Church in over their Heads again

Panda Bear

It seems the Church has once again put there almighty big foot in it again.

---

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has warned that social networking websites, texting and e-mails are undermining community life.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols said MySpace and Facebook led young people to seek what he termed short-lived friendships, with quantity becoming more important than quality.
He said a key factor in suicide among young people was the trauma caused when such loose relationships collapsed.
Advertisement

Archbishop Nichols said society was losing some of its ability to build communities through inter-personal communication, as the result of excessive use of texts and e-mails rather than face-to-face meetings or telephone conversations.

---

Experts now on rural living and suicide ?? and hell bent on alienating us all futher from the church. Wonder if Jesus would have used bebo or Facebook. More people on Myspace, Bebo, Facebook than visiting the churchs in our country I would say. More visitors on facebook among ALL Race, Color and Religion than you will find in WestMinster or St Patrick's Cathederal

PDN

Archbishop Nichols has served for eight years as the chairman of the management board of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults. He also holds a postgraduate degree in Education. I think he is entitled as anyone else to express his views on the impact of social networking sites etc.

However, it seems that any opinion proferred by a Catholic leader on any subject merits a hysterical response nowadays.

dvpower

Was there a hysterical response?

The optics of a Catholic Archbishop giving out about social networking sites are always going to be bad (what would he know about it? etc...). Very few people are going to see past the messenger to read the message.

I wonder what he'd think about boards.ie?

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Was there a hysterical response?

Yes - the OP. Claiming the church is in over its head. :rolleyes:

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

Was there a hysterical response?

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

Tim Robbins

I'd be in agreement with the Bishop. Facebook is for sado's.
At least with boards, you can have a debate / discussion and learn something or just get useful information and advice.

Húrin

I think the guy's linking it to suicide is overly dramatic but he has a point about the internet, for all its benefits, playing a part in social isolation. I've heard that it is a factor in marital breakdowns in Ireland.

jill_valentine

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd be in agreement with the Bishop. Facebook is for sado's.
At least with boards, you can have a debate / discussion and learn something or just get useful information and advice.

Both he - and your good self, I'd suggest - are missing the point of Facebook.

What makes Facebook so popular is that it's used as a social tool. In a way neither Bebo nor Myspace facilitated, people use Facebook as a means to organise and document their real world social lives - events, pub nights, birthday parties, etc.

Nearly everyone I know uses it a supplement to real world communication, rather than a replacement. Boards has plenty of it's own meet-ups and all, but it's still very much an internet community for internet users - Facebook is an online tool used mainly by relatively casual internetters as a cheap way of keeping each other up to date that won't eat up all their credit.

The archbishop may have a point - although I don't think he does - about the internet in general, but he's completely misunderstood the purpose and application of social networking sites.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

I am (like) so uncool -bishops are on facebook and I'm not! I am so behind the curve.

(I was going to go on about twitter, but I don't know if thats current any more - Soon we'll all be communicating through prayer - the ultimate communications tech.)

Panda Bear

All point taken and all very relative. Nothing hyterical only we often find Church Members so I am a bit off the mark , it members rather than church speaking. Then only days later we find them withdrrawing or elaborating some more on the actual point they are trying to convey.

Degree's dont amount to much when you jump into something with absolutely no degree of use purpose or merit. Many find much benefit in bust, travelling daily lives such as we have now to post, leave messages etc to friend and family. I know my own are scattered across the glode and it is a wonderful way NOT to lose contact like my own Aunts Uncles and other when they lost contact with brothers sister etc only to try and resurrect them many many years later. We are not idiots and do value the personal and live contact of all or friends and family.

Perhap the Archbisop should sign up and spread the message in this new media format.

Phototoxin

I personally think its a bit hypocritical ... has he not heard of www.xt3.com
(as opposed to my own ... exteatree.com ) which it claims 'is so good even the pope uses it' as it was set up to facilitate the promotion of WYD.

I think its a typical RC political thing with one hand not knowing what the other is doing

Tim Robbins

jill_valentine wrote: »

Both he - and your good self, I'd suggest - are missing the point of Facebook.

What makes Facebook so popular is that it's used as a social tool. In a way neither Bebo nor Myspace facilitated, people use Facebook as a means to organise and document their real world social lives - events, pub nights, birthday parties, etc.

