And truer words were never spoken, on either point. The problem with the people about whom she speaks is their awful tendency to multiply, showing barely any form of evolution during the process. This is, in my opinion, most evident in the twin Mordors of the internet: blogging and forwarded e-mails and their increasing workloads of carting pure bullshit around.
I'm sorry; what are you talking about anyway?
Tell me if this sounds familiar. You get an e-mail or blog link from someone you know, regarding a topic on which he or she is known to be invested. The article you're sent clearly supports your friend's stance on this issue, and the article's author is either insulting a type of person the author is, or is praising a type of person the author wasn't until just recently. The author at some point uses him/herself as the justification for writing the article, which would otherwise be seen as bigoted trash. I'm going to use the same three blogs or articles here throughout the rest of this discussion: one each on sex, religion and politics. While they're usually 10 to 15 paragraphs long, they'll almost always contain a line similar to the following.
EXHIBIT A: "Men only think of women as objects - trust me, I'm a man."
EXHIBIT B: "It's a fact that atheists are wrong and (insert religion here) is the truth! Take it from me; I really was an atheist until I converted to (insert same religion here)."
EXHIBIT C: "I begged the homeless guy to take my money and he turned me down! He said Obama gave him all the money he needed to live comfortably and I was a sucker for working for a living. Trust me, I really tried to give him money, and I was always a big supporter of the homeless and Obama!"
It's not that confession or conversion stories are bullshit in and of themselves - I have a few myself - but it's the nature in which some of them are presented that betrays their near proximity to bullshit.
Why would someone bullshit like that in a blog or an e-mail?
This is the easiest question of the bunch. Usually it's so someone with a specific ideology will get his or her voice heard in support of that ideology, but they are too lazy or insanely incorrect to find the proper supporting data as you would in a real debate, academic article, etc. Sensationalism attracts attention, so it's not a surprise that this kind of communication has found its way online, where it can very quickly reach the world. The other reason people do this is to attract more readers through a series of wild claims and assertions instead of valid points and rational thought. It's easy, it's eye-catching and it's presented believably. It just isn't very honorable.
Why would people believe that?
Most likely because it doesn't require a lot of proof to be a convincing story. In terms of blogs, who would lie about themselves in a negative way? Look at that first example above: "Men only think of women as objects - trust me, I'm a man." The speaker seemingly addresses his empathy with a very serious and real problem women face: male objectification. Historically, when someone addresses what many see as a problem, and acknowledges it as a problem himself, a solution usually follows. There are myriad psych studies about leaders offering solutions to problems that I won't bore you with here. This is just a microcosm, a subtle example of that - and who wouldn't want to listen to someone who understands their problems?
The other reason some people believe these things is a little more "Big Picture." Blogs and e-mails with agendas claim to be written by public figures or private citizens - I used to get the same e-mail from Ben Stein, George Carlin, Bill Cosby and "concerned citizens." In reality, they are ghost-written by employees of think tanks that are allied with politicians seeking to gain votes. They get broadcast because of the clout associated with famous people making controversial opinions. Sometimes, to be funny, I'll write a ridiculous e-mail and author it as someone famous and send it to people who have sent me those e-mails - both as entertainment for those of us who know they're little more than propaganda and as a lesson to those who don't that they need to consider the validity of information before they send it on. If you've ever gotten an e-mail from Ben Stein complaining that Obama is merging the two Dakotas into one state, you can blame me for that one.
But you said yourself some confession/conversion stories are believable. Wouldn't that mean some of these people are telling the truth?
Absolutely. Everyone in my family - myself included - has those stories, and they're true.
So how do you know who's bullshitting you?
It depends on the writer and the typical audience in each case. In Exhibit C, the writer spends a half-page of a newspaper swearing he was a big supporter of "left-wing causes like welfare and Obamacare" and is "shocked" that someone would ever take advantage, but only now is he starting to question the integrity of said programs. If that's the case, how does that story get published at a right-leaning news outlet? Is the writer really a lone wolf leftist at the publication, going against the grain of everyone else there? Did the publication reverse its last five years of hard political leaning, risking its entire readership, just to tell the story of one poor writer who tried so hard to help the snotty leftist hobo who, in turn, rubbed the writer's generosity in his face? It's up to you to decide which makes more sense.
I'll tell you though that every time I recommend you listen to an album, watch a movie or play a video game, it's because I've done so myself and think the contributing entertainers truly deserve your dollar.
What's the point of all this?
To those writers: Stop. You are the enemy of free media and the First Amendment. You are creating the same spin machine you claim to hate on 24-hour news networks, and you're hiding behind "free speech" as an excuse to not hold yourself accountable whenever someone catches you bullshitting or disagrees with you. You're failing in spectacular fashion to meet the responsibilities of a writer. If you have an innovative, fresh, entertaining thing to say, you'll do better in the long run with credibility and a clear distinction between fact and opinion than you will playing the sheep in wolf's clothing - yes, sheep in wolf's clothing, not the other way around.
To the readers: Don't play into bullshit. Every blog you link to, every e-mail you forward, puts you in some writer's employ. You're representing that writer's opinions as something you support and believe in and it's costing you more than you know. I've lost friends and readers for things I've written and shared and you've done the same whether you realize it or not. Free speech is a right AND a privilege; knowing when and how to exercise it is something a lot of people don't understand.
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
"We all whores, Frank." - Ving Rhames, Bringing out the Dead
Well, that's a possibility, isn't it? Like, for one, I said, "Don't trust people who claim to decry something they're a part of," but I also said "Bloggers are shit - trust me; I'm one of them." Then I said "Bloggers use fantastic claims and just get you to forward their links around" and "Everything you link to puts you in some writer's employ," but I also ask people to share my writer's page on FaceBook and to link to my writing any time they like. Honestly? That's a real pickle for you and me.
I'm amazed if you're even reading this, let alone near copy-pasting the link somewhere. It is my firm belief that every word I've written in my life is for entertainment first and education second, and I'll tell you openly I'd love to get more readers, sell more copies of my books and make more money, just like any other writer. On the other hand, the difference between me and Exhibits A through C is that there's a reason I separate my work into so many blogs: I want to make it abundantly clear what you're getting into as a reader - no bait-and-switch here. This blog you're on is for rants, raves, reviews, opinions, recipes, etc; This Job is Killing You is for samples from my writing I intend to have published as part of a marketable product one day (or already have); Penny Cavalier is devoted specifically to superhero culture and my second book; and Stay Out Stay Alive only pertains to another upcoming project of mine (DisasterLand) and other apocalyptic work of its ilk.
I truly hope that whenever you get the urge to share a link of mine (and I can see where my traffic comes from and I do truly thank you for sharing my work), it's because of the quality and entertainment of the content, not because it may seem "controversial." I'm honored if I can cause some intelligent discourse between you and your people, but please know I aim to please - not to pander.
Well, this has taken me all day. Have a good evening.
