Information Overload

It occurred to me in conversation with my wife this morning that certain incidents seem to happen much more frequently in 2019 than when we were kids. We were talking about a child in his early teens who committed suicide. We don't know the grieving family but are acquainted with at least one family who does. So there's sort of a connection there. But that isn't how we found out about the tragedy. My wife learned of this child's death the new fashioned way, through social media, specifically facebook. Every couple months give or take it seems we learn about a young person taking their own life, though usually not anyone we're personally connected with. When we were kids we don't recall ever hearing about, much less knowing a single kid who killed himself or herself. Is society unraveling at such a rapid clip that the odds of making it through your teen years without deciding enough is enough are significantly lower than twenty, thirty, forty years ago? Is the fact that bullies in 2019 can use a number of apps and social media sites on the internet to conduct their nasty business, rather than only being able to harass face to face back in the day, the reason why a greater number of children in present times decide they can't take it anymore?

Maybe. But then I realized that if my wife didn't happen to be a regular facebook user, there is a fair chance that she never would have found out about this poor child. Even though his family lives rather close to our home and we're connected by a single degree of separation, there's no guarantee that the suicide would have come to our attention if it wasn't for facebook. This caused me to ponder how many other things appear to happen much more

frequently now than used to be the case...and to wonder whether those things really are happening more frequently, or are we just more likely to hear about it these days. 

I rarely sit down to watch a local nightly news program and I don't subscribe to a single newspaper. Yet I feel far more informed about important and trivial matters going on in the world than I did prior to Al Gore's internet. I spend time daily staring at my Twitter stream, take a peek at the day's trending topics, and in so doing I receive my news fix on a regular basis. Whatever I miss on Twitter I learn about on facebook. And every so often a breaking story comes to my attention via Instagram. All bases are covered, information overload accomplished with minimal effort on my part. At a glance I gain superficial knowledge of incidents taking place throughout the world near and far. If a particular story is of personal interest, it's easy enough to delve deeper by clicking on a hyperlink. If the subject matter doesn't grab me then I'm content with just the headline.


In addition to information flowing more rapidly and further reaching in our current era, we are also able to record whatever occurs more easily. Most everyone has a cell phone on them that functions as a still and video camera along with allowing us to place and receive phone calls. If something noteworthy takes place in your vicinity, it's no hassle to record it. And then to post the video online. Depending on how interesting the content is, it may go viral. If so, inevitably a hashtag will be created for it. Now it's a trending topic which makes it breaking news whether the media gets involved or not. News organizations won't ignore for long if enough people are talking about it. They will promptly report on what they see has grabbed our collective attention.

Incidents of a certain nature seeming to happen much more frequently than in years past can have significant consequences. We react to events that are rare differently than to those that are an epidemic. Are white people constantly reporting black people who are doing nothing but minding their own business with melanin to the police? That seems to be the case because stories about a white person feeling threatened by the proximity of a black person doing nothing at all threatening make it to my twitter stream at least once per month. But chances are that these absurd situations don't actually occur more regularly than a decade or two ago but simply come to my attention more frequently now. Long before Becky made an emergency call on her cell phone, Becky back in the day was hustling to make the call in a phone booth. But nobody recorded her. If a level headed police officer shows up, it's not that big of a deal, just another example of bigots being idiots. If a trigger happy cop shows up, the result can be tragedy. Too many tragedies can spark a movement such as Black Lives Matter. That movement along with resulting backlash can make it into our political discourse and help determine who we elect president. But are white cops killing more unarmed black people today than in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and so on? Or are we just more likely in 2019 to find out about a greater amount of excessive policing and higher number of unjustified killings due to the sped up nature of communication?


Somebody has probably crunched the numbers and can provide answers to these questions. Do more people under the age of 18 commit suicide now than in the past? Do more male and female teachers have sexual relationships with students than used to happen before? Have incidents of racial bias from the ridiculous to the deadly significantly increased? Or do we merely hear about these things more so consider them to be bigger problems than before? Was our pre-internet ignorance bliss? Or does increased knowledge empower us to greater recognize the ills of society and try to do something about them? Even if all we end up doing is complaining more frequently. The squeaky wheel does eventually get some oil though. #MeToo is one such example.


I have questions. And without researching further I'm left to guess at the answers and leave you to do the same. One thing I know hasn't changed is that there has always been a degree of corruption in politics and political behavior ripe for mocking. But no previous president has ever given us quite as much material to work with as Trump. For bad and for worse, he's something new to reckon with. Hopefully we'll do more than hashtag and complain about it.

Hashtag

I try to judge people (since we absolutely must judge others, right?) based on what they do rather than what they say in a handful of characters, and certainly not based on what they hashtag.  You say you're a civil rights activist...a feminist...a humanitarian (seems like that last one should incorporate the first two, no?), I say cool.  But the proof is in the pudding.  Your actions will prove or disprove it, and they will indicate the things that you are for to a greater extent than telling me what you're against.  I'll instinctively assume you're against civil wrongs, misogyny and space alien invasion.

