Other places I blog




web stats

Follow Me on Twitter

Entries in Social Media (32)


We may not be the change

This week at Karis, there was a good article about social media and confrontation. The author gives some solid, biblical advice about how to respond to things on social media. 

I would add one more strategy to her list, and that is to simply ignore things. 

You know what I mean. You see someone link a post that you find irritating. Someone you know posts something you find objectionable. You comment. Someone else comments. It escalates. And before you know it, you've re-created an adult form of the childish "my dad is better than your dad" scenario. Sometimes, social media makes us forget our manners. 

I think our first line of thinking should be: do I really need to address this? If it's something very agitating, that should be our first clue to ask ourselves if this is better left ignored. My husband tells me regularly: there is great freedom in ignoring.

We tend to think we are responsible for correcting others, but we may be mistaken. It is ego and pride for me to think that it is my job to change someone's mind, convict someone, or set them straight. It may not be. We may grieve for serious issues, and we may offer encouragement or a word of exhortation, but ultimately, our words may fall on deaf ears. To continue to debate only puts us at risk for saying something equally foolish.

The ease with which social media allows us to comment makes us think we have a right to respond, or a need to respond, or that everyone and his dog is waiting for us to respond. In all likelihood, they don't care what we think.

Some things are worth addressing, but I would say that given the limitations of social media, ignoring it ought to be our first reaction to irritating content. Someone who is willing to rant online is most likely not someone who is going to be quick to listen, anyway. I have found frequently that most most vehement people are the least approachable.

Sometimes, adults have to be left to make foolish choices. Sometimes, they'll listen to a word of encouragement, and sometimes they won't. Sometimes, the mature thing is to just move on. These are lessons I continue to learn.


Debate or dialogue?

When I was in the eighth grade, my social studies class learned about debating. My teacher was Mr. Buckingham, and I really liked him. He was funny, smart, and interesting. He taught us the rules for formal debate, and set us to work, pairing us off with people to debate various issues. We practiced writing the debate briefs, and then we did two debates with a classmate. My first debte dealt with the question of whether all United Nations countries should have Esperanto as one of their offiicial languages, and the second was on the merits of capital punishment. I said no to Esperanto and yes to capital punishment. I won both debates.

I didn't like the debate process.  I didn't like the nasty comments from classmates that came my way in the capital punishment debate. I was already the class pariah, and this only fueled the fire. I liked the preparation for debate, lining up the research and evaluting it to draw conclusions, and I found it a helpful exercise. I did a lot of research for the capital punishment debate, and this was in the old days when students used libraries and real, live books.

When I consider what online debate is like, I don't see a lot of resemblance to what I learned in junior high. The two things I think are noticeably lacking is the research aspect, which takes time, and the organization of the brief, which lays out our argument. Online debate generally takes place on blogs, Facebook, and in its least productive venue, Twitter. 

My daughter has been home for a visit this week and we were talking about this, and we came to the conclusion that most of what passes for "debate" online is really just dialogue. There are no real formal guidelines for dialogue. There ought to be an understanding between two people to treat each other with respect and treat the other person better than ourselves, but there's something about the lack of a face that discourages that. I wonder what people would do if all online debate was done through Skype where there was a visual component.

Someone said to me a few months ago that she thought debate online was better than face to face debate because it caused people to rely less on other clues and just got down to the words themselves. That comment sounded almost a little postmodern, as if the words exist outside of the speaker. This person found tone of voice distracting and not focusing on the real matter, the words. I, for one, like those cues, because they often reveal presuppositions and other things that are very helpful for overcoming communication difficulties. 

When we dialogue online, we have to ask ourselves why. Are we looking to understand something, or are we looking to give everyone a lesson or two? I think the latter is more common. Many of us who enter an argument on Facebook or a blog have one thing in mind: to force our views. We may not be interested in learning anything, but rather we want to do the teaching. In some cases, well meaning Christian brothers and sisters want to "speak into your life." That's not debate. That's standing on a soap box. The internet soapbox is safe, because no one can throw tomatoes at you. I have been guilty of this, and I wish now I could take back every contrary discussion I have had with people I will never meet this side of heaven. There's a nasty aftertaste following one those exchanges. Some people may feel energized by such interaction, I just feel a little sick.

I've sworn off debate on social media. I'm not only avoiding participation, I'm learning the joy of ignoring those who are debating. One gets more blogs read when she ignores the comments. I'm also cutting down on using that "share" button on Facebook, just because one never knows when that will stir up something. Perhaps I'm just a coward, or soft in the head. It does leave me much more time for other things, like books, and my family. My husband always says there is freedom in ignoring, and he's right.


Birds of a feather ...

Birds of a feather flock together.

You will be known by the company you keep.

Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

My mother often talked about those first two maxims. I think she would agree with the Proverbs passage.

I have thought about those truths lately; about the company I keep both online and off, and about whether or not I'm the kind of company others should avoid. Perhaps some believe that. I don't know.

What I do know is that truly believe that third point. I long to be someone who walks with the wise.  I want to flock with the birds of wisdom; I want to be known for being among a company of wise women. I want it to be true of my offline life and my online life.

