Unstoppable hope

A while ago a friend and I were having a conversation about something confusing and rather rude another person had said. He was trying to understand and rationalize where the other person was coming from. At one point I said I regretted bringing up the matter at all because the statement didn’t seem worth all the effort we, especially he, were expending on it. This is how the conversation went (I am the blue speech bubble)

I thought this was a peculiarly empowering way of dealing with things or people that aggravate or bewilder you or send you into a spiral of contemplating the seemingly hopeless tragedy of life. It’s also an alternative to the way of thinking that says “it could be worse” (why yes, it can, in dreadful ways you can’t even imagine) or “but look on the bright side” (what about when there really isn’t one?)

But a bucket or container shaped opposite to the  problem/loss/trauma/tragedy feels like a mental puzzle I can attempt. It’s creative. It’s generative. It doesn’t involve flight or denial or more strength or virtue than I’ve got. It starts with imagination. Something I can almost always do is imagine.

This conversation also reminded me of this quote:

If a person or situation can do you no good, then maybe the next step is to imagine a good.

I am grateful to my friend for planting this idea in my head and I will be thinking about it for a while and seeing where it takes me.

What is worthy of our attention?

By Joe C, who writes at The Wisdom of Life:

There is an important distinction between those of us who understand public relations and its impact on our lives and those that don't: It is the understanding of how prone we are in general to the blind acceptance of the premises without even recognition of those premises embedded within communications.

For instance; when the media puts out a topic and many of us argue over whether it's true or not, how important it is or not, and so on... that energy we apply to the topic is the point – that we have accepted the premise and are now oriented around, and applying energy to the defined topic(s). Those of us who do not know the attention economy game might not ask more important questions like; “Is this topic worthy of discussion?” and “What will the community we live in and depend on gain if our energy is applied to this topic?” or “Who benefits if our focus is tied up on these defined points?” In a story-driven world, whoever defines the argument has already won.
Is what we are doing with our focus and energy an investment in the possibility of something better for the community we live in and depend on, or is it the useless or net negative effect of spending time with little chance of bearing fruit?
I could be missing something(s)

One of my goals for 2021 is to slow everything down. Slowing down can be difficult. It’s easy to slide into a mindset where more is better: more things done, more action and reaction, more audience, more conclusions jumped to in a short time. More emotion.  At least, it’s easy to do until you notice what mayhem is created by people in haste. Perhaps it is a person or people acting unfairly or foolishly because they do not have all the information about someone or a situation. Perhaps this does great damage.

Then, well, we might wish we had slowed down. This blog is part of my strategy for slowing down. Even if I am not aiming to write a lot, I tend to write more than I think I am going to. I put more thought into my words and tend to be more critical of them. There is little if any (ever) instant reaction to my thoughts so I am not greatly affected by concerns about who is reading and why. Although this blog is public, any potential readers have to make an effort to reach it, even if that effort is just remembering I exist. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

So how do we slow down? First step is to turn emotional reactiveness down, way down. Again this is challenging because we live in a space where emotional reaction is in high demand, because what grabs your attention grabs your emotions. Even if you are not a large consumer of click bait, there are models of thinking that prioritize emotional reactiveness. One of these is believing you are different, special, and likely to be misunderstood or mistreated by others. Categories of misunderstood and mistreated people do exist, but what are the consequences of nurturing a belief that you are in one of them? It’s quite likely you will go looking for offence, and find it most of the time.  

Since we perceive negative stimulation more sharply, we are likely to notice and keep noticing the slights and perceived insults of others. This easily leads to hurt, anger, outrage, and any number of other negatives. You may mainly hurt yourself  through this practice, but unfortunately you also open yourself up to people who know how to manipulate that emotional sensitivity. This is especially true if you are inclined to believe that feelings are always correct.

We can put a halt to this runaway train by asking the meta questions described above: “Is this topic worthy of discussion?” and “What will the community we live in and depend on gain if our energy is applied to this topic?” or “Who benefits if our focus is tied up on these defined points?

When should we ask those questions? Well, probably it would be best to ask them all the time. I probably don’t though. However, it is a good idea to try to notice when someone is particularly trying to get a reaction out of you, and at least ask them then. It’s good to pay attention to emotions and when they are strong and ask those questions.

A (mostly) sophisticated F-off out of my life to corporate social media

A friend made me this graphic to share on my now mostly inactive face.book feed. I didn’t want to just drop it there without considering what I am doing so I did some reading and thinking.

