A friend of The Grasshopper recently posted an opinion on social media – for this narrative, neither the content nor the platform matter – to which some bright spark commented, ‘Get some help’.
Now then, before social media people shared their opinions with friends and family, others who didn't want to hear walked away, now an opinion of any quality is instantly spread like a disease, hence " going viral". But people are also emboldened by finding like minded opinions out there,which may also be of doubtful quality. I have lost count of how many Facebook debates I've seen start by an off the cuff opinion, people get competitive with winning the debate, using the biggest words they can think of. It's a form of display behaviour and people think their rubbish actually counts for something, the point is that there is no way they would do this in person as the chance of actual humiliation is very real, social media offers anonymity for the rubbish that spills out of people's minds, that's why it's so easy to bully on media because you can't get thumped for being a twat
All sorts of points being made here but I think the one most related to the post is the tendency for many to base their arguments on opinions borrowed from others, rather than on the underlying facts themselves. In this hopper's opinion, there's nothing wrong in being competitive to win a debate, but valid debates are those made between those who have taken the trouble to study the underlying facts. Having done that, opinions may differ and there is the debate.
I witnessed this first-hand the other day, not via social media but in the convivial setting of a hostelry well known to me. Debater A had studied the facts of the matter, which happened to be the efficacy of facemasks for preventing the spread of that-which-shall-not-be-named-here. Debater B had not. In my view, Debater A had formed a slightly dubious opinion on the matter, but nonetheless stuck to that opinion and debated it well. Debater B, however, very quickly ran out of the few facts that was lodged in its brain, then moved to acquired opinions and finally (albeit very quickly) to polemic ('...well, you would say that, you're a <insert label here>...'). Game over.
Now then, before social media people shared their opinions with friends and family, others who didn't want to hear walked away, now an opinion of any quality is instantly spread like a disease, hence " going viral". But people are also emboldened by finding like minded opinions out there,which may also be of doubtful quality. I have lost count of how many Facebook debates I've seen start by an off the cuff opinion, people get competitive with winning the debate, using the biggest words they can think of. It's a form of display behaviour and people think their rubbish actually counts for something, the point is that there is no way they would do this in person as the chance of actual humiliation is very real, social media offers anonymity for the rubbish that spills out of people's minds, that's why it's so easy to bully on media because you can't get thumped for being a twat
All sorts of points being made here but I think the one most related to the post is the tendency for many to base their arguments on opinions borrowed from others, rather than on the underlying facts themselves. In this hopper's opinion, there's nothing wrong in being competitive to win a debate, but valid debates are those made between those who have taken the trouble to study the underlying facts. Having done that, opinions may differ and there is the debate.
I witnessed this first-hand the other day, not via social media but in the convivial setting of a hostelry well known to me. Debater A had studied the facts of the matter, which happened to be the efficacy of facemasks for preventing the spread of that-which-shall-not-be-named-here. Debater B had not. In my view, Debater A had formed a slightly dubious opinion on the matter, but nonetheless stuck to that opinion and debated it well. Debater B, however, very quickly ran out of the few facts that was lodged in its brain, then moved to acquired opinions and finally (albeit very quickly) to polemic ('...well, you would say that, you're a <insert label here>...'). Game over.
The Grasshopper was not Debater B, by the way.