You’re busy. I’m busy. Legitimately. But humans, tech, and society are all complex to an unwieldy degree. And usually all we have time for is the TL;DR version. Here you’ll find abstracts of the way I view things derived from a more thorough analysis undergirding them.
These articles take the long view. Although there may be some references to events or topics associated with an identifiable place or time, my intention is that the general gist and conclusions remain relevant and practical regardless of whatever people or issues are prominent at any instant.
In a related vein, I think it best to eschew embroilment in snarky gotcha exchanges (although those that contain valid points are arguably part of the larger conversation). Like any thinking person, I’m an avid enthusiast for the causes I agree with and want to win out. But to accomplish that I think it’s essential to try to emit more light than heat especially on controversial and critical matters.
The ad hominem attacks that pollute far too many comments sections are an excellent example of heat instead of light. This heat does not originate equally from all sides; although you can find instances of it on the left, the greatest volume of it is on the right (and I find most conservative scholarly writings presenting a “strained” logic similar to the way Madison characterized in FEDERALIST No. 54 the justification for the ⅗ count of slaves). The mostly-heat posts are easy to spot and share some common characteristics very similar to schoolyard bullying, and equally just as juvenile. They belittle the article writer or another commenter, often by referring to them by a demeaning nickname or inaccurately associating them with a strawman bogeyman. All of this is done with a condescending air of faux authoritativeness, basically gaslighting. Such postings are conspicuously lacking in substance, and betray the manufactured talking points behind them. Especially in the age of fake and bot driven social media accounts, judicious readers will take care to sift the wheat from the chaff in all media they view. Automated or not, trolling by any other name is still trolling.
The successful navigation between trolling and veritable common sense requires attention to the full details and their nuanced implications. This is foundational for productive discourse, which is the most effective means of neutralizing the strong (often well funded) crosswinds of sophistry and chicanery that try to dominate the common psyche. And the best means of cultivating that productive discourse is to deflect those crosswinds with accurate information and encouragement of people to think for themselves based on that accurate information.
I think in the long run, light over heat is the most effective way to achieve a winning level of enthusiasm for one’s just cause. If then light (with enlightenment and resultant buy in) is preferable, there must be a reason why heat (bullying argument and raw power for its own sake) is desirable and applied at all by some people. I think the reason for a heat approach to discourse (including physical and other non-thought means) lies in the belief of those applying the heat (vice light) that the discourse of their interlocutors is not genuine—or worse, is indeed genuine but opposed to their established dogma. Being candid with yourself, how would you react in that situation? Unfortunately insincere or deceptive discourse occurs far too often, and when it’s accompanied by tangible force (whether physical, economic, or social), a corresponding counter force is required to allow meaningful discussion—sometimes there’s only one way to deal with a bully.
The challenge then is to effectively advocate for the just causes that deserve advancement and implementation—to have light overcome heat. I’m optimistic enough to think that this blog is a means that contributes to that end.
mcw
See the menu at the top of the page for reading selections.
—