Riots start this way. A mere protest is staged. Emotions
flare and observers catch the spirit, get involved and the protest swells.
Things get out of hand quickly and civil disobedience leads to a little
violence, then window breaking, some arson, then large roving mobs of
destruction move through a neighborhood at first, then more blocks until the
energy burns out. People injured. Property destroyed. Even maybe a fatality or
two. All starting from a well intentioned protest soon gone awry.
In this Internet Age words have additional consequence. They
start arguments. Heated exchanges among friends and neighbors. And yes
families. Usually these center on public issues with differing views. Soon the
public nature of the exchange attracts attention of bystanders watching the
internet discussion unfold. They join in. The comments get heated. People stop
listening to each other and rhetoric grows out of proportion to the discussion.
Soon a full fledged fight is underway, one that settles nothing but reinforces
negative feelings and hurt.
That one paragraph pretty much sums up the dynamics of the
Internet for me. A tool of inestimable value used wrongly, even
destructively. Human nature is goaded
and accelerated.
Not that some of the comments are not correct. Or even
persuasive. Take this one:
“The ‘trickle-down’ theory: The principle that the poor, who must
subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the
rich bigger meals.”
–
William Blum
Now the example and wording are correct, but they goad people
into defensive posture. Let’s parse the quote:
-designed
for reaction: poor; table scraps; rich
-trickle-down:
a real theory at work, at least in politics, but not in academic
circles
-giving
rich bigger meals: clearly hyperbole designed to incite; feeding from the
public trough by those not in need
Defensiveness shuts down ears. They don’t hear the argument
being made. The reaction continues the debate with no connection of the
participants to the salient facts. Just the emotions. Nothing is accomplished.
Another quote, this one from Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we
now know that it is bad economics.”
Good quote. Logical content. Also factual from the academic
perspective. But because it was spoken by a sitting President of the US , the comment
comes to the public loaded with rhetorical meaning and sub-meaning. Taken this
way the statement, although purposeful, is ineffective viewed in the Internet
Age. The context speaks volumes. Someone is trying to make a point to counter
someone else’s argument. And thus the fight continues. Inflamed!
Now. Stop. And read. And listen; both with heart and mind.
But we need to really add the component of caring.
When we care, we attend to our interactions with focus. We
try to hear. We try to learn. We try to discern. We also try to speak in a way
that we are more certain will be heard and understood.
This is important. Communication is best when it is
intentional. Something we think needs to be stated for someone else to receive.
They state a reaction to give us an acknowledgement of receipt of the message.
We determine from their response that they did in fact receive our message and
capture the meaning as we intended it to be.
The loop is completed. Message sent, received and
acknowledged.
Public discourse is not that simple. Too many motivations
are present: to warp the message intentionally; to mislead; to stir up
opposition; to sell a product or service; to earn money from the message; and
the list goes on.
Are we caring enough in our communications?
Especially on Facebook, Twitter and Internet? Are we helping people understand
or are we part of the emotional backlash?
I started writing this blog so I could accomplish these
objectives:
a. Explore issues of importance for
greater meaning and understanding
b. Observe
current events from my perspective and see if I understood them
c. Grow my
own understanding and world view as I age and coalesce my life’s
experience
d. Share
all of the above for others to observe and participate in; it was hoped
the public nature of the discourse would
keep me on my toes and honest
Now I see I am as guilty as others about reacting and
emotional commentary. I apologize for that. I can’t promise I’ll be perfectly
calm and cool in the future, but I promise to declaim my own nuttiness when it happens,
or avoid it altogether!
Meanwhile, I’ll purpose on to probe understanding this big
and complicated world as it continues to unfold. I appreciate you being a part
of this journey. Thanks for serving as my jury of peers!
Thanks for keeping me honest. Now back to less rhetoric and
more caring!
May 31, 2012