Unlimited Obama Appreciation Thread.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

If our youth come away with the message that they can be part of a revolution without leaving their basement, then we're hopelessly screwed for at least the next generation or two.   

Roger and 3 other people like this comment.

My horrible bastard gland is acting up.

[Luna]

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

An overabundance of teh stoopid.

More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.

[Captain Utopia]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Do you think we'd see more subject-matter experts if there was a smaller network support them?

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

Sure.  I've never expressed an opinion contradictory to that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

An overabundance of teh stoopid.

Bad information in large quantity + stupid people (separate "unintelligent" and "stupid" here) = hilarity ensues.

More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.

You just said that.

An overabundance of teh stoopid.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Yes.  It gives a false sense of accomplishment.  It's bad signal.

[Adios]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Do you think we'd see more subject-matter experts if there was a smaller network support them?

The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

Sure.  I've never expressed an opinion contradictory to that.

Yes it is, because it contributes to a false illusion.

[AFK]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Yeah, it's called complacency.  Life isn't the internet.  You can't click on a link and download freedom. 

[Luna]

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

An overabundance of teh stoopid.

Bad information in large quantity + stupid people (separate "unintelligent" and "stupid" here) = hilarity ensues.

More seriously, people deciding to listen to the only news source telling them what they wanted to hear, being too bloody lazy to actually do a little research, and hearing, "do this, we're the only ones who care about you," and actually believing that crap.

You just said that.

An overabundance of teh stoopid.

Yeah, just expanding on the point.

There's a news site I post on that has a population of conservatives and teabaggers.  I poke 'em with sticks, occasionally.  The fact that they will proudly state that they NEVER watch or listen to any news other than Fox makes me gag.

(They also wave the "Fox has the highest ratings" flag as if ratings = most factual.)

[Captain Utopia]

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

Is this an argument against increasing available information?  What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?

2.  If you don't know anything is being accomplished, then I have to write your argument off as Doctor Pangloss-esque rubbish.  Not trying to be offensive here, just saying that if you don't have a replacement for jobs lost, then I don't see how there's a tradeoff at all.  Miss three meals, and then tell me that twitter, etc, is a trade off you're happy with.

The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.

Every community increases its subject-matter expertise in relation to the size and involvement of the community base.  I can't prove that it's happening here, but I'd have to see better evidence that it is an exception to the rule than "the minimal level of involvement is now just hitting a 'like' button".

That seems more like a positive rather than negative when it comes to building a community.

[Captain Utopia]

So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Yes.  It gives a false sense of accomplishment.  It's bad signal.

Yes it is, because it contributes to a false illusion.

Yeah, it's called complacency.  Life isn't the internet.  You can't click on a link and download freedom. 

I don't believe that someone whose sole involvement with the Egyptian Revolution was to click a "retweet this" button, would have had any other greater role to play had that avenue of minimal involvement not existed.  Complacency or not.

It is, however, demonstrable that current trends reported by social networks have a pivotal role to play in helping these movements gain momentum in the first place.

[Cain]

According to an actual Egypt politics expert:

What was striking about the Egyptian blogosphere as it developed in the last 7 or so years is the extent to which it engendered a political language free from the problematic of secularization vs. fundamentalism that had governed so much of political discourse in the Middle East and elsewhere. The blogosphere that burst into existence in Egypt around 2004 and 2005 in many ways provided a new context for a process that had begun a somewhat earlier, in the late 1990s: namely, the development of practices of coordination and support between secular leftist organizations and associations, and Islamist ones (particularly the Muslim Brotherhood)—a phenomenon almost completely absent in the prior decades. Toward the end of the decade of the 90s, Islamist and leftist lawyers began to agree to work together on cases regarding state torture, whereas in previous years, lawyers of one affiliation would almost never publicly defend plaintiffs from the other.

Political science: it's a lot more complicated than "yes" or "no".

[Cramulus]

Can I play Devil's Advocate for a sec regarding activism and social networking?

I agree that for the most part, social networking only facilitates a really low level of activism. Clicking Like does nothing in of itself. However, it does automatically spread the word to others. One of the biggest hurdles for any cause is to get the word out, to find the rare person out there who actually gives a shit. And there is a direct correlation between the number of people who are aware of an issue and the number of people who are doing something tangible to support it.

Let's say that out of every 100 people that liked Amnesty International on facebook, 1 of them is actually going to write letters and participate in the actual activism. There are more people who will actually DO something, they just haven't heard about the cause yet. They'll be super-motivated as soon as they do. It seems like the best thing you can do is to tell as many people as possible about Amnesty International, even knowing that 99 out of 100 of them aren't going to help.

[AFK]

Right, so social media is casting the net wider in order to nab that one or two.

But social media, IMO, will not and can not fuel a revolution in America.  And that's because of the Americans themselves.  Social media can't breed motivation, it simply makes it easier to find and engage those few who actually are interested in participating.  I think what is required to grow a mass movement in America is a considerable culture shift.  Or, it will take the U.S. Government really screwing up some thing that all of America's youth really care about, and care about so much that they will go to the streets and be willing to be bloodied to get that thing back.  If that thing even exists. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

Is this an argument against increasing available information?  What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?

The link is bad information, most often deliberate.

The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.

Wait.  What?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Can I play Devil's Advocate for a sec regarding activism and social networking?

I agree that for the most part, social networking only facilitates a really low level of activism. Clicking Like does nothing in of itself. However, it does automatically spread the word to others. One of the biggest hurdles for any cause is to get the word out, to find the rare person out there who actually gives a shit. And there is a direct correlation between the number of people who are aware of an issue and the number of people who are doing something tangible to support it.

Let's say that out of every 100 people that liked Amnesty International on facebook, 1 of them is actually going to write letters and participate in the actual activism. There are more people who will actually DO something, they just haven't heard about the cause yet. They'll be super-motivated as soon as they do. It seems like the best thing you can do is to tell as many people as possible about Amnesty International, even knowing that 99 out of 100 of them aren't going to help.

And you get 99 people that consider their part to be done.  Just saying.