« Poor David Maynor, can't get a break | Main | Sadly predictable »

So much for "the anonymity of the internet" being the problem

Read this post from the American Repertory Theatre Blog.

Now, tell me another story about how making it harder to be anonymous on the intarweb will stop rudeness or even slow it down. Specifically, Tim O'Reilly and all the rest. Tell me how this happened in a face to face context. Right there. Let's reiterate what happened:

Last night’s performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.

Now, you want to leave en masse to show displeasure, hey, that's fine. But trying to destroy the art you dislike? Even if it was a token gesture? Da Fuck?

I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available–and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline–it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.

I'll tell you what I see here. I see the modus of the new fundamentalism. It's not enough to disagree with something, or decide it's not for you because it violates the tenets of your belief. Now, they work, via book banning, lawsuits, and shit like this, to prevent anyone from being able to see, hear, or in any way have contact with things they dislike. It is not enough to say "that is not for me or my family". It is now required that anything they dislike is purged from human awareness.

It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl’s work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm’s length from me–never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I’ve chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own–its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.

That's all this is. Pride and ego. "I cannot tolerate disagreement, because that would mean that I must tolerate disbelief, and to do that, I must admit that my beliefs are not perfect for all." The idea of agreeing to disagree, to allow others to think or believe differently is counter to what the fundamentalists live by. All must believe as they do, in lock step. No disagreement.

But I'll give them this. They did it in public, right in the guy's face.

So much for anonymity being the problem.

Technorati Tags: Religion, TEH STOOPUD, TEH SUCK, WTF?

Categories: Other, Politics

Posted by John C. Welch at 16:35 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

Read this post from the American Repertory Theatre Blog.\n\nNow, tell me another story about how making it harder to be anonymous on the intarweb will stop rudeness or even slow it down. Specifically, Tim O'Reilly and all the rest. Tell me how this happened in a face to face context. Right there. Let's reiterate what happened:\n

Last night’s performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.

Now, you want to leave en masse to show displeasure, hey, that's fine. But trying to destroy the art you dislike? Even if it was a token gesture? Da Fuck?\n

I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available–and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline–it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.

I'll tell you what I see here. I see the modus of the new fundamentalism. It's not enough to disagree with something, or decide it's not for you because it violates the tenets of your belief. Now, they work, via book banning, lawsuits, and shit like this, to prevent anyone from being able to see, hear, or in any way have contact with things they dislike. It is not enough to say \"that is not for me or my family\". It is now required that anything they dislike is purged from human awareness.\n

It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl’s work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm’s length from me–never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I’ve chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own–its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.

That's all this is. Pride and ego. \"I cannot tolerate disagreement, because that would mean that I must tolerate disbelief, and to do that, I must admit that my beliefs are not perfect for all.\" The idea of agreeing to disagree, to allow others to think or believe differently is counter to what the fundamentalists live by. All must believe as they do, in lock step. No disagreement.\n\nBut I'll give them this. They did it in public, right in the guy's face. \n\nSo much for anonymity being the problem.\n

Technorati Tags: Religion, TEH STOOPUD, TEH SUCK, WTF?