About this graphic:

I didn’t personally create it, but I did discuss it with the creator and the content is based on observations we both made over time and carefully considered.

Why did I share this statement? Because I find it impossible now to ignore the arbitrary censorship of conversation and accounts on Face.book. (Other big corporate social media is also involved, but I do not have direct personal experience with it.) For example, this happened recently in a discussion group: I made a flippant, but harmless comment about Americans on a thread. A friend of mine responded jokingly by saying “damned Canadians lol.” His comment was removed because it “violated community standards of hate speech.” I could laugh such things off if I hadn’t a) just witnessed an organized and vicious harassment campaign against someone in my life where almost no reported comments were removed and b) it wasn’t part a larger pattern of censorship against groups and individuals, and of accounts being closed without explanation or reason. See for example the cases of Brett Weinstein and Jim Rutt, both of whom were later reinstated because they were able to leverage influence. The fourth paragraph of the graphic is an exact quote of the message they received when their accounts were removed.

If you think this can’t happen to you because it only happens to “those people” and you are any combination of political in the approved way, apolitical, too nice, harmless, expert at the correct signalling, blah blah blah, I’m afraid you are very wrong and you will observe that for yourself before long.** I hope it isn’t too horrifying when it does happen. We are living in an time where capricious malice can be used against anyone for any reason. Ask me how I know if it isn’t obvious to you already.

The argument often follows that Face.book etc are private corporations and allowed as such to make their own rules about who is on them and what they can say. I reject this argument.  Social media are deeply integrated in the lives of millions and are an integral part of how people get their news, run their businesses, and connect with family, friends and associates. The platforms are essential for many in our contemporary world. They should not be ruled arbitrarily and opaquely in the interests of the few. Furthermore, there is evidence that Face.book has deliberately tried to eliminate competition thus removing choice from those who would exercise it. 

John Locke: his second treatise is available in many places online and highly recommended. Basically, it is an argument / exegesis about why sovereignty should be given to all humanity not a select few or one, and why we should be ruled by laws not by the whims of those with power, or those who are convinced they should have it. Feminists should recognize one of their own as he argues for chapters and chapters against The Patriarchy, although it is the first time I have seen an actual source cited for the existence of such a thing. Heh. This is what I want from the internet. I want to meet people, alive, dead, of any background or history,  who expand my knowledge and interests. I do not want to be radicalized by slogans and propaganda, either for or against your pet cause/delusion of the moment. I do not want to become the monster I have seen and can’t unsee.

My reasons for being on social media were to connect with people in a friendly, good faith manner and explore ideas and knowledge I might not otherwise encounter in my life. I can no longer meet this goal on Face.book. I would be the first to argue for the power of the individual, to believe that my choices in how I speak and conduct my affairs can have positive influence. Unfortunately, on Face.book at least, there is now too much evidence against this argument. Too many people who are striving for the best have run a foul of the machine, and the best I can hope for is to be harmless and not yet noticed by our faceless overlords. That is not good enough for me.

Face.book does not meet my community standards.*

* as a corporation. Many individuals and groups on Facebook still engage with each other in good faith. This is not a personal vendetta against anyone with a face and a name.  I remain on social media in a greatly reduced manner for the moment so that I may still follow some people and groups that are positive social ecosystems despite existing in a larger negative system. However, my interaction will be minimal.

** Here is something I would ask you to think about, regardless of the degree to which you agree with me, which is actually not particularly important at all (bring away from social media helps give you perspective on the trivial and shallow nature of most of the opinions and disagreements that go on. Try it for yourself.)

Think about this: With regards to censorship / deplatforming/mobbing, How far is too far, in your view? Perhaps you are ok right now with the level of censorship that big social media companies and trolls are engaging in. Perhaps you think the targets deserved it. Fine. Here is my question: at what point would you say that censorship and deplatforming goes too far? Imagine a public figure or better, a person close to you being attacked/slandered. Would that be too far? Why or why not?

It is important to know where you draw the line because if you don’t, the line will keep moving and you won’t notice it. So think about that. (don’t tell me, I don’t need to know, but know for yourself.)

