Post by cjm on Oct 5, 2015 9:35:09 GMT
www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2015/10/01/social-media-polarises-discourse
Social media polarises discourse
by Bronwyn Nortje, 01 October 2015, 05:39
IF YOU really think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money."
This sort of pithy, vacuous statement used to be the domain of inspirational posters and novelty fridge magnets, but now they seem to dominate all social spaces on the internet. What’s worse is that they increasingly form the cornerstone public discourse on important issues that are so much more than a simplistic either/or.
In this case, I presume the inspiration for this 140-character gem of insight was the slowly unfurling disaster that is the Volkswagen emissions scandal. I think we can all agree that installing software designed to lie about emissions was a very bad thing to do. Even if you think emissions regulations are unnecessary and place an unfair burden on vehicle manufacturers, it is fair to say that deliberately misleading the public and circumventing environmental regulations is inexcusable, and the company must answer for its actions.
What irritates me is the way issues of this nature are increasingly presented as mutually exclusive. Either you are an environmentalist or you like money and capitalism. Either you support open borders across the European Union or you are an unsympathetic racist. Either you boycott Woolworths or you are an apartheid sympathiser. There is simply no middle ground any more.
Presenting two issues as polar opposites then demanding that people pick one is very attractive in the world of social media, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
What makes false dichotomies so dangerous is that they are hugely divisive. By their nature, such statements force you to pick a side. "Retweet if you like breathing!" is the shrill warning from the author of the opening comment. The converse being that if you support the economy, you obviously don’t like breathing and are an idiot who doesn’t understand the real issues. Or, worse, an evil capitalist. This creates an "us" or "them" mentality that shuts down the necessary debate we should be having.
The second major problem I have with such sweeping statements is that they are at best lazy, but more frequently deliberately dishonest. Very few things in life are black and white. This is especially so in matters of economics. Capitalism is often painted as a big evil that exploits the poor while making the rich richer, but the truth is far more nuanced, and this nuance is increasingly being lost amid the furious online sharing of pithy motivational poster quotes.
For example, I think most of us agree that providing some social support to those in need is moral and necessary. In most capitalist countries these benefits are paid out of tax receipts. Taxes take many forms; money can be raised through taxes on goods such as VAT, from individuals in the form of estate duty or personal income tax and from companies in the form of corporation tax. The existence of capitalist markets is the very reason that things are bought and sold, that people are employed, and that companies make profits. Ultimately, if capitalist markets didn’t exist there wouldn’t be anyone to collect tax from, and therefore no money to redistribute.
Hardliners might argue that the solution is socialism, but you only need to ask those in China who had the misfortune of living through the Great Leap Forward whether they prefer the warped version of capitalism in China today to Mao’s heroic communism. I’m not saying capitalism doesn’t produce negative externalities, but let us find ways to address these rather than throw the whole system out.
The same goes for environmentalists who believe Big Business should be shut down to save the planet. We all know manufacturing is dirty business and that irreparable damage has been done to the environment, but progress is a process. The money made and lessons learnt since the Industrial Revolution will more likely be the source of the solution to the problems they have created than sit-ins or topless protesters raging against them.
More to the point, I think the majority of environmental hardliners would choose industry over the environment if they were genuinely faced with the hardships that would befall us all if we unquestioningly put the environment before the economy.
These are both simplistic examples, but even so this only slightly deeper level of discussion seldom seems to happen any more. Capitalism is very far from perfect, but to deliberately position it as the antithesis of the environment, human dignity and social progress is grossly misguided, and in my opinion irresponsibly lazy.
It would be far more reasonable to present capitalism as the best option we’ve got for now — or even as a necessary evil — and suggest feasible alternatives.
Sadly, no one would want to share something so dull on social media.
...
WE ALL have our guilty media pleasures. Mine is to cruise the bikini and celebrity dramas in the Daily Mail’s "sidebar of shame", while my liberal-leaning husband trawls through satirical individualist blog Samizdata.net. I usually fly into a rage or mutter something derisive when he sends me anything from the site, but this little gem, written by David Gillies in the comments section of another blog and then posted to the site, is such a prize example of an online rant that it is worth sharing.
"Jeremy Corbyn was born in 1949. Stalin was still in power then. Since then we have been through the Korean War, the 1956 Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring and its subsequent repression, the Communist takeover of Vietnam and Laos, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, the fall of Eastern European Communism, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Tiananmen Square and the recent upswing in Russian revanchism.
"We have also seen free markets and the rule of law lift billions out of utter destitution, leaving mainly untouched those areas where the Left still has sway. Despite all this, Corbyn still cleaves to the most disgusting, barbarous ideology that has been seen on Earth since the Conquistadors put the kibosh on Aztec thoracic surgery. That’s not misguided. That’s evil. Just because he looks like a geography teacher shouldn’t let him off the hook. He is a wicked man busily surrounding himself with wicked (mainly) men and a few wicked women. We should not be afraid to state, plainly and repeatedly, what he is and what he stands for. To do any less is to acquiesce in his vileness."
