Before Posting; How About Thinking?

As another big news story becomes the topic of the day, social media posts explode to life.  Each one attempting to be more provocative than the last.  Memes, slogans and emphatic statements seem to be growing in intensity.  So is this just a twenty first century version of the office water cooler or something different?   

Social media provides a kind of anonymity that turns off our internal filters which historically produced civility.  We appear to be past that now.  Many of our friends on the left and right are opting to post the most divisive kinds of rhetoric.  Declarations of absolutism litter the sites that were once intended for sharing of stories and discussion.  Dialogue is now considered a capitulation to the opposing view.  It's as if the poster is daring readers to comment.  However, in response to a reply that challenges an assertion, they then unfriend or unfollow the person only to make another post about their high standards that warranted unfriending that person.

It doesn't take long for dogmatic tweets and posts to appear after a news cycle begins.  When a post does not receive the likes or shares some think it should, then come the sweeping generalizations that imply those who don't take a Facebook or Twitter stand are the problem.  This is a myopic conclusion brought about by contrived indignation.  Such an embrace of emotionalism yields an abandonment of rational disagreement. That tends to build walls instead of bridging gaps.   

The manifestation of these trends indicates that our society has become hyper-sensitive and have an increasingly difficult time coping with differing viewpoints. Political, philosophical and theological disagreements are nothing new, but this growing tribalism degrades the ability for any common ground.  A high percentage of these posts are simply emotional drivel and are not based on logic or reason.  That may sound harsh but when we unfriend someone because they dared to express opposition, that's a fair indicator that rational thought was not the ruling principle before they hit the "delete" key. The more impassioned we humans become, the more likely we are to say things we might regret. 

Do we really believe that our social media presence will change the hearts and minds of those who do not happen to share our convictions?  An over-simplified statement on a complex multi-faceted issue actually indicates a lack of intellectual rigor; not unprecedented genius.  Most readers won't even press the "more" button on longer posts and replies because our attention span has evolved to 140 characters.  The resulting conclusion is that the poster either believes they are making an impact, or they are arrogantly delusional that they have ascended to an individually defined moral high ground. These self-professed prophets and moral arbiters too frequently emote an irrational conclusion without first establishing a consistent foundational premise.

A one-liner can never encompass all arguments for or against a long-established perspective.  It only offers up a steady stream of confirmation bias.  Many simply cannot resist the urge to share a regurgitated meme so that others will realize just how smart they are.  It's a manifestation of the growing narcissism in our culture.  

As we succumb to a world that discourages honest and open dialogue in all areas of controversy, we will likely become more vulnerable to eroding freedoms.  Tolerance of differences is routinely touted but rarely is expressed in the extreme nature of how we communicate with those around us.  In the end, social media will cease to be social.