I feel I've made a gross
oversight.
Mind you, it's the kind of ironic oversight that could have been avoided by a strict adherence to what I tend to advocate for. That is, I ask people to talk. Of course, I stress, I hope people have something to say, can get specific, and genuinely add to the sentiments I express. I also hope they forward what they believe and are willing to defend why they posted something.
But, and I think this might be an extension of the problems with the internet, how people talk or what they consider genuine or of value can come from less than compelling or appropriate places. I can think of one friend who will post about the daily struggles women have. I find a lot of the rhetoric and tone of these articles to be working against the cause. I may be wrong, but in my advocacy to read about what other people think, I'm essentially asking for things to argue with.
Argument has adopted a terrible connotative edge, to me. Instead of it feeling like an opportunity, to most people it seems to register as a kind of personal affront. I think I'm often misunderstood, and I've watched it happen to other friends, as being angry or dismissive when something that feels incomplete provokes a ton of questions. Yes, no article is completely comprehensive, but some refrain from blanket statements after blanket statement about men or guns or single statistics meant to bolster a bias from the start.
The idea that conflicting views could so actively work against me I suppose I've viewed as a kind of necessary component. As in, in some ways it's not smart or helpful to give leeway when following the path of that concession leads to a kind of absurdity. I don't know how we take it for granted that “all men are such and such” or “all women feel under perpetual threat of being raped” in every parking lot at night at all times. If that is indeed the case, or men are this rampant and terrifying, we have a dramatic problem on our hands. If, instead, women feel fear more often in general by virtue of being smaller, we're still talking about something important, but it gets more to the heart without unfairly maligning the other half.
But, as people endlessly want to condition me to believe, places like facebook and reddit are not for splitting hairs. I disagree to my peril, but, there are considerably worse problems to have.
Mind you, it's the kind of ironic oversight that could have been avoided by a strict adherence to what I tend to advocate for. That is, I ask people to talk. Of course, I stress, I hope people have something to say, can get specific, and genuinely add to the sentiments I express. I also hope they forward what they believe and are willing to defend why they posted something.
But, and I think this might be an extension of the problems with the internet, how people talk or what they consider genuine or of value can come from less than compelling or appropriate places. I can think of one friend who will post about the daily struggles women have. I find a lot of the rhetoric and tone of these articles to be working against the cause. I may be wrong, but in my advocacy to read about what other people think, I'm essentially asking for things to argue with.
Argument has adopted a terrible connotative edge, to me. Instead of it feeling like an opportunity, to most people it seems to register as a kind of personal affront. I think I'm often misunderstood, and I've watched it happen to other friends, as being angry or dismissive when something that feels incomplete provokes a ton of questions. Yes, no article is completely comprehensive, but some refrain from blanket statements after blanket statement about men or guns or single statistics meant to bolster a bias from the start.
The idea that conflicting views could so actively work against me I suppose I've viewed as a kind of necessary component. As in, in some ways it's not smart or helpful to give leeway when following the path of that concession leads to a kind of absurdity. I don't know how we take it for granted that “all men are such and such” or “all women feel under perpetual threat of being raped” in every parking lot at night at all times. If that is indeed the case, or men are this rampant and terrifying, we have a dramatic problem on our hands. If, instead, women feel fear more often in general by virtue of being smaller, we're still talking about something important, but it gets more to the heart without unfairly maligning the other half.
But, as people endlessly want to condition me to believe, places like facebook and reddit are not for splitting hairs. I disagree to my peril, but, there are considerably worse problems to have.
There's this weird idea floating around
that “everyone is contributing” by virtue of having the internet.
“Media is diversified” is claimed in service to dismissing the
consequences of outlets like FOX. In the same breath facebook,
youtube, and reddit are “just distractions,” but also “grand
opportunities for poor people to learn and connect.” It's all at
once. It's soup. If you say FOX doesn't matter or Trump is a joke and
then their rhetoric shows up in the mouths of vigilantes and ISIS
recruiting videos, I struggle to believe you're pursuing larger
truths in context constructively. It's how you use this tool and
understand it as part of your larger world. I wish those capable of
bringing more sense into things had the kind of proud brazen advocacy
that I seem to only depict as hapless struggle.
It's not that I don't understand the problems with my social media mediums or my larger daily existence context. It's that I don't know what else to do but be the change I want to see. I want more coherent arguments that don't turn into flame wars, so I try. I invite a lot of potentially unhelpful commentary, because the alternative, disappearing into my ass and growing evermore sure of myself, is what I see other people do and it makes me rather angry and sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment