Agents of Culture Vs. Plundering Pundits

[nfotxn]

One thing in particular that I've learned in my years of blogging (since 1998!) is that the value of opinion and editorial is approaching somewhere near that of dirt. In fact this summer I sold bags of dirt for $1.99 per 25L so that's probably not the best analogy. But regardless of worth it doesn't stop many of us from voicing our opinions and throwing our pennies into the ether of the network. So why do we bother?

The value to people is loops of feedback within insular sub-cultures. From gamers to vegans, gay bears or conservatives we keep creating these closed discussions of insular feedback that distort ideas. The value of our opinions processed through these social systems are severely degraded because the signal becomes compressed down to the key concepts of which ever cultural niche is at works. Gamers get geekier, vegans become evangelical, gay become image and sex obsessed and conservatives continue to be stuck with their heads up their own bigoted colons.

The nastiest bit is that through this system we actually only drive further away from understanding each other. As if the modern world needs more cold derisiveness.

Which is why I find myself choosing to focus on things like tone and accessibility. But hardest of all truly considering the perspective of others rather than simply ridiculing it. Of course I am not above a good ol' fashion rant or a bitch fest... they're just a lot more fun in person, expired in speech and easy to deny. I want to save my well considered opinions to be committed to text.

The funny thing is when I use this process to distil written opinions I find myself with a whole lot less of them. It's through this thoughtful that I think we cut the noise out of our lives and use the medium to be agents of culture. In whatever capacities large or small the role of an agent is not the expression of god-given right to opinion but tangible personal growth that's valuable to ourselves foremost but also to others.

Comments

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

>>In whatever capacities large or small the role of an agent is not the expression of god-given right to opinion but tangible personal growth that's valuable to ourselves foremost but also to others.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you.

[abearius.livejournal.com]

Agreed. And also the First Amendment and provisions like that in other Constitutions protects both of these: (1) I have the right to call you a monkey as well as and more importantly (2) I have the right to put my voice out there to state and explain educated, researched and dissenting political views.

It is #2 that is harder and more important.

Number 1 and number 2

[shawnsyms.livejournal.com]

The insidious thing is when people try to merge (1) and (2) by articulating arguments and simultaneously dismissing and insulting those who disagree with them. If you call them on doing (1) they always interpret it as an attempt to stop them from doing (2).

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

Well-stated...and very true.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I guess so? I don't really know who she is too well.

[dizzi-d.livejournal.com]

When I explained the concept of blogging to my mom, her reaction was "well that's neat... but is it just a whole lot of preaching to the choir or do people actually discuss things they haven't already made up their minds about?"

I think there are elements of both depending on how you enter into the realm. LiveJournal for me started as a simple social network, and way back when I made the mistake of assuming that a larger sampling of input was also equal to a random sampling. Between ulterior motives, identical methodologies, and outright courtesy or deceit you kind of end up with a very, very small statistical nudge and not much more.

But isn't that the reason most people start participating in more insulated online groups in the first place? They already know that their ideas/opinions/appearance/preferences are unpopular with the world at large (or at least their local environment) and they're tired of feeling alone - so they seek out like-minded people online and finally get the chance to let their hair down and feel "normal" or even popular within their subgroup. The problems arise when people get that sort of "acceptance euphoria" going on, and start to believe that everyone is just like them because they do nothing but stew in a pot full of identical potatoes.

As long as you don't make the mistake of assuming that your subgroup is anything more than a refuge against the cold, you tend to be okay. It's when you delude yourself into believing that somehow the twenty "gay biker vegans who wear blue latex chaps on tuesdays" represent diversity that you really screw yourself.

I have no idea where I"m going with this. "You're right, but there's something important that's missing and I can't properly express it without more thinkage."

[abearius.livejournal.com]

Open House : Of Family, Friends, Food, Piano Lessons, and the Search for a Room of My Own , by Patricia Williams.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I will look for it at my new job at the Library :)

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree with you. I think the internet isolates and compartmentalizes people rather than creating bridges alot of the time. I was having almost this exact same argument with a friend of mine that thinks the internet is the best thing since sliced bread. I think that there is an inherent danger in deluding yourself that other people think the same way as you..or SHOULD think the same way.

I think the key is learning to understand where everyone is coming from with their opinions. Working at having straight friends, instead of immersing yourself in a world of accepting bears who think like you do. I agree with what Chris said. It should be a refuge, and not seen as reality. Look at the world around us. Bush was voted in. Obviously *our* reality is not the same as the larger reality.

Hopefully that made some sense. I ramble far too much.

[satarnion.livejournal.com]

Rockin' post.

I dunno, I'm okay with the insulation this medium produces. Stratified societies have tended to isolate like-minded people from one another unless a person spends a lot of time seeking out or creating an underground with enough draw to sustain itself.
Cold derisiveness is fine if you have some warm sympathy on the other side.

Opinions have always been worth dirt, in my opinion, but I'm all for people putting them in a public space where that can made all the more apparent when it comes in contact with the millions of other worthless opinions.

An opinion is I think rarely given with the actual desire to change other people. It's a way of saying, "this is who I am and what I believe." It's self-promotion for the purpose of creating these networks from which we can harvest more tangible services or through which we can quietly steal new ideas to promote ourselves even better.

A conversation has never been about convincing the other party even though everything about them appears as such; we all have too much pride to be persuaded so consciously; taking someone else's opinion goes too much against our need for individuality and individualistic opinion. The conversation, by virtue of the similiarity or difference of an opinion, serves to articulate a greater thought on the topic, either breaking down one viewpoint or bolstering another with new points of argument.
The great thing is that deeper articulation of an idea always breaks the idea down, brings out the deep and underlying flaws that hold a certain paradigm together. Yay to the failure of language.

The image in my mind that accompanies change in opinion is that of sound hitting a metal wall. When you speak, the wall doesn't appear to move, but those ideas that are resonant enough will echo within. Insular community is only the front of LiveJournal that we collectively create out of a need to belong.

Then again, perhaps I give people too much credit when I assume that there's thinking going on that I will never get to see.

[bullneck.livejournal.com]

Any media has the potential to become an echo chamber, or a magnifier of the subculture above connectivity to the larger world. And this is, indeed, regrettable if the result is a kind of mental separatism and lack of communication across groups.

The internet and blogs do, however, allow for a lot of cross-pollination and a wealth of cross-cultural "learning" for those who dare to hop from one source to another -- and how many of us really only stick to a small list of sites and journals without adding some new inputs in? Also, even within subcultural modes, there exists other differentiating factors across members, such as age, ethnicity, gender and location, which still renders even the most insular of web-spaces as a hybrid of users. E.g., a gay bear in the Bronx is going to have unique views compared to a gay bear in Beverly Hills, and both will be different from a gay bear from North Dakota. So while they'll seek to emphasize their basic commonalities within the webspace, they'll still also express their differences and create new hybrids of thought and ideas.

[satarnion.livejournal.com]

Yeah!

[chinacub.livejournal.com]

I agree with you generally, but who determines whether a blogger is just bitching or putting forth a well-considered opinion? The reader will still have to use his own discretion. And so I feel that simply declaring the medium needs to reach for something higher doesn't get us much further down the road. That doesn't mean a manifesto isn't useful in reminding yourself of the kind of entries you'd like to write.