Nearly everyone I know uses it a supplement to real world communication, rather than a replacement. Boards has plenty of it's own meet-ups and all, but it's still very much an internet community for internet users - Facebook is an online tool used mainly by relatively casual internetters as a cheap way of keeping each other up to date that won't eat up all their credit.

The archbishop may have a point - although I don't think he does - about the internet in general, but he's completely misunderstood the purpose and application of social networking sites.

Facebook has an element of keeping up with the jones's about it which I find incredibly sad.

The type of communication it uses is broadcasting which makes it very superficial and impersonal.

It does to real friendship what the playstation and x box do to real sport.
How's that for an analogy :-)

jill_valentine

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Facebook has an element of keeping up with the jones's about it which I find incredibly sad.

Spoken like somebody with OMFG less than 50 Facebook friends!

No, seriously though, it's as good as the people who use it. It looks superficial from a distance, because it's only half the story.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It does to real friendship what the playstation and x box do to real sport.
How's that for an analogy :-)

Faulty. :cool:

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Besides, he does, presumably, believe in the validity of the written word of a book. If it came in .PDF, would he have been less convinced...?

prinz

He was 100% correct. And as PDN pointed out more than qualified to proffer an opinion. The condescending attitude towards the clergy of any denomination is astonishing these days. The "What would they know" brigade.

Perhaps he was referring to cases like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3234692.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7204172.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/medianews/blogs/blogdetails.aspx?sid=12122

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204062/The-fake-world-Facebook-Bebo-How-suicide-cyber-bullying-lurk-facade-harmless-fun.html

http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/suicide_prevention/contagion.htm

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dhssps-110707-mcgimpsey-wants-action

All you have to do is visit the Relationship Issues forum every few days to see the number of "issues" based on Facebook, Bebo and texting 'relationships' and internet dating. Social Networking Sites destroy social skills simple as. Funny I don't remember anyone declaring McGimpsey to be out of touch, misguided and in over his head... it's a funny thing whenever a man of the Church mentions something that has been talked about for years, it suddenly becomes controversial and headline news.

Fanny Cradock

For my part I think that social networking, while largely positive, is probably open to as many abuses as any other communication medium. So, in this regard, it is perfectly valid to discuss the negative consequences that may arise from its use.

However, it seems that whenever a member of the clergy pipes up with an opinion on any given social issue the point, however pertinent, is missed by a number of people as a matter of course. Again, it seems that they cant quite get over the fact that a someone who peddles an irrelevant and antiquated belief should dare express an opinion.

Tim Robbins

jill_valentine wrote: »

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

I hate anything that encourages people not to be challenged and I know plenty of saddo's who use it. They update it every day with things such as "I'm going for a walk now".

Another person I know regularly updates it constantly trying to impress everyone with how many parties they go to.

Basically I just know loads of people who sue it to express the saddest and shallowest parts of their lifes.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Well I think he was spot on. Christianity works pace when it challenges sad normalities, bad habbits and just silly things we do without really thinking about.

Biro

jill_valentine wrote: »

Spoken like somebody with OMFG less than 50 Facebook friends!

No, seriously though, it's as good as the people who use it. It looks superficial from a distance, because it's only half the story.



Faulty. :cool:

Facebook doesn't work in isolation; it is not a substitute for real friendship, or an imitation of it.

It doesn't claim to be, and that's not why people use it. It's an integrated part of people's social lives. It's a convenient way to get everybody organised and keep each other up to date with each others plans, and it's way cheaper than phoning or texting everybody. Afterwards, you've got photos, videos and banter, and sort out whatever you're doing next.I actually don't use Facebook a whole lot anymore - I use a 3 datamodem :rolleyes: - but it was a really handy way to stay in touch with my friends when I wouldn't or couldn't have conveniently done otherwise.

To me, the Archbishop's griping sounds a bit like a misguided attempt to sound up-to-date, with a healthy dash of ludditism for good measure. He's misunderstood it's basic purpose, for one thing, in a way that kind of reminds me of my mam. You know, picks up a few buzzwords, strings them together with the help of a Mary Kenny column, and away he goes.

Besides, he does, presumably, believe in the validity of the written word of a book. If it came in .PDF, would he have been less convinced...?

