What is it to write deliberately? Increasingly, it seems less to do with the time you spend parsing out each word and reading and rereading until each line sits just right. Take my last sentence of the paragraph above. I “believe” we have a huge problem in communication. I didn’t say I was going to lay out 15 studies detailing how humans get things wrong based on rewards or tonality. But, if I was unfortunately met with someone who read an article on communication that day, I could all but bet I’d get a “refutation” of my idea that is not only supposedly explained in that article, but dutifully capable of picking apart my specific speculation.
This is lazy. It’s also dishonest. While I don’t think the internet created the habit of lazily and dishonestly communicating, I think it acts as a positive reinforcement mechanism. You might be able to lie in person and no one’s going to check you. You might be able to sell yourself and your presumed knowledge. Yet online, when you’re wrong, and someone knowledgeable dares call you out, you can delete your comment. You can create another profile. You can down vote them and render their voice a kind of “internet invisible.”
You’ve heard of the idea of living in a bubble. One of the great ironies of an online existence is the leveling out of information. Every time you print something, it exposes what you think you’ve tucked away. What feels “cold” and flat is actually teeming with all the emotional baggage you can bring into every line. Maybe it’s an opinion piece about GMOs. Depending on what website it comes from its view can certainly be pieced together with as many links to research as your heart could desire. Does it help make the “intellectual” case that they are poisonous because the article appears on a site like Truthdig with the tone of The Drudge Report? For the large swarm of ironic liberals, absolutely.
Or consider the cemented pretentious irony of a place like reddit. I am now unable to read anything without the presumption that the person is being sarcastic or extremely uppity. You don’t get popular unless you’re dismissive, speaking “in summary,” or making a well-timed bad pun. Is everyone trying to be that way? Of course not, but not everyone needs specific information about editing software from a sub with 15 dedicated people. That kind of information does not seem like the norm, the habit, or the voice of prideful ignorant displays of opinions.
Even if you’re a doctor who’s written books in service to your articles, opinions are all you can hope to receive. You’ll get criticized for all you’re not saying. You’ll get accused of using recent tragedy to “forward your agenda.” You’re wrong for the website you posted to. You’re wrong for whatever presumed “flippant tone” you’ve adopted. Mostly you’re wrong because “well I don’t see how this can be true…” It’s not that they consider and refute the thesis. It’s not that they even read the article at least half the time. They don’t know the science, they don’t have the sources. And they don’t really argue. They mindlessly complain and speculate, feel great about it, and then get 1000 up votes suggesting their mess of “criticism” is valid by the ordained fingers of the populace.
I submit the highest rated comment about Jon Stewart’s opening monologue about the South Carolina shooting:
“I love Stewart, this was awesome of him. But he keeps saying "we gotta fix it". That's nice and all, but how? The thing is it WAS just one guy. Not a group, not a kno felon. No warning. I don't see how we can fix things like this without the government stripping away rights and wrapping us in bubble wrap to prevent us from harm. I would love a solution to things like this but it's hard to think of one that won't take away the rights of the American people. Yes, we could start a movement to help end racism but there is still going to be that one fucking nut job somewhere and I have no idea how to stop something like that.”
I want you to reread it and let it sink in. It almost has to be deconstructed word by word.
“I love Stewart, this was awesome of him. But…”
There’s a but? A heartfelt plea about gun violence and racism is all well and good and it couldn’t have come from a greater guy, but…
“he keeps saying ‘we gotta fix it.’”
Kinda. He’s more speaking desperately to our ridiculous and irrational culture. He’s speaking to our denial. He’s speaking to our inability to recognize it for what it is, so even the possibility of fixing it could be brought to light. This immediate condensing, this caricature, of what he said is a lot easier to dismiss and criticize though, right? Jon didn’t expose us to his feelings and a deeper conversation, he just banged the desk and complained that “we gotta fix it.”
“That’s nice and all, but how?”
Am I the only one who hears the pretentious condescension? Good boy Jon, here’s a pat on the head, you keep barking about how you feel while us adults know that nothing can be done. This person isn’t even really asking the question! This is throwing up their arms. HOW!? They’re not offering how, or discussing possibilities. They don’t want to either. They want to shuffle the reality of the shooting and a genuine response to it away.