Social media polarises discourse
by Bronwyn Nortje, 01 October 2015, 05:39
IF YOU really think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money."
This sort of pithy, vacuous statement used to be the domain of inspirational posters and novelty fridge magnets, but now they seem to dominate all social spaces on the internet. What’s worse is that they increasingly form the cornerstone public discourse on important issues that are so much more than a simplistic either/or.
In this case, I presume the inspiration for this 140-character gem of insight was the slowly unfurling disaster that is the Volkswagen emissions scandal. I think we can all agree that installing software designed to lie about emissions was a very bad thing to do. Even if you think emissions regulations are unnecessary and place an unfair burden on vehicle manufacturers, it is fair to say that deliberately misleading the public and circumventing environmental regulations is inexcusable, and the company must answer for its actions.
What irritates me is the way issues of this nature are increasingly presented as mutually exclusive. Either you are an environmentalist or you like money and capitalism. Either you support open borders across the European Union or you are an unsympathetic racist. Either you boycott Woolworths or you are an apartheid sympathiser. There is simply no middle ground any more.
Presenting two issues as polar opposites then demanding that people pick one is very attractive in the world of social media, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
What makes false dichotomies so dangerous is that they are hugely divisive. By their nature, such statements force you to pick a side. "Retweet if you like breathing!" is the shrill warning from the author of the opening comment. The converse being that if you support the economy, you obviously don’t like breathing and are an idiot who doesn’t understand the real issues. Or, worse, an evil capitalist. This creates an "us" or "them" mentality that shuts down the necessary debate we should be having.
The second major problem I have with such sweeping statements is that they are at best lazy, but more frequently deliberately dishonest. Very few things in life are black and white. This is especially so in matters of economics. Capitalism is often painted as a big evil that exploits the poor while making the rich richer, but the truth is far more nuanced, and this nuance is increasingly being lost amid the furious online sharing of pithy motivational poster quotes.
For example, I think most of us agree that providing some social support to those in need is moral and necessary. In most capitalist countries these benefits are paid out of tax receipts. Taxes take many forms; money can be raised through taxes on goods such as VAT, from individuals in the form of estate duty or personal income tax and from companies in the form of corporation tax. The existence of capitalist markets is the very reason that things are bought and sold, that people are employed, and that companies make profits. Ultimately, if capitalist markets didn’t exist there wouldn’t be anyone to collect tax from, and therefore no money to redistribute.
Hardliners might argue that the solution is socialism, but you only need to ask those in China who had the misfortune of living through the Great Leap Forward whether they prefer the warped version of capitalism in China today to Mao’s heroic communism. I’m not saying capitalism doesn’t produce negative externalities, but let us find ways to address these rather than throw the whole system out.
The same goes for environmentalists who believe Big Business should be shut down to save the planet. We all know manufacturing is dirty business and that irreparable damage has been done to the environment, but progress is a process. The money made and lessons learnt since the Industrial Revolution will more likely be the source of the solution to the problems they have created than sit-ins or topless protesters raging against them.
More to the point, I think the majority of environmental hardliners would choose industry over the environment if they were genuinely faced with the hardships that would befall us all if we unquestioningly put the environment before the economy.
These are both simplistic examples, but even so this only slightly deeper level of discussion seldom seems to happen any more. Capitalism is very far from perfect, but to deliberately position it as the antithesis of the environment, human dignity and social progress is grossly misguided, and in my opinion irresponsibly lazy.
It would be far more reasonable to present capitalism as the best option we’ve got for now — or even as a necessary evil — and suggest feasible alternatives.
Sadly, no one would want to share something so dull on social media.
...
WE ALL have our guilty media pleasures. Mine is to cruise the bikini and celebrity dramas in the Daily Mail’s "sidebar of shame", while my liberal-leaning husband trawls through satirical individualist blog Samizdata.net. I usually fly into a rage or mutter something derisive when he sends me anything from the site, but this little gem, written by David Gillies in the comments section of another blog and then posted to the site, is such a prize example of an online rant that it is worth sharing.
"Jeremy Corbyn was born in 1949. Stalin was still in power then. Since then we have been through the Korean War, the 1956 Hungarian revolution, the Prague Spring and its subsequent repression, the Communist takeover of Vietnam and Laos, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, the fall of Eastern European Communism, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Tiananmen Square and the recent upswing in Russian revanchism.
"We have also seen free markets and the rule of law lift billions out of utter destitution, leaving mainly untouched those areas where the Left still has sway. Despite all this, Corbyn still cleaves to the most disgusting, barbarous ideology that has been seen on Earth since the Conquistadors put the kibosh on Aztec thoracic surgery. That’s not misguided. That’s evil. Just because he looks like a geography teacher shouldn’t let him off the hook. He is a wicked man busily surrounding himself with wicked (mainly) men and a few wicked women. We should not be afraid to state, plainly and repeatedly, what he is and what he stands for. To do any less is to acquiesce in his vileness."