But since I spend FAR TOO MUCH time on Twitter, activism by hashtag is what I see plenty of these days.  I'm not against the principle exactly.  For the most part it does no harm even if often does no tangible good either.  A hashtag can raise awareness of a cause.  Fine, we're aware, what now?  I ask only two things of a hashtag to consider it constructive. 1) That it not be created to blanket insult a broad group of people which includes many individuals undeserving of the insult. 2) That the name of it accurately conveys the message.  Be specific. If you want to create a hashtag about basketball don't name it #sports #sportsinvolvingaball #thingsthatmakeyousweat.  Call it #basketball.

Recently a hashtag that caught on like wildfire was #YesAllWomen.  As this article neatly summarizes, the hashtag’s purpose was to "raise awareness of the effect of misogyny and sexism in the daily life of women". So far so good.  The article goes on to shoot down any complaints men might opt to voice about the hashtag.  It lists some reasonable complaints, some less reasonable ones, and a handful of ridiculous explanations for why men might be troubled by the tone of the more outlandish proclamations.  The goofy ones are good for a laugh but not in need of addressing. But is it fair to say that a man who walks the walk of feminism by being a good husband/father/colleague/person who is a respectful friend to women, nevertheless does not qualify as an ally to the cause because he thinks many of the statements made within the #YesAllWomen hashtag go too far and paint with too broad a stroke?

Not long ago a discussion broke out on Twitter about what women happened to be wearing when they were sexually assaulted.  It was a powerful social media moment, I thought.  A hashtag was probably used for it, though I don't recall what it was.  What I do remember is the point explicitly made that rape has nothing to do with how provocatively the victim was dressed or behaving.  The only requirements for a rape to take place are the presence of a rapist and a victim.  What beyond that causes rape?  I honestly don't know. I only know that rape isn't something men do.  It's something rapists do.  There is a world of difference between the two.  I found the discussion that evening to be an effective use of social media to confront ugly truths, even it if did devolve a bit towards the end with arguments breaking out over which journalists remarked on the group conversation properly and which did not.  No reasonable person felt insulted by the exchange.  Anybody who disagreed with the central argument and believes that certain outfits cause and justify rape is a monster best to be avoided.  The stories told that night were heart breaking and eye opening.

On the other hand, when awareness raising results in people cyber yelling at each other, all sides claiming to have been misunderstood, then I'm less inclined to declare that it was a complete success.  If you need to continually clarify what your point was, repeatedly explain what it is you didn't mean because you sure as hell seem to have implied it, then in my opinion a teachable moment has gone awry.  I don't believe the purpose of #YesAllWomen is to alienate those men about whom the complaints are not applicable and in whose direction the bile is not pointed. I get that #AllMen are not the target of ire.  Still, a fair number of men (such as this one who I believe makes several valid points despite a rather weak door opening anecdote) felt that they were unfairly hit in the crossfire.  They weren't looking for credit or acknowledgment as "nice guys".  They weren't asking for a trophy because they don't habitually view and treat women like pieces of meat.  They (and I include myself among them) simply felt that things had gotten out of hand and rather than being instructive and cathartic, the hashtag had become a runaway ball of negativity that didn't care who it ran over.  "Watch out grandpa!!!"  If a substantial number of people feel a hashtag went overboard, perhaps this is something to respectfully contemplate rather than being dismissive.  When I see someone comfortable with being insulted I wonder about their motivation.  Does he not want to make trouble by standing up for himself, or is his silence admission of a guilty conscience?

It ultimately comes down to the individuals jumping on board a movement rather than the hashtag itself. For any given tag there are those with legitimate commentary to share and those who see it as an opportunity to randomly bash based on gender/race/whatever. It's hard to filter one group out from the other when they are lumped together. But for good and not so good, that's precisely what a hashtag does.  That is the very intent.  A hashtag mashes voices together, makes no distinctions between the articulate and the incomprehensible, the compassionate and the bitterly furious, the fair minded and the stereotype promoters, the well meaning teachers and the blindly hurtful. There is no fix for this that I can think of other than what I started out with.  Judge individuals on a case by case basis.  Distinguish between those you loathe and those you love.  Even in the social media era, at root I believe most of us want to like each other.  I believe we can play nicely, and when a topic of disagreement is landed upon, manage to disagree in an agreeable manner. We can speak the truth without resorting to general slander.

I agree with this article that #YesAllWomen matters, just as I feel #BringBackOurGirls matters, and other movements carried out online as well. That doesn't mean everyone is deploying #YesAllWomen correctly and effectively, or that those who have something to say to the contrary don't deserve to be heard.  No conversation can take place when we tune each other out, nothing new can be learned.

Bottom line: If a man insults or degrades you, he isn't worthy of your respect. On the other hand, if a man feels insulted or degraded by you because you lumped him in with rapists and street harassers and guys with the bare minimum of home training, maybe he has earned the right by a lifetime of respectful attitude and actions to feel offended.  He'll probably get over it though, just in time for the next hashtag to drop.