A Few Days ago, a posted a blog entitled The Death of Discourse. I felt that I had left the story only half told, as I never truly explained where I believe this social problem came from.
People seem to think that Modern technology, namely the internet along with the mediums that it has presented us with are a positive addition to the many ways that us Homo-Sapiens communicate.
Unfortunately, as the (mildly inappropriate) Infomania clip below portrays, Blogs and twitter have a habit of taking complex issues and oversimplifying and even degrading them; there is a reason why pundits are on TV and not normal people; they know what they are talking about.
Not only are Nancy Pelosi’s sexual organs irrelevant to her ability to work as a successful Speaker of the House, but it is also extremely degrading to intelligent, professional woman to hold them to criticism that a professional man that was disagreed with would never be held accountable to.
So people without any real training voice their unfiltered rage on the internet. Where, though, does this rage come from. No, its not CIA implants in our brains.
It’s the 24 hour news cycle. In order to keep viewers, 24 hour news cycles need stories that are constantly enthralling and emotionally rousing. This means playing to people’s hatred and fear and turning it into ratings. Its much easier to watch MSNBC and hate the republican party in every way. As I’ve said in my earlier post, The O’reilly Question, is this really what is best for our country?
Furthermore, are we Americans really that thick and used that we will pander to the opinions of "our" news mediums.
My opinions are mixed throughout the irrelevant political spectrum. I don't believe waterboarding is torture. Without a doubt it is immoral but that doesn't void the fact that Americans have been SIMULATING torture for years. Real torture is what the Japanese of WWII did. I also believe that abortion before the baby grows itsa own heart is moral. By looking through the simplified fog of modern politics, we can see a much more copmplex series of questions in a clearer, yet more difficult light.
Let's be honest though, we'll stay polarized because simple groups are much easier for politicians to handle and much easier for the new to exploit, can you imagine if there were hundreds of different visions of America, hundreds of different MSNBCs and FNCs, the market share to vast for any one news station to handle. So, it appears, we will have to choose a party, and get our yelling voices ready.
People seem to think that Modern technology, namely the internet along with the mediums that it has presented us with are a positive addition to the many ways that us Homo-Sapiens communicate.
Unfortunately, as the (mildly inappropriate) Infomania clip below portrays, Blogs and twitter have a habit of taking complex issues and oversimplifying and even degrading them; there is a reason why pundits are on TV and not normal people; they know what they are talking about.
Not only are Nancy Pelosi’s sexual organs irrelevant to her ability to work as a successful Speaker of the House, but it is also extremely degrading to intelligent, professional woman to hold them to criticism that a professional man that was disagreed with would never be held accountable to.
So people without any real training voice their unfiltered rage on the internet. Where, though, does this rage come from. No, its not CIA implants in our brains.
It’s the 24 hour news cycle. In order to keep viewers, 24 hour news cycles need stories that are constantly enthralling and emotionally rousing. This means playing to people’s hatred and fear and turning it into ratings. Its much easier to watch MSNBC and hate the republican party in every way. As I’ve said in my earlier post, The O’reilly Question, is this really what is best for our country?
Furthermore, are we Americans really that thick and used that we will pander to the opinions of "our" news mediums.
My opinions are mixed throughout the irrelevant political spectrum. I don't believe waterboarding is torture. Without a doubt it is immoral but that doesn't void the fact that Americans have been SIMULATING torture for years. Real torture is what the Japanese of WWII did. I also believe that abortion before the baby grows itsa own heart is moral. By looking through the simplified fog of modern politics, we can see a much more copmplex series of questions in a clearer, yet more difficult light.
Let's be honest though, we'll stay polarized because simple groups are much easier for politicians to handle and much easier for the new to exploit, can you imagine if there were hundreds of different visions of America, hundreds of different MSNBCs and FNCs, the market share to vast for any one news station to handle. So, it appears, we will have to choose a party, and get our yelling voices ready.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*edited somewhat for length
ReplyDeleteIs twitter really the same as any sort of formal discourse? I feel like twitter, emphasizing short, frequent bursts of information, isn't at all aimed to make any sort of formal, persuasive argument at all.
Sure, those posts are stupid, but Twitter encourages impulse. Not only is it online, not face-to-face, but it's quick and at the tip of your fingers. If you get a charged thought, how easy is it to just plug it in to twitter before the emotion passes?
Imagine if for a day everyone lost their speech inhibitions. It would be like twitter, except thousands of times worse. That's just how our minds work-- we might think about ridiculous things without thinking, but our frontal lobe allows us to reflect on it and filter it for what's socially appropriate. Twitter may just mirror our initial impulses more.
I entirely disagree with the notion that the internet makes our discourse dumber. It just makes our impulses more visible.
But some sites have much more structure and encourage rational debate. While twitter isn't for formal discourse, these structured sites usually have very basic administrative-enforced rules (i.e. no harassment), but the majority of social interaction rules (i.e.use evidence, write in proper english) are enforced by the users in the community. These communities mirror more formal discourse a lot more than twitter, as the rules are geared around worthwhile discussion.
I don't see the connection between internet communication and the 24 hour news cycle, at least not on a big picture scale, considering you're referring to one single tweet about Nancy Pelosi's sex organs instead of the vast majority of tweets that are not this way. The only correlation between the two things seems to be that both can result in inflammatory communication, but the causes are entirely different and they largely do not cause each other.
Also, you should look up some youtube videos of people trying waterboarding for themselves. Is America only "simulating" torture, or is that just what we call it?
"there is a reason why pundits are on TV and not normal people; they know what they are talking about."
Is this sarcasm?
I feel I might be misreading you in some parts, let me know.
First of all the torture debate: it has been degraded into a partisan mjudslining fight and I am merely bringing to the readers attention that the US has used techniques like water boarding for years. I wouldn't want to be waterboarded. I also wouldn't want to be shot. It seems odd, and somewhat ironic, that people have a problem of inflicting pain when there is a miniscule chance of death but you will be hard pressed to find people who are anti-terrorist "hunting." I think that waterboarding is America's biggest example of the manufactured polarization of the US. Very few "dems" would be against charging those who commited torture. Its one of those non-issues that the Dems made an issue to garner support for their own campaign. This is certainely not the only example. Look at basically all of Bush's (and Rove's) rovian tactics for winning an election. I mean Karl Rove coined a term for finding slight differences among voters and exploiting it.
ReplyDeleteAs for twitter, I think it is a relied upon news source in our modern world. During the Iranian riots, the censored news only had one way to the western world-- Twitter. Beyond that, there is a reason why we don't all say everything we think. If I disagree with nancy pelosi, a sexist remark may come to mind because we are all secretly bigots, but then I think, this doesn't help the argument. You know what I do, I don't say it. I think the fact of the matter is twitter endorses saying offensive and unhelpful things.