With the election cycle starting up again, I have seen more than my fair share of political news stories. However a new piece to the puzzle is readers' ability to comment on the story. This may seem like a well-intentioned step by the presenter of the news to involve the readership, but I have to question its effect on our society's communication.
It has become common for people to expect bad comments these days. Affirmation of one candidate from commenter "a" is received with a "YOU'RE GAY!!" response from commenter "b" and "You are so f*&^@%# retarded you must have been dropped as a baby." from commenter "c." Commenter "a" gets angry with the two other commenters and unleashes his own foul response. The "discussion" is then led down a road of expletives and personal attacks that neither furthers the individuals' cause nor the conversation.
I am here to say I am sick and tired of this. People think they can say whatever they want because the Internet hides their identity - and that is true - but does that make an action right?
I am reminded of an anecdote from Plato called the Ring of Gyges. In the myth a farmer finds a ring that makes him invisible. He uses this newfound power to sleep with the queen, kill the king, and take the power of the throne. It was originally used as an example to show how men will not retain their morality if they can get away with immoral acts. That is exactly the case we have with anonymity on the Internet.
This begs a few questions. First is the matter of proving the wrongness of acting in such a manner online.
It used to be the case, so I am told, that such behavior was taken for granted to be wrong. That is not the case any more. So let me make two appeals.
First it should be considered wrong on the "Golden Rule" basis. The Golden Rule of course is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So I ask: do you like it when people name-call you, swear at you, insult you, degrade your humanity? If the answer is no - and it should be - then you should also not act in a manner that does the above things.
My second appeal is to the affect such actions have. Are you convinced of a position because the person talks in a poor manner, curses and argues using logical fallacies? No. So why do you do the same thing? An attack on the person is not an attack on his ideology. The argument makes no sense and you're only angering people you are trying to convince.
The second question these actions raise is should there be accountability on the Internet?
I hold freedom to be paramount in a free society. A part of that freedom is to remain anonymous wherever and whenever you desire or are able to do such. So I do not advocate for the government to reveal the people who comment on the Internet. That not only lacks feasibility but it violates people's freedom. I am however an advocate of personal accountability. Here's a good test. Copy all your comments you make online and paste them all to a document. Then send the document to your grandmother or mother. Are you hesitant? Then maybe you should not post such things on the Internet.
The last question this raises - and the main crux of my post - is how this ability to comment unidentified is affecting our political discussion as a society.
I am a firm believer that social discourse helps shape ideas, form community, and help discover truths. I love sitting down with people - whatever the intelligence - and talk about politics. What I do not tolerate is personal attacks or slurs towards the discussion. I approach everyone with respect that they have formed their opinions rationally and that their point should be taken seriously, and I hope they do the same to me. That way we can both approach whatever subject we are discussing reasonably, open to dispute and with honest consideration to the opposing view.
I like to do this because it lets me see what people think, why they think that, and how they came to the conclusions they did. It helps me to empathize with the problems people face and solutions that need to be found. It also helps to challenge my ideas. I don't want my ideas to be a house of cards. I invite people to oppose me so that if I am proven to be wrong, I can correct my mistakes.
In a political discourse where reasonable challenges to ideology are met with immediate anger and hatred, there can be none of this. As I have said above, this reaction does not further the cause, but what it does do is protect the individual from challenges. This shows that the individual is not sure of his beliefs and has no grounding for his views.
This is my hope and my challenge: When you are commenting on forums or news stories keep this in mind. That you are representing your idea. Fallacious attacks only hurt you and your credibility, which means they hurt your belief's credibility. So treat others with respect and you might be surprised that they treat you with respect as well. Give an honest and open ear to other arguments and debate the points in love. After all, if your position is right, shouldn't you want people to adopt it?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Remembering 9/11
As I sit down to write this post, multiple TV stations airing September 11 documentaries or dramas, I do not fully know where to begin or where to go with this. As an event that has struck the very heart of America there is no way I can begin to encompass it, nor am I eloquent enough to write a moving story of the bravery that surged from men and women involved with the attack. I guess the best thing I can write about is growing up in a post-9/11 world.
I was ten years old when the attacks occurred. The day itself is one of the keenest memories I have of that time in my life. I was attending school at Schaeffer Academy in Mrs. Deedrick's fifth grade class. I forget specifically how the news got to Mrs. Deedrick, but remember her telling us of the attacks and how we would remember this moment for the rest of our lives. She said this day is like the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. She told us that our children would not understand what it was like to experience the tragic day and know it only from textbooks. She said life would never be the same.
That is the unique part of my story. That is the difference between me and Americans older than me. I was ten at the time of the attacks. The word normal didn't - couldn't - exist for me. I and my peers have grown up, developed our thoughts and opinions, and looked to the future in a world far different than the world of anyone before us for the last century. We did not have an illusion of an America that was perfectly safe. We did not have the utopian view that the whole world got together. That value - our innocence - was robbed from us on that fateful day.
Since then, we have grown up knowing multiple foreign wars. Many of us don't know what an America uninvolved with war would look like. These perpetual wars we have lived have caused many to become disillusioned to the war on terror. We have grown so accustomed to it that we don't really think about it anymore. Sure, when the moments arise where the wars are shoved into our face we will react accordingly, but not in the same way as older generations. We reverence them because we are supposed to, because we know they go through difficulties we cannot imagine, and because they are fighting for our freedom. But it seems so hallow. My peers and I are growing tired of perpetual wars in foreign countries. The Arab Spring has shown many that the people of the Middle East can find their own way to democracy without U.S. intervention. We are sick of seeing our friends and neighbors shipped off to foreign lands coming back scarred either physically or mentally. There is a growing sentiment among us: bring our troops home.
We have lived in a world where government seems to be an all-encompassing power. As we grow into our 20s and seek independence from our parents, we are seeing that a new power is taking their place - the government. Going to the airport and getting fondled by the TSA has become acceptable to many adults, but the youth say "This is my person - my property! No matter the security I am master of my own body." With almost constant access to the Internet, the youth is able to find information the mainstream media does not publish. We read reports of wire-tapping, aerial surveillance, invasion of property, and seizure without warrants and we cry "Where is the America of the Founders?"
This is an interesting point. The older generations are far removed from civics or history classes. They learned years ago about the Constitution and have since then been able to forget what it says. But my generation, we have learned of the Constitution the same way the older generations have. But because we are learning of it, we compare it directly to what America is doing now and we see there is a serious disconnect. The Founders fought against a tyrannical government that claimed to own citizens. They replaced it with a government with clearly limited powers to promote individual freedom. Today I fear we have forgotten about the Founders and their vision for America.
The propaganda machine has not pushed its way into education completely to dismiss these issues and replace it with a nationalistic sentiment that everything the government does is in your best interest. Rather, the youth is left in a sort of limbo where we have to figure it out on our own. Some join the older generations and accept these things as necessary to preserving security. Others, like myself, follow Thomas Jefferson and question the government's actions and are never trusting of it. He said that when people sacrifice their freedom for the sake of security they are deserving of neither. As I grow up I want nothing more than to experience the world in its fullest, not to be fenced in by government agencies and laws that cover the world in bubble wrap and tie my hands so I don't hurt myself.
Let me conclude with this. I love America. I love the freedom she promises and I love the people who cling to that freedom as dear as anything. As we remember 9/11 my hope is we all send a prayer of thanks to God for his grace in founding this country, one of thanks to the men and women who serve our armed forces for their valor and courage, a prayer of comfort to the thousands that lost loved ones in the attack, and a prayer for guidance in the movers of the world, that they will see the best course to be taken in the years ahead.
As we remember 9/11 I wish people to look at it in two ways. I want them to consider the generation of Americans who have known only the post-9/11 world and what they have experienced - how this event has shaped their life. Secondly, I want them to remember the power we experienced when the nation as a whole came together and worked as a whole; to know that when free people unite for a common cause, no power can overcome them.
