A warning to anyone reading, here be ponderings.
I was reading an article on The Case for Intellectual Honesty, and it triggered a few thoughts. First of all, here is the article:
http://m.nautil.us/blog/the-case-for-more-intellectual-humilityEven before reading it, I was thinking of the Yeats quote from The Second Coming, 'The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity', and indeed that was borne out by the article. Not just in its theme that we need to try and avoid our own bias, and my counter thought that it is not easy to be heard in today's world of communication if you show intellectual humility, but also in the article's reference to Peter DeVries' Slouching Towards Kalamazoo. This itself is a reference to the line in The Second Coming ' Slouching towards Bethlehem'.
(BTW if you don't know the poem, it is mighty fine and here's link
http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html)
As I was agreeing with the aim of the article, my doubt about whether in most spheres of life, would survive continued to press, and I realised that it relates to an ongoing theme, I have been arguing against for some time. That is that the idea that is touted by many that we are a divided nation and set of nations because of recent referendums and the political positions they involve. I have not felt this holds water because we have held such referendums in the past, and along similar political positions but people seem not to have felt the division in the same way.
Rather my position has been that what is 'different' is the huge and ongoing expansion of interaction by social media, and that this has involved us hearing the loudest voices with the rudest words. So the polarisation is because in ten seconds after posting something on twitter about quite liking a TV programme on the life cycle of voles, you can be guaranteed that someone you have never heard of will denounce your opinion as such a steaming sack of wombat dung that they are surprised that you remember to breath and that they wish all your extremities fall off because of leprosy and everyone who has ever liked you should DIAF! (die in a fire).
Except, of course, their spew of hatred will be shorter than that. It will be super condensed hatred. 140 characters of hatred.
And at that point, a light bulb moment (if I could be bothered there I would have found an emoticon of a lightbulb, but I am a grumpy logorrheic), and I was taken back to Marshall McLuhan's coinage 'The medium is the message'. As a quick expansion of this the idea is that the medium you use to communicate affects the message you are trying to get across, often in ways you aren't aware of. For more details, here are links both to the wiki on McLuhan, and his aphorism
Note this is fairly chunky but does cover why he is thought to have predicted the internet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhanAnd in the medium is the message, this is much shorter!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_messageAnd so for those still with me, well done! But I hear you asking what is the point. Well my thought is this that it's not just about the medium, it's about which is the shortest medium because it like a massive black hole bends the discourse and tone around itself. We live in the age of the twittering President and argument by meme; where you have to put your case and insult your opponent in those 140 characters; where in a debate on the calling of indyref2 one MSP can discuss being banned in twitter by another MSP.
But what can we do to stop this, I hear you all cry, well at least you at the front that I have just kicked! Fight the medium! Fight the tyranny of shortness. Fight the ease of insult.
Be aware of the effect it has on you. Think more, think slower. And note despite the alt right using the various media better than some, they are as much victims as anyone. What they hope to achieve becomes narrower and narrower till it disappears from sight/site.
This doesn't mean don't use twitter, it means think about the restrictions it places in you, and the responsibilities it imposes.
It doesn't mean don't use acronyms, though tbh I would rather you didn't. Or rather use them when it is what you want to say, and not just because you need to feel cool or accepted.
It doesn't mean there will be less disagreement, just that the disagreement will be better understood and not simply because of they tweeted, he instagrammeed, she snapchatted, I floxxed!
Anyone that got this far, thanks. I hope to have triggered a few thoughts, even disagreements. I am happy to discuss, I am always happy to discuss but not in 140 characters.
