Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Trapped in 140 Characters: Are Twitter and Facebook Ruining our Capacity for Argument?

I had a disconcerting moment earlier this week with Brett Easton Ellis.  I know I keep bringing him up in my blogs, and I swear it's not in the hopes that he will one day read one of these and say something to me on Twitter…really.  Anyway, Ellis twat (I mean tweeted, sorry) the following: "Girls [referring to the new HBO show of that title]: post-Empire Sex and the City. The very very talented Lena Dunham is post-Empire Candace Bushnell but am I too Empire and feeling meh?"

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