“The thing is it WAS just one guy. Not a group, not a kno[wn] felon. No warning”
Absolutely not the point! This one guy took in racist information. This guy telegraphed his intentions for months or years. This guy had a warped sense of reality on top of his other generalized mental issues. This guy had easy enough access to the litany of guns this country celebrates. What if it had been a team? What does that have to do with anything? What if he was a felon? No warning? Besides his friends, his pictures, his writings you mean?
“I don't see how we can fix things like this without the government stripping away rights and wrapping us in bubble wrap to prevent us from harm.”
Oh you don’t? So that makes this is wise and reasonable thing to say? We’re not having a discussion about what “rights” even are or where they come from. We’re going to dive into hyperbolic either/or sentiments with no realization or discussion of consequences. We’re going to sell “fear of having our rights taken away” while ignoring our “right to survive this violent racist country.” You don’t see because you don’t read, you don’t respect, and you don’t allow yourself to understand anything beyond the confines of an opinion democratically elected to the top of an internet forum.
“I would love a solution to things like this but it's hard to think of one that won't take away the rights of the American people.”
Which rights? From which people? Why do you want the right to kill and be killed by access for the easiest means by which to do so? Hard to think of more severe background checks and training? Hard to think of cooperation of among states so trafficked guns are less of a problem? Hard to think of controlling lobbying by the NRA? Hard to think of selling a message of empathy and togetherness instead of fear in the media? Hard to reevaluate what the right to bear arms meant back before the age of machine guns? And just because it’s hard, does it mean it’s not worthwhile? Can we not concede that all the areas I listed are implicated in the large “racist gun culture” that we’re apart of?
“Yes, we could start a movement to help end racism”
Umm, how? No the fuck we couldn’t. Racism is “in-group out-group” basic animal mentality. A movement isn’t going to fix that. Is the problem natural fear of “the other” the real problem? Or is it stoking that fear and weaponizing it?
“but there is still going to be that one fucking nut job somewhere and I have no idea how to stop something like that.”
Thank god noone is asking you for ideas. And again, this isn’t what people who suffer needless death think can be fixed. Here’s an updated take on a quote “no one fucking nut job is an island.”
Again, this is a comment with over 1000 up votes. It seems you don’t have to read that far into the kind of consequences, just the ones we deal with every day, when this is the “effort” and “credibility” we allow our conversations to sit at. He gets plenty of people to agree with him later, calling what Jon was offering “platitudes” and asking inane questions about banning guns and hate speech. Idiot fuel for the idiot fire.
For shits, let me write an “ignorant diatribe paragraph” of how I actually feel. In brackets I will explain what’s wrong with it. At the same time, feel free to compare it to a more thoughtful and deliberate section seeking to speak to a more specified point.
People are dumb and getting dumber. [unsubstantiated, relative to what?] Even if a place like reddit isn’t all 13 year old white males, it adopts the voice and habits of a pack of them. [impression, need examples, no way to accurately account.] “The great power of democracy is the belief that my facts are equal to your opinion.” [Improperly quoted, presumption of accurate facts not relayed.] If this trend in poor communication continues, I bet we go extinct, as our ignorance to “truth in general” will permeate into ever dire consequences. [I’m not Cassandra, detract from my point by not talking specifics related to war, nuclear energy, or the environment, let alone social causes.] I don’t see how ANYONE could be comfortable with the status quo in this country. [Of course I could. Rich people, ignorant people, people who make odd dramatic equivocations and analogies about theirs and others’ places in the world.]
I contend we don’t know the difference between the lazy grandstanding and posturing of the above paragraph, and even the point of this digression. No matter how many times I state it explicitly the point will go missed. There is, in fact, a dramatically different form and habit of discourse when you’re keeping the point and reading deliberately than what you’re rehearsing in comment sections. That habit has consequences to not only your view of intelligence, but your capacity for empathy. All links, opinions, styles, votes, perspectives, arguments, tones, capacities, debates, and offerings are not equal. They are not truthfully up for discussion like your willingness to respond is all that’s necessary.
I call on the people who can see the difference. This writing isn’t even for “the people of reddit.” I think smart and respectable people denigrate themselves in these mediums or on their playgrounds. I don’t want their talking points to remain un-called out for what they are. They’re not “the other side.” They’re not “humbly offering a differing view.” They’re normalizing bullshit conversation. They’re lazy. They’re dishonest. And we hurt ourselves by playing with instead of against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment