Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Centuries ago, knights could challenge the dragons of their time with stout heart and clear mind. They had no conflict as to who was, or was not, the enemy. Neither did they have any confusion about how to deal with said enemy.
In the beginning of weblogging, we also had the same clear cut path in front of us, except our swords were our weblogs and our words. If we disagreed with another, strongly enough, we would write about it and provide links to the offending source so that others could either agree or disagree with us. The irony of the situation was that the more we would point to those with whom we disagree, the more attention they got; so much so that today the top webloggers consist, to a large extent, of people who piss other people off.
We are becoming more sophisticated now in how we spread ‘attention’; monetizing it in such a way that sometimes I wonder if we’ll reach a point where the only discussions that are occurring are between marketers scratching each other’s backs.
Do we ignore the dragons then? Do we ignore the statements made, the assertions implied, the outrageous, the vicious, the absurd because to notice them, to refute them, we give them attention?
I want a dragon. I want a sword. I want to kill something cleanly. Figuratively, but cleanly.
