for yourself!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...-neurotic.html

I am not sure that Syd finds women that attractive, by and large.

[Tarantella]

I am not sure that Syd finds women that attractive, by and large.

"Bi" and "large"? Yep; I can do that!! (Not to be confused with "thick 'n rich"!!)

[french frank]

Is not "Lionel" a boy's name?

Is not "Sydney" a girl's name?

Back on topic, to specifically include 'exclusion' is perhaps to want to make a political point (not necessarily without justice). But internet 'anger and violence' in various contexts seem principally encouraged by anonymity and unaccountability.

As a characteristic of our age in general, the explosions of anger/violence also seem to be found in incidents like 'road rage' where perfectly innocent behaviour, or perhaps unintended mistakes, can trigger even worse blind, unreasoning responses.

[Tarantella]

Is not "Sydney" a girl's name?

Back on topic, to specifically include 'exclusion' is perhaps to want to make a political point (not necessarily without justice). But internet 'anger and violence' in various contexts seem principally encouraged by anonymity and unaccountability.

As a characteristic of our age in general, the explosions of anger/violence also seem to be found in incidents like 'road rage' where perfectly innocent behaviour, or perhaps unintended mistakes, can trigger even worse blind, unreasoning responses.

I think "exclusion" is meant in the context of not 'belonging', of being or feeling left out of a social group or culture.

Completely agree with what you've said about lack of accountability and anonymity. Total cowardice. Road 'rage' and other such aggressive behaviours? I've long wondered about this and perhaps drugs and alcohol play a role here (I'm sure they do), but I've long believed that the breakdown of the moral fabric through watered-down laws and NOT HAVING a zero tolerance to these kinds of things actually leads to MORE aggression, not less. Some experts have formed the same view, but it's not PC. People believe in freedom, but I don't think freedom is absolute. I remember a famous speech by Mary McAleese about this exact issue - one person's freedom is another person's loss of liberty.

[amateur51]

I think "exclusion" is meant in the context of not 'belonging', of being or feeling left out of a social group or culture.

Completely agree with what you've said about lack of accountability and anonymity. Total cowardice. Road 'rage' and other such aggressive behaviours? I've long wondered about this and perhaps drugs and alcohol play a role here (I'm sure they do), but I've long believed that the breakdown of the moral fabric through watered-down laws and NOT HAVING a zero tolerance to these kinds of things actually leads to MORE aggression, not less. Some experts have formed the same view, but it's not PC. People believe in freedom, but I don't think freedom is absolute. I remember a famous speech by Mary McAleese about this exact issue - one person's freedom is another person's loss of liberty.

Purlease - I'll not take anything you write seriously if you witter on about things not being PC. It's lazy and it's dull. I thought you weren't, but.....