Chowk Vs Facebook

I enjoy Chowk.

Its kind of a daily online mag with diverse opinions, ideas, view points and perspectives. Some I like, some I don't, nonetheless, it remains interesting; interesting for the healthy dose of diversity it offers to cater to different perspectives.

However, at times, the exchange of ideas and sharing of opinions begins to pose another looming question: Should chowk be treated as (Facebook)'? Is it becoming a (un)social networking site rather than a cyber crossroad of ideas alone? The reason for suspecting such an eventuality is the distasteful reality of interactors sometimes forgetting to notice that its the IDEA they are projecting or declining. The debates that should revolve around the strength of the idea and the validity of the logic, unfortunately, stoop below the intellectual plane by turning into a means of venting out personal likes and dislikes. Often a times, its a very logically stimulating article that prompts one to share an opinion, but the nature of the prevailing arguments on the interactors' page makes it disgraceful for one to join in the discussion. The profanity of language and the fickleness of thought, spear headed by the interactors hurling personal assaults on one another, become the show stopper.
The unfortunate noticeable point remains however, that its not the degree of strength that one holds in the validity of one's own argument but in the intellectual depravity of the other, that fuels the argument to keep on going. Such personal clashes become a rather sorry sight for someone who comes on board with numerous intellectually charged individuals, just to enrich one's mind with a bright idea for the day, if any.

Now, such personal clashes eventually give rise to 'camps': "Either you are with us, or against us!" This tendency, I believe, is extremely detrimental for flourishing healthy exchange of opinions. You see, I maybe very appreciative of what any certain interactor writes, but that does not mean that I subscribe to anything and everything that is presented by the same. And this, I believe, does not earn me the right to be stoned! Having said that, there are certain interactors whose writings I never fail to go through, simply because I enjoy what they write, and more importantly, I like HOW they write.

Now, coming to the thought that prompted this entire i-log: Should Chowk be taken as Facebook-not? I mean why do people get so itched up by their differences with another person (ALAS! not ideas again!) that they stoop so low that the profanity in interaction reaches newer depths hitherto unknown. I feel sorry and pitiful for individuals who so willingly take the insult of associating themselves with abusive identities and have nothing better to do than throwing up in cyber space all that a littered mind churns out.
Also, I think it is very unfortunate that when one can not come up with one's own argument to support what one has to say, one divulges into someone else's words to suit to one's own nefarious purposes.


Eliminating such attitudes, and interactors, who can not be identified in any way other than an abuse, can make Chowk a more enjoyable experience.