Greetings! 2017 is culminating and so is my Europe trip. Feeling inspired and motivated to get some thoughts out there today, I have a little rant to share with you.
Maybe I’m wrong about all of this- but it’s just some food for thought following my previous post: “The Happiest People on Earth.” For the record, and to compliment a point I will touch on in the following paragraphs, I do not condone any sort of negative comments or demeaning opinions. I believe in respect for all human beings regardless of race, religion, gender, political affiliation, etc.
Just for a moment, contemplate what life was like hundreds or thousands of years ago. Were people generally happier than they are today, even without the comforts of modern society? I imagine that before the days of mass media, popular culture, and the internet, people shared deeper bonds. In a town of 150 people, if you have a problem with someone, you solve it. You don’t have the option to bicker over social media. Minor disagreements didn’t evolve into feuds over the internet. People didn’t compare their lives by examining others’ Facebook profiles. Families lived together; children cared for their parents as they aged instead of sending them to an old folks’ home. Smaller communities were more interdependent. Instead of going to a retail store (or Amazon.com) folks relied on each other for basic goods; food, clothing, tools- in a small town before the industrial revolution, life was more of a team effort.
When Henry Ford introduced the model-T to mass markets, folks waved the red flag on the phenomenon that we know as “road rage.” Without face-to-face communication, simple disagreements on the road have escalated into life or death situations.
A few months ago I was driving home on the highway late at night and noticed a car without lights on. Feeling obliged to help, I flickered my headlights in their rear-view mirror. No response. So I did it again. After two unsuccessful attempts I pulled up next to the car and began signaling with my hands to the driver of the other car. The driver reacted harshly, putting up her middle finger and staring straight forward. I just wanted to help keep her safe, so I stayed put, calmly waiting for her to look over. After what seemed like minutes, she finally glanced my way and noticed my “turn on your lights” hand signal. Immediately, she put down her middle finger and began blowing kisses, signaling regret and apology. It was a funny incident because she was clearly a good person, but something about being behind a glass window primed her for conflict.
Along the same lines, another time I was heading down with a group of friends to go skiing. It was a cold, rainy Winter morning. Around 7:30 a.m. cruising in the outskirts of Enumclaw I noticed a cop hidden on the side of the road. Again, in the interest of my fellow Washingtonians, I began flicking my headlights at oncoming traffic. Suddenly the car in front of me slammed its breaks. The driver, a middle aged balding man opened his door and charged us, a wild-eyed look of aggression in his eyes. I swerved around him and he began chasing us.
I could recall another half dozen or more instances similar to the two I just mentioned. I’ll be the first to admit I am not the most passive driver on the road, but the point is, without face-to-face contact, good intentions can be perceived negatively. It’s the same, if not more so, with modern communication technologies like Facebook and social media, text-messaging, the internet, etc.
Think about a time when you sent a text or made a comment about something publicly that wasn’t received accurately. It happens all the time, and as you get older, the stakes get higher. Take the “Google Memo” for example. Citing scientific studies and facts, James Damore, a Google engineer, shared a memo (deemed ‘anti-diversity’ by mainstream news outlets) that ended up costing him his job and made him the face of sexism in the technology sector. I’d recommend reading his memo and deciding for yourself if he was being overly discriminatory towards women or if he had good intentions which were received poorly. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what he wrote now that journalists and the internet have deemed the memo “sexist”, publishing his comments but omitting the references! Touting headlines that grab readers’ attention, journalists misrepresented his message and used the story as a means to generate views. When I Googled, “The Google Memo Guy” these are a few of the headlines which are displayed first:
Fired Google Memo Guy Also Has Bad Opinions About the KKK
“The Google memo guy just showed everyone why he got fired”
The Guy Who Wrote The Google Anti-Diversity Memo Did A Twitter Poll On “Cool” KKK Titles
The fact that several of the top links on Google make reference to this “KKK Twitter Poll” is disturbing, as it avoids any real conversation on the topic James felt compelled to address. Rather than analyze James’ memo and respond in a scientific manner, writers choose catchy headlines which lead into discussions about a tangential issue. Here is the Tweet, without going too in depth, to give some context:
Check out the buzzfeed article that attempts to shame James’ twitter behavior. Say what you want about his judgement on Twitter, James isn’t perpetuating any sort of negative opinion.
This event became such a big deal that I would venture to guess many of you reading this have already formulated opinions about James and his memo. If you want to hear him speak to the situation you can find an interview with Joe Rogan here: Joe Rogan Experience #1009 – James Damore. One thing about Rogan’s podcast I respect is his willingness to hear out differing opinions even when he knows it might cast him in a bad light. I would like to adopt a similar mindset in my career. As a Journalist, there is no value in towing the mainstream line. There are already enough people following the herd.
Despite mainstream outlets and the top Google results deeming James guilty with poor character, looking at the YouTube comments offers a different perspective. Take a look at the top comments below the video- many of them sympathize with Damore and contradict the mainstream rhetoric; of course, YouTube comments are not particularly eloquent, but they offer an alternative perspective on how people feel about an issue.
This example illustrates how sharing genuine ideas backed up with data and statistics can result in a career-ending witch-hunt if they run counter to the politically-correct nature of today’s society. Even though I won’t have more than a few dozen readers of this blog, it still causes me some anxiety to imagine folks who are loyal to mainstream rhetoric fuming about my sympathy for James’ situation.
Of course, making racism, sexism, and bigotry intolerable is a positive development for society. However, it frightens me to think that free speech and genuine beliefs are also less tolerated. The key to this problem is to accept every opinion, no matter how absurd you perceive it to be, without jumping to conclusions about each other’s character. Put yourself in the shoes of a Neo-Nazi. Then imagine what it would be like to be a feminist. If you can’t sympathize with both ends of the political and social spectrum then there is no reason for you to judge others’ opinions.
Would this level of tension in society be possible without the advent of modern technology? If folks sat face to face would disputes escalate like Twitter arguments and Facebook rants? What happened to the Socratic method? Where is Social Media 101 in public education?
Although the current social atmosphere is complex and cannot be broken down in one single blog, I’m content with this discussion as a jumping off point for future thought development. I hope there are some smart, wise people writing books and making videos to help the rest of us come together in the future.
Kyle Huber 