You have a point but you need to remember that not all Facebook users use it in the way that you describe, so the bishop may have a perfectly valid point. You and I use it in the way you describe because we have made our friends and have been introduced to Facebook afterwards, but what about kids who start using Facebook at a very young age? It's a whole new outlook on it as a social tool that we probably don't see. Using it as a supliment is fine, but somehow I don't think that's what is going on with 6 and 7 year old school kids these days.

PDN

Facebook is a tool, a form of communication that can used in ways that are beneficial or harmful. All forms of communication can be used for good or evil. For example, the internet can be used to spread child pornography, but it can also be used to coordinate aid projects in the developing world.

I actually use Facebook a lot. My job requires that I network with a lot of people in many different countries - and Facebook is great for doing that in a superficial way that can initiate deeper stuff if necessary.

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

JimiTime

Like others have said, its not that these things are bad from the outset, but their misuse etc can have dire consaquences. TV, video, the internet, X-Box, they are all the same in this way too.

The issue is accentuated, when the next generation start their online 'socialising', from a very young age. That is, before they've developed social skills in the real world. As adults who honed their social skills in the real world 'before' the advent of online social networking, we can use it as a tool, and as Jill Valentine said, not in isolation. When it becomes the norm for up and coming generations, thats when it becomes a more potent threat.

I DREAD to think of what I would have let myself view if I had broadband as a 14 year old or before that even. I think upcoming generations are really going to need parental wisdom with regards the internet. Be it porn, social networking etc. I think someone bringing our attention to the obvious dangers of the internet is a good thing as long as its done in a non-sensationalist reasoned way.

Biro

PDN wrote: »

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

I agree, and that's more or less what the bishop was saying. But alas, because the message came from a member of the Catholic Church, it gets tarred as an over-reaction, an out of touch rant, a means of further distancing them from us, etc.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I actually use Facebook a lot. My job requires that I network with a lot of people in many different countries - and Facebook is great for doing that in a superficial way that can initiate deeper stuff if necessary.

How about LinkedIn or use a blog?

Undoubtedly there are some, particularly teenagers, who spend so much time on Facebook or Bebo that they don't have any time left for the real world. They think that having 310 'friends' on Facebook equals real relationships - and that is storing up a load of emotional trouble for the future.

I have one friend, who has over 400 friends on facebook but never even bother getting back to me about a wedding invite.
Priorities and all that...

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about LinkedIn or use a blog?

If facebook is johnny no mates, then linkedIn is for wageslaves looking for validation and blogs are ... well the less said about blogs the better.

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

Nodin

I hate Blogs...much like the "cam" produced the idea that "pictures=IM A MODEL", the Blog has led to "I've linked to a News article and made an observation=Citizen Journalist and Sage"......

Fanny Cradock

I've read through a little of what the Archbishop said, and his words seem eminently sensible. I wonder how many people bothered to do the same before criticising?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5956719/Facebook-and-MySpace-can-lead-children-to-commit-suicide-warns-Archbishop-Nichols.html

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've read through a little of what the Archbishop said, and his words seem eminently sensible. I wonder how many people bothered to do the same before criticising?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5956719/Facebook-and-MySpace-can-lead-children-to-commit-suicide-warns-Archbishop-Nichols.html

I don't know. I would say he is missing the point there- the child was bullied. Surely the important thing to note is why the child was bullied, not the media used to bully. It's similar to blaming Judas Priest for that poor kid who tried to take his own life.

Secondly, I think individualism is something to be treasured, and doesn't necessarily mean someone alienating themselves from a community- in fact, from anecdotal experience, I'd say the community is more likely to dislike someone who is "too different". A lack of desire to be individual surely has lead to these fair weather Christians who I believe most posters here agree aren't a great thing, as they don't want to rock the boat.

Can't comment on the football thing though.

Fanny Cradock

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't know. I would say he is missing the point there- the child was bullied. Surely the important thing to note is why the child was bullied, not the media used to bully. It's similar to blaming Judas Priest for that poor kid who tried to take his own life.

Secondly, I think individualism is something to be treasured, and doesn't necessarily mean someone alienating themselves from a community- in fact, from anecdotal experience, I'd say the community is more likely to dislike someone who is "too different". A lack of desire to be individual surely has lead to these fair weather Christians who I believe most posters here agree aren't a great thing, as they don't want to rock the boat.

