A Cup of Conversation, June 2013

As many of us are now familiar with the blogosphere of political opinion, especially Facebook, I’ve concluded that pretty much no one is ever significantly moved in the way they perceive the world through a Facebook post regardless of content. On the other hand, I’m certain many are estranged if not offended by a good deal of the rhetoric. Therefore, the technology to reach billions with a click has also polarized us, like exhausted little kids in a sand-box with one crying, one hitting and one sitting in the corner with a mouth full of sand and a load in the pants.

I’ve been breaking one of my cardinal rules by engaging in cyber-political dialog and recently on someone’s Facebook feed who happened to be a neighbor in our small town. I know better. In school, competitive debate desensitized me to the very real emotional side of an argument. The argument is more sport to me but not necessarily to the other guy posting his opinion. He sees me as the @#%$^& who just doesn’t get it and the very reason this country is going to ^%&# . The dialog necessarily spun out of control ending in hurt feelings (theirs) and unvarnished rhetoric (mine). An important topic of the day was made quickly irrelevant by the larger issue of a mutual lack of acceptance and another’s right to opinion. I truly regret my participation in such foolishness and apologized for my part. The gesture has not been reciprocated but I’m not holding my breath.

If it wasn’t for a business page on Facebook, I’d terminate the social-network site for a few reasons. Firstly, it’s a time-suck to the nth degree. I’ve discovered parts in the day when I could be planning or in thoughtful consideration over an endless to-do list but I’m defaulting to meaningless (to me) feeds about somebody else’s to-do list. I know it doesn’t sound like it but I’m smarter than this.

Secondly, the medium of communication in email, text and post is severely flawed and no amount of LMAO will change that. Think about it, millions of people spend billions of dollars going to relational counseling to figure out what the HECK the other is talking about and this is face-to-face communication with all the benefits of voice and facial inflection, tone, gesture plus the aid of a objective third party. Similarly, we spend mega-billions in lawyer’s fees and arbitration to discern the true intent of meticulously-crafted documents communicating what we ‘really meant’ with the help of a highly-educated judge to light the way. So how is it possible to clearly communicate deep thought and feeling through cryptic social-network messaging to virtual ‘friends’? Somebody’s going to be grossly offended intentionally or unintentionally. It’s just not worth it. I could create a ghost-profile, infiltrate ‘friends’ who don’t recognize me and then post with abandon hiding behind a face of anonymity but that’s like wearing a Batman costume in the sandbox. Sooner or later somebody is going to figure out you’re really little Brucey Wayne who lives down the street and where does that leave you?

Lastly, weighing the benefits of productivity and convenience through social-network mediums against the estrangement and wall-building in epidemic proportions, I’ve concluded if I need my almost-worthless political opinion heard by those who agree with me, a well-written memo to my congressman should suffice. After all, one can only take so much ‘unfriending’ before having to sit in the corner of the sandbox chewing on sand, chaffing hard and asking oneself why.

Be Good, not bitter.