I've
already been intrigued by this notion of Girls
being a younger, more realistic take on the sometimes-glamour of Sex and the City, and I've recently
become a quick fan of Lena Dunham (as I mentioned in last week's blog) after
viewing her film Tiny Furniture. So, needless to say, Ellis' tweet, the day
after the debut of Dunham's show, caught my attention. I was somewhat amused by his twittentary
(that kind of sounds like a disease, but it's supposed to be "twitter"
and "commentary" married) and a bit ecstatic to see someone like Ellis
(someone so, to use his own analysis, "Empire") commenting on someone
like Dunham (someone so not Empire, at least not yet). My initial inclination was to re-tweet to let
more of the world know about the "very very talented" Dunham (cuz, ya
know, she needs help from me).
But I
hesitated. I realized, plaguingly, that, though I'm appreciative and entertained
by Ellis's words, I don't exactly agree with them. What's that? A variation of ideas? Yes,
exactly. I didn't retweet because, damn
it, I don't feel the same way as Ellis.
I don't feel in anyway that I am too Empire to enjoy Girls.
In fact the only complaint I have about the show is that it feels just
a tad commercial and contrived (or maybe just in possession of a much bigger
budget- it's hard to say at this early stage) in comparison to her movie. So, even though I was amused by Ellis's
tweet, I felt that to retweet was to fully agree, with no room for further
commentary.
And therein
lies the problem with social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. They are set up to encourage passive
compliance. And it is so frustrating to realize that a dialogue is really not
feasible. I could have done that whole
"@" thing. But what I really
wanted to do was quote what Ellis said, show my appreciation for it having made
me laugh, my excitement at his seeming knowledge of Dunham, and add my feelings
about the show. And yes, I could have
essentially done that with the "@" thing. But then there's the problem of 140
characters. And I suddenly realized that
the academic part of my heart- the part that will forever want to quote,
analyze, and respond- will never be satisfied with Twitter.
Nor will my
academic heart ever be okay with just how accustomed to the infamous "Like"
button I've become. How many times have
you posted something on Facebook, an earnest question perhaps, only to receive
a slew of "Likes" and no commentary?
Well, thank you, I'm glad you liked my question; now answer it please!
But no one really is anymore, and if they are, they're really pissed off (but
more on that in a minute). I fear that
we may be in the process of losing our ability to argue and reason. If more and more of our social interactions
are paired down to simple "like"s and retweetings, doesn't it stand
to reason that we are not keeping our reasoning muscles in shape? Crafting an
argument is all about contemplating someone else's words and responding. Compliance and repetition are not responses.
All of this
is not to say that nobody is arguing online.
I think we all know that's not the case.
Responses are to be found, particularly in the lands of Facebook and
YouTube. But the arguments that you'll
find here- polarized, uninformed, offensive- only confirm the contention that
rhetorically constructed communication is a skill not highly valued in our
current culture. Possibly because of the
ease and safety with which we can speak our minds to one another online, we
find outpourings of anger and nastiness in most any internet comment
sections. And it's unseemly. As much as we each feel at ease when sharing
our unformed arguments online, what I think few people give a damn about are
the countless individuals who have to read the vile shit we say to one another
just because our faces are concealed.
So my main
question is, if we continue to restrict our thoughts to 140 characters (which
would have no inherent harm if we didn’t do it so damn much), press
"Like" instead of share our thoughts, and then, on the rare occasion
that we do say something about something, we only demean and insult one
another, while embarrassing ourselves, we will certainly damage our
communication skills. I hope you will at
least consider posting a blog every once in awhile rather than a tweet, a
comment rather than a "Like," and refraining altogether from taking
part in the mindless arguments that take place on YouTube. You only live once;
don't waste it talking to the mentally handicapped online. Now,
excuse me while I go post a link to this on Twitter.
Until next time,
Leena
It's funny to look at what types of arguments have become the go-to strategy. People tend to want to end arguments quickly, and it seems that the best way to do this is by attacking character. Ironically, it just makes the person who is committing ad hominem look like a jackass.
ReplyDeleteWhat? No like button on this blog?
ReplyDeleteTher is a loss of attention span, for sure (which also shows in the proliferation of micro fiction - now not only reserved to the bathroom area). I feel a lot of time people would react but can't be bothered with going through the process of writing an actual articulate thought. Why write five or ten lines when you can write "meh" or press a like button instead?
And those social media (FB in particular) are building compliant repetitive behaviour: they only have a like button (unliking is not an option) the possibility of multiple (and not necessarily exclusive) choices isn't even offered. If people refuse to comment their only choice is to ignore the post or "like".
Facebook is a vehicle for self gratification.
ReplyDeleteFacebook becomes your brand; the digital image of your real-life self.
Facebook is like the younger brother who follows you everywhere. And even though he's always messing things up and causing a ruckus, you still keep him around.
And getting someone to press the 'like' button is simply sharing a smile with a beautiful stranger as the elevator door closes.
In the grand scheme of love, relationships, wife, family, and kids, that one smile is insignificant, perchance even forgotten. But for that moment it was everything.
Facebook is for the hedonist in all of us who are pursuing that happiness everyone is taking about.
And I particularly enjoy its nectar.
Facebook is not a medium to use if you want to have meaningful academic conversations. That's what blogs like this are for. And although I do attempt them, sadly I find that the argument (even if it gets to a couple good responses) quickly digresses and falls off tangent.
Best put, most people on Facebook don't write the same linguistic lexical code that they do in academic papers. Clearly, they do not adherer to the same grammar rules as academics.
What is to be valued in a 'like' is the simple 'acknowledgement' its gives.
"I was here"
(It should be noted: The "Likers" in all acutally probably doing the "liking" for selfish reasons; for their own self-interest)
But then there are 'likes' from family members who live in other states or friends half way around the world that we don't normally get to see. We value those likes simple because they were there. They came by to see the digital image of our real-life self.
There are plenty of times when a 'like' is just as good as a few lines.
Moving on to your point about the harmful effects of Facebook on our rationale mind. I would agree that Facebook is hurting a user's ability to argue effectively to some extent. However Facebook didn't create the language that is hurting us, although it is the medium from which we do. We are the ones who brought the language to Facebook.
The pillars of Rhetoric and Composition erode ever so slightly with each ad hominem reply, each degrading response, each troll that finds its way to our computer screen. But we are doing this to ourselves.
It stems from our educational values we have as a state and local peoples.
(Bill Nye the Science Guy)
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
p.s. Another amazing blog, look forward to the next.
B.B.