A few weeks ago, in response to a meme, I posted LaTtEX, In the Spotlight, which posed an interesting question with regards to morals and blogging:
Do your moral values affect the way that you blog, and if yes, how?
Of course; I don’t think morality is an extricable aspect of any writer’s pieces. People write about opinions; opinions are based on one’s beliefs and values, and moral values play a crucial role in opinion formation.
As much as possible I don’t want impose my moral values on others though, because I believe it is an act which is the root of all conflict in the world.[Ang Kape ni LaTtEX]
Note the emphasis on the last sentence.
Barely a few weeks after I posted this, two distinct blogger-vs-blogger issues erupted, wherein some authoritative bloggers gave their 2 cents with regards to the activities of their respective “targets.” Soon thereafter the Malu Fernandez issue ensued, wherein a blogger made his stand to have Malu Fernandez fired. A deluge of blog posts regarding the fiasco followed this first post, which led to Malu Fernandez’s subsequent resignation.
Some bloggers claim victory over the resignation, exhibiting the apparent power of the blogosphere’s word and conviction, and perhaps as a signum to establish moral standards by which the cyberspace would adhere.
Unfortunately all that I see is the translation of human natural history of war in cyberspace. Let me explain.
The history of man is riddled with conflicts rooted on the claim of moral ascendancy. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Byzantine-Ottoman Wars, the American Civil War, Hitler’s Final Solution, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, 9/11, and the War on Terrorism are all based on moral ascendancy.
Whether it’s Christianity claiming ascendancy over Islam and vice-versa, Yankees claiming ascendancy over Southerners who refuse to give up their slaves, the “Aryan Race” claiming ascendancy over Jews, Communism claiming ascendancy over established republican democracies, Islamic extremists claiming ascendancy over “the Great Satan”, or Americans claiming ascendancy over “The Axis of Evil”, all of these conflicts are based on men who are, supposedly, acting on their perceptions of justice and righteousness.
However, the fact that they all have ulterior motives, or in the absence of such, that in “victory” they prove or achieve power, whether real or imagined, becomes a largely ignored matter. That Christians, Muslims, and Communists used their religion to expand their territory becomes moot and non-issue. That the Union needed the Confederacy to give up its slaves to make cheap African-American labor available is forgotten. Hitler merely envied the business acumen of the Jews — this is remembered because he lost this war. But that Western culture is trampling upon the more conservative cultures of the the Middle East is brushed aside. That barrels of American blood is being spilled in Iraq in potential exchange for barrels of oil is ignored.
It is sad and unfortunate that I am starting to see these exact same things — battlefields based on claims of moral ascendancy — in cyberspace. So much so that in the campaign against Malu Fernandez, some bloggers who either dissented contrary to popular sentiment or complained against disgusting name-calling have been mobbed by commenters who sport an “if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us” attitude.
I see no victory in with the Malu Fernandez fiasco — all I have seen is the power of raw emotion and undue influence, by which those who lay claim to moral ascendancy reveal nothing but a mob behind them that dares declare what is right, what is wrong, who is strong and how to destroy.
What these people conveniently forgot is that there are proper courses of action for such cases; if you are piqued by the actions of a particular blogger outside of their blog posts, email them — talk to them personally if you can. If your morals are offended by the statements of a publication’s writer, write a strongly worded letter to her editor. If you disagree with a certain blog post, dissent in the comments thread or post about it in your own blog, but only do this in response to posts that have actually been publicly published.
Let no one misinterpret that I am against the establishment of moral standards, or I am against morals and morality per se; everyone has moral standards that they must abide by or else chaos will ensue. What I am against is a small group or people, or a Malu-Fernandez-type-mobocracy that feigns moral ascendancy over individual bloggers and writers and journalists of all types.
There is no need for a “blogging police”, or a Big Brother or a mafia backed by a roaring mob to enforce such moral standards. Neither is there a need to establish a prudish good-morals-and-right-conduct-etiquette-guide-to-blogging that “everyone” will adhere to but will hypocritically be ignored.
Such steps will only lead to another question: who are you to tell me what is right and what is wrong? Who are you to tell me what I can write and what I cannot?
These questions will only produce more of the ugly conflicts and “wars” we have seen — some of them leading to nothing to a false perception of popularity and influence, all, ironically, in the name of Google Adsense.
16 responses so far ↓
1 sparks // Aug 28, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Hahaha. Me like.