I was ten years old when the attacks occurred. The day itself is one of the keenest memories I have of that time in my life. I was attending school at Schaeffer Academy in Mrs. Deedrick's fifth grade class. I forget specifically how the news got to Mrs. Deedrick, but remember her telling us of the attacks and how we would remember this moment for the rest of our lives. She said this day is like the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. She told us that our children would not understand what it was like to experience the tragic day and know it only from textbooks. She said life would never be the same.
That is the unique part of my story. That is the difference between me and Americans older than me. I was ten at the time of the attacks. The word normal didn't - couldn't - exist for me. I and my peers have grown up, developed our thoughts and opinions, and looked to the future in a world far different than the world of anyone before us for the last century. We did not have an illusion of an America that was perfectly safe. We did not have the utopian view that the whole world got together. That value - our innocence - was robbed from us on that fateful day.
Since then, we have grown up knowing multiple foreign wars. Many of us don't know what an America uninvolved with war would look like. These perpetual wars we have lived have caused many to become disillusioned to the war on terror. We have grown so accustomed to it that we don't really think about it anymore. Sure, when the moments arise where the wars are shoved into our face we will react accordingly, but not in the same way as older generations. We reverence them because we are supposed to, because we know they go through difficulties we cannot imagine, and because they are fighting for our freedom. But it seems so hallow. My peers and I are growing tired of perpetual wars in foreign countries. The Arab Spring has shown many that the people of the Middle East can find their own way to democracy without U.S. intervention. We are sick of seeing our friends and neighbors shipped off to foreign lands coming back scarred either physically or mentally. There is a growing sentiment among us: bring our troops home.
We have lived in a world where government seems to be an all-encompassing power. As we grow into our 20s and seek independence from our parents, we are seeing that a new power is taking their place - the government. Going to the airport and getting fondled by the TSA has become acceptable to many adults, but the youth say "This is my person - my property! No matter the security I am master of my own body." With almost constant access to the Internet, the youth is able to find information the mainstream media does not publish. We read reports of wire-tapping, aerial surveillance, invasion of property, and seizure without warrants and we cry "Where is the America of the Founders?"
This is an interesting point. The older generations are far removed from civics or history classes. They learned years ago about the Constitution and have since then been able to forget what it says. But my generation, we have learned of the Constitution the same way the older generations have. But because we are learning of it, we compare it directly to what America is doing now and we see there is a serious disconnect. The Founders fought against a tyrannical government that claimed to own citizens. They replaced it with a government with clearly limited powers to promote individual freedom. Today I fear we have forgotten about the Founders and their vision for America.
The propaganda machine has not pushed its way into education completely to dismiss these issues and replace it with a nationalistic sentiment that everything the government does is in your best interest. Rather, the youth is left in a sort of limbo where we have to figure it out on our own. Some join the older generations and accept these things as necessary to preserving security. Others, like myself, follow Thomas Jefferson and question the government's actions and are never trusting of it. He said that when people sacrifice their freedom for the sake of security they are deserving of neither. As I grow up I want nothing more than to experience the world in its fullest, not to be fenced in by government agencies and laws that cover the world in bubble wrap and tie my hands so I don't hurt myself.
Let me conclude with this. I love America. I love the freedom she promises and I love the people who cling to that freedom as dear as anything. As we remember 9/11 my hope is we all send a prayer of thanks to God for his grace in founding this country, one of thanks to the men and women who serve our armed forces for their valor and courage, a prayer of comfort to the thousands that lost loved ones in the attack, and a prayer for guidance in the movers of the world, that they will see the best course to be taken in the years ahead.
