You know when you face a long week of living, and expect certain things to happen, but they don’t? It's nice to have expectations countered when those expectations are of let downs and disappointment. So let's revel in the fact that the world can still continue to surprise us, no matter how well we think we know what's going on.
Actually, at the same time as being pleasantly surprised, I managed to get into an argument on social media for the first time in a long time. I generally stick by the rule of staying out of anything that isn't a face-to-face discussion, but this revisitation to the reasons why reminded me that social media has nothing to do with actual communication.
The big takeaway from dipping my toes into an online "discussion" was that by paying attention to social media feeds, we're consistently taking in statements without rebuttal. The nature of limited space, or misinterpretation of the written word, makes a great platform for us all to throw statements into the void of the internet, without ever hearing a reply. Instead we simply get a stream of approvals in the form of likes and interactions that have no relationship to actual conversation at all.
Don't worry, this isn't all about social media this week, but I'd like to try and communicate these thoughts in an effort to remind us all not to take it too seriously. After all, the kind of people who actually post on forums, are the kind of people who actually post on forums. However, when we're not ignoring trolls or "clever" jokes made about something someone else said, we're left with very little to interact with via social media. Try having a nuanced and detailed discussion online and within a few replies you'll find yourself contextualising statements you made three comments ago. Rather than following a linear path of natural discourse, we must constantly justify and edit everything that's been said up to the present moment.
Either way, social media is not a relevant platform for discussion and actual communication, so let's stop trying to use it in that way. It's great for announcing interesting things that are happening, or posting links to things that might be worth looking at. For me, social media is a series of billboards and truncated news headlines, with no space given to actual human interaction.
So the next time someone makes a definitive statement about a social imperative that you categorically disagree with and want to discuss the fault in their thesis… don't. We'd all benefit more from learning how to let things go and not have to argue opinions through a medium that stifles debate.
It might not be all that important for a lot of people, but as someone who loves a good argument and exercises critical thinking, it can be a nightmare. Much better to learn how to switch off the Venn diagrams and just ignore stupid statements made on the internet.
Which leads me into the next train of thought about ignoring things on the internet and enhancing our own echo chambers. Hopefully that says enough about it in itself, but let's look at it a little further.
It's no mystery that we humans love to collect ourselves into groups. It doesn't matter what the common trait is, but we love to associate similarities with others and stick to others who are much like ourselves. I'm not talking out of my ass here, it's something I studied at university and is quite interesting when thinking about social groups and our perspective on the world.
In fact, it's imperative to remember this trend, as it applies online as well. We will naturally gravitate toward others who are like-minded. Our real-life friends are most likely to resemble traits that are important to us, as we rarely want to spend time associating with people we disagree with. There's nothing wrong with this behaviour, but it's important to know that it's how we humans operate.
I think about it a lot when there's an election and everyone around me is predicting the outcome. It comes as no surprise that whatever party people support, they always think more people are voting for their party than are actually voting. I guess it's a form of confirmation bias, as we often say things like "everyone I know is voting for x, so they must be in with a chance". It's natural for us to see everyone around us doing the same thing, and extrapolate that to the wider population. Unfortunately though, nothing is further from the truth and reality of how societies operate.
Essentially, the sum total of the human population, doesn't give a shit about what you and your friends think. Everyone I know has somewhere safe and comfortable to live, but I'd be naïve and ignorant if I thought that applied to the rest of the world, as it's clear that this is simply not true.
The difficulty comes from situations where there is no measurable data to draw a conclusion from. I might be able to look up the housing situation of a large percentage of human beings in order to prove my assumption wrong, but what about more ethereal topics like morality and ethical dilemmas. It's much harder to figure out other people's moral codes than it is to determine their housing situation.
Once again, we're faced with the available data being limited to those around us. Again, I might say that "everyone I know thinks refugees should be welcomed and settled in Australia quickly and with dignity", which is mostly true amongst my friends and family. However, the issue of refugee settlement is complex and full of moral dilemmas that influence every aspect of the discussion. Perhaps there are economic disadvantages that would come from an influx of new citizens, but is it worth the cost when it's related to another human's quality of life? I would argue that yes, the cost is acceptable, because I believe that a moral imperative should be a base level of quality of life for every human being on the planet. However, there are many valid arguments against that statement, like how the economic impact with lessen quality of life for many others.
I'm not here to debate the ins and outs of the refugee crisis in Australia, but it serves to show that there is much more the issue than just what my friends and I think about it. There are plenty of other people in society who have very real and valid concerns that are contrary to my own. If I only focused on what my own cohort believed, then I would be discounting everyone else in society for my own benefit. As it happens, that's a line of thinking that I believe to be immoral, as every perspective should be considered when making complex decisions that directly influence people's lives.
Hence, when someone posts a tweet making some self-assured grand statement about something that isn't so black and white, it shits me to tears. Not because of the statement, but because it's placed on a platform that doesn't encourage debate. It's like preaching to the choir and then wondering why others would ever think of disagreeing with you.
This head-in-the-sand mentality is purposefully ignoring the broader depth of human experience and knowledge. These kinds of statements are self-serving and do nothing to expand our understanding of the "other". These are all things that I consider to be immoral and egoistic in a way that I cannot abide, which is why I ended up in an online argument this week.
I've noticed that most of the time when I get into an online argument, my point is simply that the statement being made might not be correct as there are multiple interpretations available. A qualitative thesis by definition is subjective and unique to the perspective of the one making the statement. Therefore, most of the time I find myself making the argument that there's more grey area involved in the issue, and that the answer may not be as definitive as it's being stated.
Sometimes we ignore clichés, but I often think of them as relevant, as they became clichés through repetition and re-use. One of my favourite statements that always gets people's eyes rolling is the one about how we can't know anything until we know we know nothing. It's an elegant way of saying that we're benefited by getting out of our own way and realising that even if we think we know something, we might be wrong. Having that caveat stuck to everything on life means that life is malleable and plastic; we're able to influence and change things. After all, everything seems to be constantly changing around us, so a statement made today might be obsolete tomorrow and we'll never be able to predict it.
I suppose my point of this train of thought, would be that we could all benefit from understanding that there's a lot more grey in life than we often want to admit. Not everything is black and white and facts are fluid. Rather than making grand statements online about things that are nothing more than a judgement call, turn it into a suggestion or a thought that's there to be explored. Invite discussion and debate, rather than refusing to budge. Try not to be so short-sighted as to think that anything we think we know is actually correct.
It's why I love studying philosophy, and why so many of those around me hate philosophy itself. There are no answers, but there are infinite questions, which stimulate our lived experience and expand how we interpret our reality. I believe that if we all opened ourselves up a little more and were willing to entertain other perspectives and ideas, we'd be richer for it.
I guess this did end up stating on a single train of thought after all, but that's the way it goes sometimes. These posts are no better than any other form of statement made online, but I hope to subvert that by inviting discussion and constructive arguments. Feel free to engage, or not, but know that none of this is certain… and that's pretty exciting.