My stand is, if you can’t articulate a critique or a commentary better than “she’s a pig,” then you should have your say. Some people are just snobs.
2 Sidney // Aug 28, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Bloggers are humans and they are a perfect reflection of the society/world outside the web.
3 Jon Limjap // Aug 28, 2007 at 10:50 pm
@sparks,
I’m not quite sure I get what you mean. For me, anything on the level of “she’s a pig” is nothing but a mere echo chamber. A very deafening echo chamber at that — one that doesn’t add value to the argument.
@Sidney,
Indeed.
4 Sophie // Aug 29, 2007 at 11:16 am
I’m just happy in my good ol space in the internet!
I write what I want, I do what I want, and I respect other spaces as I expect the to respect and leave me alone. hehe 
5 Jon Limjap // Aug 29, 2007 at 1:44 pm
@Sophie,
Well, I don’t want to be left alone. I want people to talk with me. share with me, argue with me, debate with me, and ponder with me. That’s the only way I’d know if I was able to make people think… something I openly state in the sub-title of my blog.
Maganda kapag may nagco-comment: ibig sabihin may naalipungatang mga isip. Hehehehe.
6 benj // Aug 29, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I’m going to write my script for tomorrow tonight. LOL
7 Jon Limjap // Aug 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm
@benj,
Don’t forget to plug my blog if you lift things off it. LOLz
8 Daniel Ted // Aug 30, 2007 at 12:08 pm
You have rather deep thoughts. Thanks for feedin’ my mind.
9 Jon Limjap // Aug 30, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Daniel,
Thanks.
10 Erfy // Sep 1, 2007 at 5:17 am
Hi Jon! Your entries are really thought provoking. Reading through your archives are a pleasure.
11 Prudence // Sep 4, 2007 at 9:40 am
Some people have the misconception that freedom of speech is absolute. It is not. Absolute freedom means only one thing: absolute chaos.
And when did choosing to be reasonable became snobbery?
12 Prudence // Sep 4, 2007 at 9:41 am
While that the rage expressed as uncouth words may be explained and understood as a knee-jerk reaction, it doesn’t necessarily equate to being correct or justified.
13 Jeg // Sep 6, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hi Jon. My first time to comment here. Nice piece.
Im with sparks. If Malu is free to say she’d rather die than be in a plane full of OFWs, then a commenter can say she’s a pig.
Everybody gets a free space to say what they truly feel.
(Talaga bang maliit ang font sa comment box? Malabo na mata ko e.
)
14 Jon Limjap // Sep 6, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Jeg,
Thanks for visiting.
While you’re right, such insults only serve the opponent when used in an argument. Note that ANC had the gall to call the blogs that voiced out against Malu as a “lynch mob” — it’s not because a lot of people have voiced out. It’s because of the language used in expressing those sentiments.
There are ways to be stinging (even hurtful) in civil words. There’s also the difference between attacking what she wrote, and attacking her, per se. Unfortunately most people did the latter, the infamous ad hominem attack, which reduces the credibility of our argument against her, even if we are correct.
Oo maliit talaga font sa comment box ko.
You could press Ctrl + to increase the font size anytime. 
15 Jeg // Sep 7, 2007 at 9:42 am
I agree with you, Jon, that there are more civil ways to argue. I was commenting from a ‘freedom of expression’ angle. Im saying if a commenter doesnt want to be civil, he or she is free to do so using words. If an OFW wants to vent his or her emotion, argue from his or her heart instead of his or her mind, if he or she wants to sting Fernandez, then he or she can. But only using words.
Pig, baboy, etc, words like that are figurative, and indicative only of the states of hurt the people felt. ‘Lynch mob’ is something the press calls this outburst of emotion, and is also figurative. We’re humans. We have emotions. We can’t shut these emotions down. In fact if everyone remained civil and ‘intellectual’ about what Fernandez did, I dont think she wouldve realized her folly. After the emotions die down, we can discuss things more civilly, but let us not deny them these emotions. Theyre as real as our thoughts.
16 Jon Limjap // Sep 7, 2007 at 10:20 am
Jeg,
I actually believe that if not for those “death threats” (if they were indeed such) then she wouldn’t have resigned.
As for the emotions, well, I’m just one who believes that cooler heads should prevail at all times, and I while I do not condone denying the negative truth, neither do I like to wallow and focus on negativity the way too many people did.
Of course, that’s just me.
Leave a Comment