Update: I think the discussion in this article is relevant to this post, and probably, this whole blog...

https://quillette.com/2021/02/16/the-narrative-and-its-discontents/

Also this

https://areomagazine.com/2021/02/16/why-we-should-all-quit-social-media/

Being part of the problem, imagining a solution

Don’t Say It by My Goddamn Garage *

I wanna be a YouTuber by Maziart

I listened to/read these two pieces by friends lately, and it made sense to me to talk about them together as they both lead me to question how we, that is you and I as individuals, may be causing problems online. Maybe for other people, most likely for ourselves.

I want to discuss the pieces, and then I’d like to make an argument why it is (sometimes at least) worth expressing an opinion online.

My Goddamn Garage (MGG) talks about why it might be advisable to not share your thoughts online, namely 1) you might change your mind and then you have to deal with the fact your outdated views are public property 2) you can’t choose your audience as carefully online as you can in real life, making it more likely you will say any combination of the wrong thing to the wrong person in the wrong way at the wrong time and 3) he compares sharing via social media in particular to standing in the downtown with a bullhorn yelling at passers by.

The last image particularly spoke to me, as I have often pictured the public square of social media this way. I am not sure how others picture their relationship to their audience when they speak/post. Often I am inclined to think they do not consider them at all, but that may be unfair. Personally I tend to imagine my audience as friends in a coffee shop. I have two or three people at my table that I am speaking to, but there are other people in the shop who will overhear the conversation, in whole or part. 

Some people may come join the conversation at the table (we can assume this is a coffee shop I frequent often where people are fairly comfortable doing that.) Many others listen but say nothing, staying at their tables or passing in and out silently. Some may smile or nod at what they hear, or glare at me (but the last one is rare in my experience,  in real life and online). Many or most people are totally preoccupied with their own affairs and do not hear or pay any attention to me. Some may go and gossip about what they heard. Some may approach me afterward. Etc. But I always have, or try to have, the table audience and the overhearing audience in mind. (Which is not to say they can’t surprise me.) I have spent a fair bit of time at coffee shops in my time, and so I am quite comfortable with this sort of audience. In fact, I cannot say I want a bigger audience. I do not know how I would feel speaking to an auditorium or stadium of people, and I have no great desire to try.

However, when I find myself an audience to others, it doesn’t always feel like a coffee shop environment. Thus I judge by my standards and find myself puzzled by their goals and motivations. Particularly when people are emotional and “political” they sound most like:

• Street preachers in a square with a megaphone (this was a common site in the european cities I lived in, maybe less in North America);
• People with provocative placards or signs on the street (e.g. anti abortion protestors)
• The crazy person who gets on a crowded train car and then proceeds to tell their captive audience  loudly why they are going to hell, or to play the accordion (both examples from life)
• The person who sits next to you on public transit and proceeds to tell you what they think about something whether you want to hear it or not.

Now all these things are features of public life, so I don’t believe we should be completely protected from them. I think it is important to go out in public, regularly, and deal with crazy people. I think it is important to give (some) space to your friends and family when they act crazy, profess belief in strange and stupid things, to forbear and forgive with the expectation it goes both ways.

What is a concern for me is when the nature of online communication tempts us to regularly be the speaker with the bullhorn, or the person on the train yelling about hell, or to grab our rude and provocative placard anytime we leave the house for the public space (people who put slogans and logos on your  profile pictures, I’m a - looking at you.....except I’m not because I’m not on Facebook. Phew. I don’t miss that at all.)

Speaking for myself, if I am constantly exposed to this behaviour, it becomes hard not to react emotionally to it, and hard not to adopt some kind of contrary position, even if.....and this is important....It never occurred to me to oppose or quarrel with the claim or idea, before.

Example: someone on social media that I find particularly annoying, at least at times, once posted a public survey about a city bylaw. The bylaw itself is not one I care about or find personally relevant. But I was so irritated by her tone and argument (on this occasion and others) that I went and completed the survey the exact opposite of how she asked, purely our of spite. This is not behaviour I want to encourage in myself, but it is just as much me as when I am trying to be rational and fair.

Basically, listening to preachers with megaphones makes me wonder, at least occasionally, where I put my megaphone.

But I don’t really like megaphones! Which brings me to Maziart’s poem. If I don’t want to be the person yelling at others, why not outsource the job? Why not find someone who is willing to do the preaching for me and throw my support behind them?

Again, this is not all bad. It’s enjoyable and enlightening to follow people who have something  to interesting to say. But what if they are a bit too good at playing the game? What if, were they to be perfectly honest (which they would never be) they would sound like the speaker in Maziart’s poem? At that point, do I have something to say, do I have an argument to defend, or am I part of an unthinking collective, or at worst, a mob?