Can't comment on the football thing though.

Yes, bullied online. Lets not loose sight of what he said. He didn't say that social networking is bad, rather it can possibly lead to bad things.

"Facebook and MySpace might contribute towards communities, but I'm wary about it."

However, instead of people looking at his words that were prompted by the suicide of a girl, we bizarrely get people moaning about the church putting their foot in it. It's like they suffer from some cognitive inability to separate their dislike of all things churchy from valid questions or opinions expressed by a member of the church. There is no reason that any form of communication should be above criticism.

As for individualism, I don't believe that he is complaining about people who choose to stand out from the crowd, he is talking about those who place themselves apart form the rest of the community in order to extract whatever they can from it. This is why he used the word "mercenaries" and discussed footballers out for only the cash. Initially it may seem like an odd gripe, but then again he is a passionate Liverpool supporter. He was also discussing the affects that individualism - which I actually read as the dissolution of the wider community or the marginalisation of certain people from the community - could have on vulnerable people, in this case the elderly.

patrickthomas

robindch wrote: »

I think people responded in hysterics. There's a subtle, but important difference.

BTW, Mr Nichols' facebook page is staying disappointingly mum.

I looked at his page, am so glad I am not on facebook now:D

Coriolanus

The medium is more or less irrelevant. I bet plenty of people had their hearts broken via snail mail (remember that?).
Bad things happen all the time, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that online interactions are inherently more risky.

Fanny Cradock

Nevore wrote: »

The medium is more or less irrelevant. I bet plenty of people had their hearts broken via snail mail (remember that?).
Bad things happen all the time, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that online interactions are inherently more risky.

Well, I would argue that there is quite a large difference between a personal letter and social networking. While communication is obviously the common string, it seems that they both go about it in a different ways and social networking has much broader applications. The Archbishop seems to be suggesting that the friendships amassed online are largely superficial. Whereas it seems reasonable to suggest that one generally only writes letters to those people close to oneself.

While you might not have seen any compelling evidence to suggest online interactions are inherently more risky than letters sent via the post (Have you actually looked? Or is this an assumption?), we are dealing with a case where a girl's suicide was at least related to online interactions. If this doesn't make one pause for thought then nothing will, I guess.

Given this most regrettable case and other similar deaths, the powerful effects that social networking and other online activities can potentially exert on peoples lives (be they positive or negative) is at least worthy of debate.

If a new drug is devised you can be sure that there would be through testing of that drug. Even then they sometimes get it badly wrong, the result of this failure can be some very nasty side effects from the drug. To me social networking is analogous to that new drug and public debate is the test to determine the effects it has on its users. To simply dismiss a valid debate by saying "bad things happen all the time" is irresponsible in relation to the vulnerable and self defeating if we consider each one of us as having some sort of corporate responsibility to the wider society.

Coriolanus

Well, I would argue that there is quite a large difference between a personal letter and social networking. While communication is obviously the common string, it seems that they both go about it in a different ways and social networking has much broader applications. The Archbishop seems to be suggesting that the friendships amassed online are largely superficial. Whereas it seems reasonable to suggest that one generally only writes letters to those people close to oneself.

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.

While you might not have seen any compelling evidence to suggest online interactions are inherently more risky than letters sent via the post (Have you actually looked? Or is this an assumption?), we are dealing with a case where a girl's suicide was at least related to online interactions. If this doesn't make one pause for thought then nothing will, I guess.

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.

Given this most regrettable case and other similar deaths, the powerful effects that social networking and other online activities can potentially exert on peoples lives (be they positive or negative) is at least worthy of debate.

Maybe it's just that I don't see social networking and online activities as any more powerful than normal interactions.
What it is, is absolutely aberrant compared to anything we've experienced in a few hundred years of physical evolution and thousands of years of social evolution. That, I think is why it garners so much attention. It's new, and to a certain percentage of people, it's scary.
People exert powerful effects on other people, the social network sites facilitate the interactions, but hell, so does putting your kids on the bus to school with a few dozen others.

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, bullied online. Lets not loose sight of what he said. He didn't say that social networking is bad, rather it can possibly lead to bad things.

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.

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

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