‘Inception’ attacks ‘X-Men: First Class’; pushing back against 3D; Lisbeth Salander does not eat pray love; more: leftover links

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, everyone knows cats are mean, but they got style, so they can get away with it. If cats looked like frogs, we'd realize what nasty bastards they can be. But they can be villains we love to hate because of it.

From "Why I like vicious, anonymous online comments":

The self that we show in anonymous comments, the fantasy self, the self we see in the mirror when we fantasize about being tough and strong and feared, the face we would present to the world if there were no such thing as consequences: That’s the real us.

The civil self is the mask.

I'm not so sure. I'm skeptical of the notion that our fantasy selves are our true selves (isn't that already an obvious contradiction?). And I object to the assumption that our private, unvarnished, spontaneous thoughts (which can now be broadcast anonymously on the Net) are more "real" than the more civil and responsible actions we take when we're identifiable members of society. We all have dark sides and "bright" sides; why do we so often assume that it's the dark side, or only the dark side, that's "real"? Many people are civil--online and in the real world--not just out of fear of consequences, but because they genuinely think it's the right thing to do. Of course, many people aren't; but it's a gross oversimplification to say that we're all intrinsically nasty and that we're only good when we're being watched.

Take this forum. Many commenters here use pseudonyms, myself included. Yet we're still civil, despite the fact that our true identities are hidden. The civility isn't a mask. It's who we are.

...I also thought this (completely civil) post by "ThatFuzzyBastard," in the article's comments section, was interesting:

I'm not so sure the online self is the mask. Or at least, I'm not so sure the mask isn't the real self.

The persona one has on the internet is a creation upheld by a vast amount of very recent infrastructure, including but not limited to a military-built computer network, a publication-sponsored comment board, an ISP, and steady electricity. Why would the person who exists via that vast artificial network be more real than the person who exists in a social context, with parents, (perhaps) a spouse, a town, a face, and all the other things that have existed since the Neolithic Era or so?

There's a predisposition in our individualistic society to treat the solitary individual as more real than the socially-embedded one, but that flies in the face of how the vast majority of people have actually lived their lives through all of human history. Internet anonymity may bring out the worst in people precisely because it's such a strange and new and unusual way to exist, which evokes strange and new behavior---who you are on the internet may be closer to who you are in a video game than who you are in your heart.

"The Forever War" is getting made into a movie? Wow. I wonder if they can do it justice in a single film.