Why Are You Posting That?

After about the 10,000th politically-related post/rant to cross my Facebook feed I had an epiphany, or, maybe more accurately, I realized a fundamental question this was bringing to my mind: Why are you posting that?

No, seriously, why? Most political posts begin under the guise of debating an issue, but in the way they are formatted there is no invitation to discussion. Instead, it is clear that the poster knows he or she is correct and that is the very reason they are posting. This serves only to reinforce what others already believe, and so there is no new knowledge shared between individuals of differing viewpoints. No common good is created. Nothing of note comes from these exchanges. So, again, why are you doing that?

For example, a friend posted this:

What kind of discussion can ensue from this post? Perhaps a good deal if the poster and the audience with whom he/she is interacting are interested in talking about issues of ID, immigration and health care in a productive way, but the reality is that most anybody who responds will have already made up their mind. We've been taught to act like candidates trying to defeat their opposition rather than citizens concerned with bettering our world. It's the same debauchery that is deciding who has "won" a debate. Shouldn't the citizens of this country win when we debate issues? Apparently not.

As it turns out, posts like these are an obstacle to discussion because it has poisoned the well from the start. There is nothing in here inviting; in fact, it is quite the opposite. The original post could only be made to suggest that "I am right; you are wrong. So shut up." In fact, one of the early comments under the post essentially said just that.

Then, I wonder, why are you posting? To inflate your ego? Because you're not bringing about change or starting a discussion; you are simply stating your correctness.

Here's one from the other side:

 Thanks, internet, for politicizing the figures of my childhood. Seriously, what kind of discussion can start from this other than one side nodding their heads vigorously while the other says "Nuh uhhh!

So, here's my challenge, before you post on Facebook or in any online medium, ask yourself this question: What am I hoping to achieve?

Here are a few possible answers:

Stroking your ego: This is the typical Facebook post, determined to humiliate the other side by taking a grain of truth and twisting the reality in such a way that the opposition has no practical means to direct the post toward a fruitful discussion. The only reason for the post is to feel better about your opinion.

Proving a tru-ism: This is when something is posted because it's so momentously obvious to the person posting it that clearly everyone in the world will see the truth in what is being said and realize the previous errors in their ways. These tend to be the posts that disappear later from your timelines when the original post-er discovers that, in fact, not everyone agrees with the "obvious" premise.

Trolling: Related to stroking your ego, these are posts baiting the other side into a rant and raving party. This is basically what's wrong with the internet. Feel free to block these people; it will free your life in wonderful ways.

Persuasion: This is the kind of post that poses a question meant to persuade the other side. In principle, this seems like a good place to start because the person posting is laying their cards on the table from the get-go and hoping by doing so to enact some change. However, in reality this tends to be less than constructive because internet debates become far more personal far quicker than in the real world and the tendency toward stroking the ego becomes more and more tempting as these "discussions" unfold. Of course, that's because they are rarely discussions at all; mostly, it is people talking past one another.

Which is why there is only one legitimate reason for posting to the internet...

Discussion: These are rare, but the digital landscape is not completely devoid of hope for useful dialogue. These usually start with a premise, which is not necessarily neutral but always encourages more thought and conversation. Here's an example:

It should be obvious where this person stands on the issue, but the language itself is conciliatory: "I propose a compromise"--the kind of thing that begs for discussion rather than the "I'm right; you're wrong" stupidity with which the internet is wrought. Moreover, the question raised is a philosophical one--one that addresses a base question rather than a hot-button issue with entrenched opinions. In short, the bull has been distilled and what we are left with is a legitimate starting place. You can argue against this--and people do and will. That's great. That's how it should be, but it starts from a place of respect--something often lacking in the recesses of the internet.

So, by all means post that political thought to the vastness of the inter-webs, but ask yourself first: Why am I posting this? Is it to demonstrate how right I am? Or am I doing it to learn something from my neighbor, and maybe, just maybe, teach them something in return. If the answer is the latter then I look forward to many fruitful discussions to come. If not, save your time.