As we remember 9/11 I wish people to look at it in two ways. I want them to consider the generation of Americans who have known only the post-9/11 world and what they have experienced - how this event has shaped their life. Secondly, I want them to remember the power we experienced when the nation as a whole came together and worked as a whole; to know that when free people unite for a common cause, no power can overcome them.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Hutsman Wins Debate, But Talk Is On Perry
In the GOP debate wednesday evening Perry came out with both arms swinging, tackling Social Security, job creation, and climate change. Personally, Jon Huntsman did the best in the debate, but the media has deemed him all but eliminated and sadly I fear he will soon be leaving the competition.
So all the attention seems focused on two individuals - Perry and Romney. Admittedly the exchange between the two front-runners at the beginning of the debate over who created the best job climate as governor of their respective states made me happy. Here I thought the two might make fools of themselves and hurt their image, but they brought it back down and by the end seems amicable enough.
Perry took a hard line on a couple of issues, though. He defended his claims in his book "Fed Up" that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, going so far as to label it a lie to the youth of America. The Texas governor also held firm in his doubt of climate change and this is an issue that will likely be misrepresented by his competition, so let me defend his claim for a second.
Perry is claiming the science on climate change is still unclear to the point that man is the cause for it. In his words, he made this distinction. Sadly, I think people will ignore or miss this distinction, so his campaign should brace for an onslaught from the Romney camp.
Perry did make concessions on his actions against HPV when attacked by Ron Paul, saying if he were to do it again, he would not use executive orders to accomplish his goal. He ended his statement with a promise that he will choose to fight cancer. So I can only conclude that he truly doesn't fear using executive orders and simply wanted to escape the situation in which he found himself.
Perry also showed his apparent lack of aptitude concerning the English language, stumbling over lines, forgetting the word "nominee" when referring to a previous comment Rick Santorum made, and generally using fragmented sentences and non-sequitors. Kind of reminds me of another governor from Texas...
On to Romney then! I think Romney did a decent job in the debate. He continues to show his savvy for the type of political rhetoric necessary to navigate a debate and was able to show himself to be more conservative than his actions are, asserting the need for a fence between the U.S. and Mexico and blasting Obamacare. He tactfully separated himself from Perry on issues of Social Security and climate change.
If I was forced to pick a loser for the debate, it would be Michelle Bachmann. She did not excite the crowd at all, made few points of interest, and remained generally inactive during the debate. I can resect her difficult position, because as a woman if she asserts herself too much she can come across as crazy, but in this debate she almost seemed resigned.
My new favorite person, Newt Gingrich, fired off more complaints about the media much as he did in the previous debate. Instead of answering probably one of the deepest questions in the debate concerning the use of individual mandates in a healthcare plan, Gingrich accused the mediator of separating the candidates in an attempt to weaken their position so Obama could win the election. United we stand, Newt! I think he is making a ploy to be in the victor's Cabinet, so well played good sir. If nothing else, your firebrand spirit is entertaining.
Ron Paul did a relatively poor job in the debate as well, which is sad because I do support the man. He seemed especially scatterbrained tonight as he was covering four to five subject matters, jabbing at candidates along the way but never fully explaining himself. This is just another instance that shows he is weakest in these debates. His philosophy is much more complex than what one minute will allow in explanation. My sincere hope is people will go to his website to get a good idea what his beliefs are.
Herman Cain was probably my second best candidate this evening. He was able to "stop the rhetoric and come up with actions" that would bring results. To his credit, he seems to have general plans for many of the top issues - though I am confused on his 9-9-9 plan. His biggest weakness continues to be on foreign affairs, which is a large portion of the electoral debate. I can see myself liking the guy, but he is far from a perfect candidate.
And finally Rick Santorum. We cannot forget Rick Santorum - referring to himself in the third person in every debate. The guy is all but done for. Tonight he didn't have that much to say. He joined in with the attacks on Perry and tried to bash the views of Paul - again. If I were to guess the next person to leave the race it would be this guy. I don't think I'll miss him.
All in all it was a good debate. Perry is officially in the race and I am interested to see how the polls shake up from this. My guess is Romney will receive a slight boost and Bachmann will continue to sink, but otherwise there will be little will change.
