I don't know when it happened, but there was a decided shift in our culture. Somewhere along the line we confused disagreement with dislike, and we substituted debate for hatred. In the wider culture, if someone disagreed, it was a sign the person didn't like the other person. To engage in debate is now considered hatred, and, depending upon the topic, it's labeled as "hate speech" and can be a crime.Facebook was different. It was originally set up by college students for college students. In the very early days (before I joined), it was a place for upcoming graduates to connect with employers. It was a tool that was later replaced by LinkedIn (and others) as a method of networking.
It evolved from there to chronicle the lives of students (and maybe even record what the students couldn't remember). This may not have been the healthiest of uses, and it was quickly replaced by likes of SnapChat and other, seedier, social media outlets.
Its further evolution took it into, what I term, a "Wild West college" phase; this was a time when Facebook was a place with few rules and lots of debate. Unlike the university system, honest debate happened. Sometimes it got ugly, but it was more open and honest.
As time went on, some of the culture's views on debate crept in. I saw it from the faith community first. Disagreement on some theological issues was viewed as "unloving" or "divisive". Disagreements were to be discounted; outright heresy was was to be ignored. The only acceptable answers to anything theological was to praise the comment, regardless of its theological value. Even a non-like on a re-post must be an indication of divisiveness.
Next, I saw this creep into social topics. It seemed the only topics and views allowed were those championed by the editorial board of the New York Times. To disagree meant you must be one of a host of "-ophobe's".
My comments, and my responses to others' comments, have damaged relationships. It's not that it was my goal, but it's the way of our society; to disagree with a comment apparently means I hate the person. My real-life relationships are more important to me than my online presence.
I'm unfriending Facebook, at least for a time.
2 comments:
So are you removing yourself from the conversation of the culture so the "-ophobe's" win or are you shaking the dust from your sandals and moving on the next town of social media?
Good Q. To be honest, I'm not really sure what the answer is. No, I'm not removing me from the culture discussions, but I'm not sure of the right way to engage.
On the one hand, I'd like to shake the dust off of my sandals. I don't like that answer, though, because I deprive myself of meeting interesting people, learning new things and solidifying my own beliefs.
On the other hand, Facebook has evolved (devolved?) into something that doesn't tolerate a diversity of ideas. I'm not going to see things the same way as others, and I think we all benefit from the interaction, but FB doesn't seem to be a good venue any longer.
I'm particularly troubled by the shunning of discussion from the household of faith. I tend to agree with Josh Harris, who said that one of the amazing things about heaven is we'll see how much we got wrong, primarily from our clouded vision. We learn, not from our uniformity, but from our unifying differences, and that's what is being lost.
Back to your original Q - no, I don't want to remove myself from the discussion, but I don't know the answer.
Post a Comment