No subject


Tue Nov 7 11:21:40 PST 2017


re definitions of flaming ...

 "best so far" is not bad at all
> >name calling, swearing, insults, impolite statements, threats and put-downs,
> >crude flirtations of a demeaning or sexually explicit nature, and attacks on
> >groups or individuals
>
> = flaming on the Net will be conflict carried out by linguistic means as
> above, Net conflict carried out by more elegant use of language will be
> something else, even if there is evidence of emotional involvement.


I like this. Does anyone else want to modify, or propose what's missing?

I'm especially fascinated by the conflict-as-essential-group formation
concept, first mentioned on aoir by Nancy White, I think. Theory-man Georg
Simmel comes to mind.

So what's going on in a "flame"?

Crossing unspoken netiquette boundaries, breaking a form of social control
in a medium that has a pop culture connotation of being "free." And yet,
we all know that it is a highly-regulated communicative space.

What if we think of flaming in terms of feedback systems. Flaming then
might be a way to expand the social system. "Feedback is a channel along
which data on the results of control are fed back into the system."
(Hamilton, Sheryl (1998),Incomplete Determinism...Journal of Communication
Inquiry 22:2, pp. 177-204.) (Thank you D. Silver for this article.)

Flaming contests the mental maps (Migdal) that users have created for
their cyber-forum. Flaming can be a reflective device, telling them what
their own personal mental maps are. To flame is to cross into someone
else's territory, possibly to lay claim to their discursive body. Hence,
the name-calling and character assasinating and sexual text-groping.

Of course, flaming is deemed "bad" and abusive. But is that because it
causes real, measurable harm, or is it because it breaks with the
traditional Western Socratic rational dialogue form?

Is a flame a flame cross-culturally?

That's what I'm thinking for now.

Thanks.

-Robert





More information about the Air-L mailing list