I have resolved to never be part of a mob in my life. I do not think this is in any way an easy goal to achieve.

So should we just shut up, as MGG says, or is it sometimes worth it to speak?

Well, I don’t want to shut up, and I don’t want My Goddamn Garage or Maziart, snd many other people to shut up. I wish some would shut up, sure, at least when I’m short on patience. On the other hand, I think it is a good idea to speak/write, and for almost the same reasons that MGG says it’s not a good idea. It’s important to have a record so you can see how you’ve grown. If people do choose to mishear or misinterpret, should there not be a detailed record to check? (This of course assuming no tampering with the record which.....yeah. I know that’s idealistic. The whole business where someone can delete or change the record....that’s a big problem.) I believe you do need to try to say what you think purely for the experience of learning what you think and how it is differentiated from others. I think you need to risk pissing people off. Not for fun and profit, but to learn what pisses people off and why.

I don’t know all the right ways to do these things. For me, I believe slowing down, writing long form instead of for reactions, and choosing mindfully with whom I interact with is a step in the right direction.

* Partial transcript with some edits: (I mostly wrote this out for my own benefit so I still suggest you listen to the original. I left some bits out.)  “There’s a lot of reasons I don’t like to get too pissy with people online, or fight with them too much, or call them names, and one of the biggest ones is: that’s me. I’m fighting with myself.

“It’s really easy to just accept the shit your brain tosses your way; to become obsessed with the inner workings of your own mind.....over all the years of my life I’ve learned not to trust myself so easily. I can have complete debates in my head. But if pressed I will give an answer and try not to get paralyzed in indecision. But I have to do that in full knowledge that [over the years of my life] I’ve changed my mind many times and thanks to the internet, I can see what [old me] thought and he’s not such a bad guy; I’d still like to go and have a beer with him.

“So....the person you are hating online now, the person you want banned, the person you want to scream at: it may as well be....yourself.

“Sometimes I’ll hear people complain that they are afraid to voice their opinion on social media.....I have a lot of empathy for that position. But I also think that maybe that’s for the best. Maybe we shouldn’t be voicing all of our opinions on social media.  Maybe we should be a little uncomfortable. 

“When I first started using the internet for this kind of thing I would just type whatever came into my head and hit ‘enter’: like throwing a grenade into a public space. I didn’t consider the consequences so much, I just figured I was entitled to my opinion like anyone else.  

“Unfortunately I have the habit of intentionally stating opinions I think are not getting the airspace they deserve, and predictably I pissed off a few people doing this. At first I just rolled with it, but over time it started to impact my life. Gigs were harder to find, artists in town started to not like me. What was the benefit of this? Should I self censor? Well I did, and I think it was for the best, for me.  

“This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in freedom of speech. It means that social media is a whole new world. I can speak to everyone simultaneously, and maybe that’s not always a good thing. I don’t for example, talk to my grandma the same way I talk to my friends or a boss, or a police officer. I don’t set up a soap box in a downtown community and shout my opinion at random passers by. These are all different relationships and situations and each one necessitates a different approach, not because I’m self censoring but because I know and respect the other person and situation at least......I know each person will hear my words differently.....I know my audience well enough to alter the language I use to get the best results.

“....the arrogance alone, of thinking my opinion is so important that I need to voice it publicly. I’ve heard celebrities say things along the lines of “Oh, I’ve been given this platform and it would be irresponsible of me to not use it. But that’s not what I hear. What I hear is ‘My opinion is so awesome and so well informed it would be criminal of me to not share it with you. And it seems too arrogant: it didn’t sit well with me. And if I felt that way about celebrities, then why wouldn’t I feel that way about myself? Why shouldn’t I take a page out of my own book and shut the hell up?” —My Goddamn Garage, imperfectly quoted. See link at top for reference

No one’s going anywhere

I am at best an occasional spectator to American politics. Couldn’t agree more with Marie here though, and I think it applies to a lot more than the USA, too.

Nobody’s. Going. Anywhere.

This also reminds of Jordan Peterson’s saying: “You never want to win a fight with your wife” (Or husband. Because in a marriage the losing side always has time to get revenge. lol)

Try a New Tool

Character

From my quote calendar.

I like this quote, but it makes me wonder: to what extent can you be a judge of your own character? You can and should have a sense of what you are striving toward, but don’t you need others’ input to let you know if you are really succeeding? At the same time, other people can be wrong, or in some cases even malevolent.  It seems complicated.

