Anonymity and Empathy...or Not

One of the things I like to do in the mornings is peruse the Star Tribune website to see what’s happening in the city. Over the past few months, my interest has transferred from the actual articles to the comments left by other readers. They consistently entertain me because of the sheer range of attitudes they cover. When I was thinking about what to analyze for this week’s post, I had a few options but decided on the comment section of a Star Tribune article when I saw one with which I have a personal connection: “Cold and wide and shallow: Anxiety hits the Red River Valley". Having grown up in this area and living through the flood of 1997, I felt I had a bit of expertise in such matters.
In the past, I’ve noticed that the comment sections in these articles typically follow a pattern in which three to four major threads develop with sporadic thoughts intertwined. The major threads typically turn into pointed arguments in which some members simply try to discredit other view points while others resort to direct, personal attacks. Rarely, does anybody change anybody else’s mind; at least the comment sections never include enough information to reasonably assume so.
When I came across the article about the flooding, there were a mere five comments. I didn’t feel that was enough to warrant interaction, so I “lurked” until I was able to amass a collection of 29 comments. At first glance, it appeared that the comments were going to follow the typical pattern, but I noticed some irregularities; presumably because many of the posts came from people with personal connections to the Red River Valley.
In looking at the posts, I kept careful note of the tone of each comment, the different viewpoints presented, and how many people posted in response to others. What surprised me most was the sarcastic tone taken by many of the participants of this particular thread. Stories like this have historically brought on critical viewpoints of people in trouble, but the cavalier attitude people threw at the victims of this year’s flood seem more poingiant than usual. One person writes, “They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. Or at least that's how it should be. But nope, we have to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into flood control to subsidize their stupidity” referring to the people that are asking for help with sandbagging. This pretty much sums up one of the major attitudes present.

The other major tone present in the Red River Valley Flood thread can best be described as academically condescending. In between the sarcastic jibes and name calling, a few participants posted well thought out, yet rather condescending, arguments in support of the people living in the flood plain or suggesting that they relocate. One participant writes this about the flat spots near rivers: “This is the flood plain and virtually all rivers in an unmodified (natural) state have them. It's the way rivers deal with spring runoff and it IS the adaption. It also tends to make rich farmland as the finer, easier to suspend soil is what's carried by the water”. This is one of the more tame posts present on the thread. The strange part is that these logical and academic posts rarely see a response. In fact, on this thread, none of them did. The only ones that received replies were the sarcastic ones and the few that employed personal attacks.

The personal attack posts are rare, but they did make a few appearances on this thread. One person writes in response to this comment about the people in the Red River Valley, “Move. Problem solved” with “What ever you name is, next time you eat a piece of food, remember, the good folks in the Midwest created it it for your foul mouth..so if they would ..MOVE. you would starve”. What strikes me most about this is the reference to the original poster’s “foul mouth”. There was nothing foul in the original post. This kind of behavior usually goes back and forth for up to six posts, but in this instance, the interaction stopped after this one exchange.
Beach writes about the possibilities of anonymity available to online chats, blogs, and wikis, which, I think, have a lot to do with the different attitudes on this thread; especially the rather crass and sarcastic ones. When one chooses to comment on the Star Tribune website, they must create a username, but there are no rules about what you must call yourself. In fact, it’s very difficult to track down the people behind the usernames at all, which I found out in an effort to ask some of them a question or two about their posts. Since these people are free to choose any identity with no real thought of any consequences for their comments, they seem to communicate much more honestly to the point of becoming offensive.
In a society where empathy and courtesy have high value, I was surprised at the level of judgment and rudeness in these posts, even with the anonymity. Instead of trying to relate to the suffering people of the Red River Valley and offering ways in which they might help with the current crisis, people attacked their “choice” in living there and each other for attempting to defend the flood victims. I could think of only two possibilities for this behavior: 1. These people have become so self absorbed that they have lost the ability to empathize, or 2. These people come from a background of means and have no real concept of how big of a deal it is to move to another city on a whim. I guess a third reason could exist: people just like to complain about things and this anonymous comment format allows them to do it without fear of any backlash. Since I couldn’t find a way to contact the posters directly, for the time being, I won’t be able to find out.