There is a place where people escalate minor ideological disputes by calling each other “pricks” and accusing each other’s mothers of being whores.

Before anyone asks: No, I did not just discover the Internet.

For anyone who’s read a forum or comments section, insults and attacks are just part of the Internet. Known as Internet flaming or “flame wars,” uncivil electronic discourse is a staple of forums and comments sections.

This phenomenon, however, is by-and-large electronically confined.

When’s the last time you saw anyone read a story on illegal immigration, then yell ethnic slurs toward Hispanics?

It happened on azcentral.com’s immigration stories so much that they disabled comments for all stories related to illegal immigration. Is this how people would act toward each other without social rules and repercussions?

I never hear the word “fag” during a face-to-face conversation. When I argue in person that the Hiroshima bombings were wrong, nobody says that white people have the authority and military prowess to kill as many non whites as they want to.

It would be one thing if flame wars were rare occasions, but flaming is almost as much a part of Internet language as HTML. There is even flaming on the Digg page for “We Didn’t Start the Flame War,” a parody of flame wars by collegehumor.com.

Why are there so many jerks on the Web? Many theorize that the anonymity is the culprit for Internet flaming.

In a 2003-2004 study, users were allowed to post comments in an Army platoon leader community anonymously, with usernames and with usernames linked to actual identities. Comments posted anonymously were 11 percent negative; the other two types were 2 percent negative or less.

Anonymity is no excuse for flaming. Yes, the Internet allows users to create a new identity. But that identity is as real as the one with which they are born.

The flamers’ Internet conversations are probably more honest than their real-life ones. Without rules or inhibitions, the flamers choose to be a terrible human beings, because that’s who they want to be.

Users can have any identity they want on the Internet. Other users don’t know if they are rich, poor, black or white; their Internet identity is whoever they want to be. They are a marble slate; flamers just choose to throw chunks of it at statues other people made.

That’s perfectly within their right. Internet flaming is protected by the First Amendment, as it should be.

Flamers should act the same way in person as they do on the Internet. It will feel detrimental at first, but in the long run, it will benefit society.

If we experience bigoted, antisocial remarks in person as often as we do online, that behavior will become ignorable, like walking a dog or talking on cell phones.

The crowds around Bible-thumping homophobes will disappear, and we could all get to class on time. Instead of resisting the urge to reply to flames, we would not feel the urge at all.

Maybe flamers will find constructive ways to communicate. Or they’ll try graffiti in ALL-CAPS.

Reach Chris at cogino@asu.edu.