Play with you

“i promise I’ll betray you” by Maziart.

I have been thinking about this poem the past few days, and I think it describes an antidote to echo chambers and constantly affirming what people think. 

Actual betrayal is no joking matter, but the poet is promising more to play with the audience. Or at least you could read it that way if you picture this as a teasing rejoinder between friends. I promise I’ll provoke, probe, fail to be predictable or expected.

I suppose you could read it more as a challenge too....if the poet is rather speaking to someone who insists on ideological loyalty.

The last line “who has time to think on their own?” Is a challenge as well. Who indeed! It is very time consuming to think on your own. It takes me a shocking amount of time to form one coherent thought, though I can have several incoherent, partly justified  ones in an hour. It also takes a lot of time to actually consider another person’s idea and how it is separate from your own. It is quite a bit more comfortable to simply slide into a sort of communal mind with ill defined boundaries.

That’s another reason I would like to embrace a bit more conflict in my life: not because I particularly enjoy it but because it does clarify for me how I am different.

2021: what will be different?

I mean, I have no idea really. God knows what 2021 will bring, because I don’t.

On the other hand, a few things look different already.

Less social media in my life.

The only social media I’ve ever used was Face.book. And that was time waster enough, that’s for sure. But recently, I have been thinking of its more sinister aspects.

It was the waning days of 2020, when I felt fairly confident I’d faced as many dragons as the year had to throw to me. But I was wrong. Suddenly, someone close to me was dealing with a mobbing / bullying campaign that involved several online platforms including Face.book. I do not know the whole story, but what I do know is disturbing enough. It was the worst example of malice and vindictiveness that I have seen in my life. Witnessing this concerted attempt to destroy someone’s reputation, character and life’s work made me physically ill, not to mention enraged.

I will not say more right now, though this matter will be occupying my thoughts on many levels for a long time. It is a catalyst moment. However, one immediate consequence was that I noticed that the dopamine rush  of using Face.book was gone. For a few days after the nasty business started I still scrolled through my feed, leaving  comments for my friends and small updates. (I strictly avoided any open involvement in the mobbing affair, by the request of the victim and because I could not trust myself to be mindful and tactical: I would have gone in to that mess with all the subtlety of a flaming dumpster going over a cataract.). In place of whatever amusement I had found on Face.book was a sense of disgust and malaise. When I decided to delete the app from my phone I felt immediate relief.  I have barely gone on it this week and I can’t say I miss it. Rather I feel dread at the thought of opening it on my laptop. A bit of a change since spending around 2 hours on it most days.

I have been reading more books lately. I think I shall be doing more reading this year. Currently I am more than half way through Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose. It is an excellent analysis of cultural and academic trends, and what I like best is how carefully it is researched and sourced. It is easy to dislike and take issue with ideas and things that I see happening, but I like to know what is the origin of the trends and beliefs. It is hard for me to form an alternate view if I don’t have a sense of the deeper underpinnings of an idea. It’s all random and emotional otherwise: “I don’t like that: it doesn’t fit my experience / view of the world!” Intuitive rejection can be a clue but is not the answer.

I am also reading Carl Jung’s The Undiscovered Self as it was recommended by a friend. It is helping me to think about the development of the individual which is a good topic to revisit after being attached to a hive mind for a long time. 

And I am re-reading The Lord of the Rings, because why not. It’s January: the darkest, coldest, unhealthiest month of the year, and my least favourite (if that wasn’t obvious). There is something therapeutic in reading about a journey, especially as Tolkien makes me feel I am ON the journey, not just reading about it.

What else would I like to be different? I would like to spend more time in long conversations, with people whose opinions I respect. I would like to write more, not just the impulsive, performative way I engaged with social media. Although I have barely written in my blogs, I read them today with gratitude that I took the time to write down the thoughts I did.

I would like to be less agreeable. I have been experimenting with this. I don’t want to be a jerk. But partly with the help of people I work with, I’ve been standing my ground more and saying “No” instead of always trying to make space and compromise. And it’s been an interesting experience. Although I like to avoid conflict I find I learn a lot from it too, and I want to get better at accepting that not everybody will like me and I am a capable and worthwhile person despite that.

I don’t make resolutions, in part because January is such a challenging month and I just want to survive it. But perhaps I have set the tone of 2021 a little.