I struggled with the idea of creating a blog primarily due to a single burning question: Why the hell would people want to read my writing? What makes me an authority on, well, anything? Why should my thoughts be heard, spread, or reflected on?
And then I started thinking about social media. I considered the inherent narcissism in posting a picture of my face, and expecting people to ‘like’ it.
I was called back however to Joan Didion’s essay On Keeping a Notebook. Didion describes keeping a notebook, essentially a daily diary, which allowed her to reflect years later on the person she was. Captured with each stroke of her (presumably used) pen was the person that she used to be and the feelings she felt at that time.
There’s a similar reason why I have an Instagram, and why I don’t delete my posts. I love being able to look back upon my old self, with a literal visualization of my growth over time as a person. Through my old political memes and even my selfies, I’m able to reflect on how far I’ve come.
I feel with a blog I can do the same. This writing isn’t perfect. My beliefs are probably very flawed. But being able to look back upon this, my views written in long form instead of captured with a meme, is my own notebook.
Is it narcissistic to expect people to read and like what happens here? Probably. I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t partially my motive – I could keep this private after all. I would like though to think though that maybe I’m not completely self-absorbed, and that it’s the desire to see and fuel my growth that motivates me to type these words. You be the judge.
We live in a time where people are able to share in one second the thoughts that they dreamt up in two seconds. This can be beautiful but it can also be quite problematic.
Often times I’ll find myself on Instagram, whose Explore feature likes to oscillate between showing me hardcore communist propaganda and tea party conservative memes. No matter the side of the spectrum though, invariably I’ll see a claim such as House rep. Ilhan Omar is a terrorist or graphs that play tricks on the reader to suggest one thing when really the data represents the complete opposite.
When I was twelve, there’s no doubt in my mind that I would engage the kind of people that post misinformation online. I would debate them until we were both blue in the face, at the end both of us still resolute in our beliefs. My (limited) personal experiences tell me that most people, especially as they grow up, don’t change their beliefs or principles unless something major happens in their life. Me arguing with a homophobe probably won’t be fruitful – until one of their close and most respected friends comes out to them, showing them that not all gays are bad. Convincing a person that deep into their beliefs and prejudices isn’t a challenge I like to take up anymore.
What I learned however was that debate (competition) has never been about convincing the other person. It’s about the judge. The spectator. The person who is also looking at those Instagram comments – maybe someone who hasn’t yet made up their mind – and now sees a discourse that presents more nuanced information that they can follow and make their own judgement on.
When I see misinformation nowadays, a random claim or misuse of statistics, I don’t engage with the poster directly because they often will get defensive and the conversation will be fruitless. I do however like to leave other sources, information, and my opinion on why the OP’s information might be skewed or inaccurate in an attempt to let their audience see the other side.
A last thing I like to keep in mind when commenting online so that things stay classy is that I’m arguing against a point not a person.