I'm fortunate to know some women who are the kind I want to follow.

They tend to say less rather than more.

They know when to speak and when to be silent.

They are willing to forego having the last word.

They know what discretion is.

They know how to be truthful with mercy because they know the extent of the mercy Christ has shown to them.

They use caution in their online lives.

They understand that righteous living proceeds from biblical doctrine.

I'm sure I could go on. Sometimes, I'm quite certain that I don't fit in with these women whom I am blessed to call friends, but I'm glad they let me walk beside them, because I'm counting on the truth of that proverb.


Life is not a highway, it's a cafeteria

Life often resembles a high school cafeteria. You've got your movers and shakers, your jocks, brains, and beauty queens. Alongside them, you have your outcasts, misfits, rabble rousers, and those with more integrity than the whole bunch, but who lack a loud enough voice to be heard among the noise.

Life on the internet can be like that, too. There are corners where people gossip, tear down, and snicker. There are corners where we congratulate ourselves on being masters of the universe. There are corners where really great conversation is being had by some people who others think are really weird.

When I was in my last year of high school, I was (yet again) the new kid. Rather than try to navigate these complicated channels, I decided to shun them all. Rather than spending time in the hallowed halls of the cafeteria, I chose to go to one of two places: the public library which was attached to the school, or the the nearby mall where I visited a lovely little cafe, drank coffe and ate tea biscuits by myself, and read. I think I was the better for that. High school ends, and no other social structure like it exists outside of, well, high school.  As my friend once said, "high school is something we survive."

There is a valuable lesson to learn in choosing where we spend or time onilne. My friend Melissa's excellent article from yesterday has had me thinking about this. 

I can choose to navigate the cafeteria or I can hole up in the library. When we choose to be online, we can participate in gossip, or curiosity-seeking about what he said or she said, what they said, and what we must do in response to what the nebulous "they" said. That, or we can partake of the library. 

It shouldn't be such a difficult lesson to learn, but humans, by being social creatures, often have a hard time extricating themselves from social interaction, even when that interaction becomes too dramatic for an adult to be involved in. I'm guilty of it myself.

I want to return to the library.

There are so many good things to learn from online. I want to be built up, not be torn down or tear others down. I want to be stronger in my faith. I want to add knowledge, not dissension. The cafeteria is noisy; the library is peaceful.


It's not just the internet; it's choice

We know what's happening to people's attention spans. They're getting shorter. It's not a new phenomenon. It's been happening since television came along. Just think of those brief little segments on Sesame Street. They were just the beginning of what the internet is like. Don't get me wrong; I think the internet can be used for good, but we need to develop a little self-control and self-discipline.

A young friend of our family, about four years ago, confided to me that it must have been easier for young people his age to pick a career in the days when there was little choice.

"Everyone just did what their father did. It was so simple."

I thought that was a wise insight from an 18 year old. Well, now he's graduated from college, but I think of his observation as he pondered his future career plans.

Choice is a luxury. It's not a right. Here in North America, we think it is. We're people of entitlement. When our internet slows down, or heaven forbid, stops working altogether, we feel like we have a right to its restoration immediately. When we decide we hate our internet provider, we can choose another. Well, some folks have more choice than others. Here in my little town, I have two choices. I'm just happy we have cable internet here.  I know people who have to pay for satellite service, and I guess they're happy about that, too.  My cousin is still on dial-up. She lives from day to day quite happily.

The thing that whittles away at our attention span is more than just the internet.  Here's a little scenario:

Suppose that blogs were not free to read. Suppose you had to pay a fee every time you read one. How many would you read? I finally trimmed my blog reading list to 20 blogs, and even that's a lot on some days. I know people who read hundreds. I just don't have time for that, nor the inclination, because actually, after a while they all run together in my head. Sometimes, they're all saying the same thing, anyway. It is an enterprising blogger who finds a varied content. I know a few like that, and I'm thankful I can follow them and get their suggestions rather than mining them for myself.

Okay, so blogs have to be paid for. We would read fewer. Maybe we would read them in their entirety, as well. This is a common scenario as well:

Okay, here I am reading this blog entry.... it's pretty good ... oh dear, it's getting kind of boring ... hmmm... I don't think I need to finish this .... next blog, please.

We don't have to sustain much attention at all, really, when we read blog posts that are usually no more than about 500 words. And if one is just droning on past that 500 word mark, we can go on to something else. We can do this with the newspaper, too, assuming we're old school enough to actually hold one in our hands (I am). I can skim the article and never finish it. There was a day when newspapers did not come out daily; sometimes, they only came out monthly. I bet they were read from cover to cover.

Choice can be a burden or it can be a boon. What we have to remember is that choice is not a right.  It's a luxury that many people don't have.  And there are even people here in North America who don't have the same choices open to them as others, whether it's socioeconomic reasons, health reasons, or geographical reasons.

Next time you click away from that boring article, be thankful for the choice you have to read another. Better yet, finish the whole thing.