Feel free to continue the debate below - I will add my own two cents - and if you want to keep up with my blog follow me by clicking on the "Follow" button below the toolbar.
So all the attention seems focused on two individuals - Perry and Romney. Admittedly the exchange between the two front-runners at the beginning of the debate over who created the best job climate as governor of their respective states made me happy. Here I thought the two might make fools of themselves and hurt their image, but they brought it back down and by the end seems amicable enough.
Perry took a hard line on a couple of issues, though. He defended his claims in his book "Fed Up" that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, going so far as to label it a lie to the youth of America. The Texas governor also held firm in his doubt of climate change and this is an issue that will likely be misrepresented by his competition, so let me defend his claim for a second.
Perry is claiming the science on climate change is still unclear to the point that man is the cause for it. In his words, he made this distinction. Sadly, I think people will ignore or miss this distinction, so his campaign should brace for an onslaught from the Romney camp.
Perry did make concessions on his actions against HPV when attacked by Ron Paul, saying if he were to do it again, he would not use executive orders to accomplish his goal. He ended his statement with a promise that he will choose to fight cancer. So I can only conclude that he truly doesn't fear using executive orders and simply wanted to escape the situation in which he found himself.
Perry also showed his apparent lack of aptitude concerning the English language, stumbling over lines, forgetting the word "nominee" when referring to a previous comment Rick Santorum made, and generally using fragmented sentences and non-sequitors. Kind of reminds me of another governor from Texas...
On to Romney then! I think Romney did a decent job in the debate. He continues to show his savvy for the type of political rhetoric necessary to navigate a debate and was able to show himself to be more conservative than his actions are, asserting the need for a fence between the U.S. and Mexico and blasting Obamacare. He tactfully separated himself from Perry on issues of Social Security and climate change.
If I was forced to pick a loser for the debate, it would be Michelle Bachmann. She did not excite the crowd at all, made few points of interest, and remained generally inactive during the debate. I can resect her difficult position, because as a woman if she asserts herself too much she can come across as crazy, but in this debate she almost seemed resigned.
My new favorite person, Newt Gingrich, fired off more complaints about the media much as he did in the previous debate. Instead of answering probably one of the deepest questions in the debate concerning the use of individual mandates in a healthcare plan, Gingrich accused the mediator of separating the candidates in an attempt to weaken their position so Obama could win the election. United we stand, Newt! I think he is making a ploy to be in the victor's Cabinet, so well played good sir. If nothing else, your firebrand spirit is entertaining.
Ron Paul did a relatively poor job in the debate as well, which is sad because I do support the man. He seemed especially scatterbrained tonight as he was covering four to five subject matters, jabbing at candidates along the way but never fully explaining himself. This is just another instance that shows he is weakest in these debates. His philosophy is much more complex than what one minute will allow in explanation. My sincere hope is people will go to his website to get a good idea what his beliefs are.
Herman Cain was probably my second best candidate this evening. He was able to "stop the rhetoric and come up with actions" that would bring results. To his credit, he seems to have general plans for many of the top issues - though I am confused on his 9-9-9 plan. His biggest weakness continues to be on foreign affairs, which is a large portion of the electoral debate. I can see myself liking the guy, but he is far from a perfect candidate.
And finally Rick Santorum. We cannot forget Rick Santorum - referring to himself in the third person in every debate. The guy is all but done for. Tonight he didn't have that much to say. He joined in with the attacks on Perry and tried to bash the views of Paul - again. If I were to guess the next person to leave the race it would be this guy. I don't think I'll miss him.
All in all it was a good debate. Perry is officially in the race and I am interested to see how the polls shake up from this. My guess is Romney will receive a slight boost and Bachmann will continue to sink, but otherwise there will be little will change.
Feel free to continue the debate below - I will add my own two cents - and if you want to keep up with my blog follow me by clicking on the "Follow" button below the toolbar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)