I agree that the link can be very valuable. Most importantly, I think it allows people to interpret the information for themselves, rather than taking "someone else's word for it".
I did not realize ".info" was an indicator of a potentially questionable source. I also assumed that feedback options were signs that the author was writing unprofessionally / causally. (So the exact opposite of what a feedback option really means.)
I don't actually feel like I've picked up any tips on validating a source. The title of this article was disappointingly misleading.
_________________
"How's Your Bullshit Detector?"
This next article looks like one of those "fake" sources mentioned in the previous article.
It also has a moderately aggressive tone. (Random 9/11 conspiracy theory??)
However, I do agree that we are generally exposed to more mundane, seemingly "important" information ("drama") than is really necessary. What is it about this place in time that everything is a dramatic happening? Id it me, or does it seem like people are constantly overreacting or over dramatizing things? It feels like everything is a fight, and everyone is ready to fight.
The self-awareness is funny, as I really wasn't sure what "transcendent significance" was supposed to mean.
Eichmannism seems to be especially relevant, in this age of questionable digital sourcing. I guess I worry about being a "mini-Eichmann," especially when I compare my political beliefs with those of the younger generation. However, I don;t really want to comment on this section anymore. Although I realize it was meant to illustrate how destructive this way of thinking can be, I thought the concentration camp analogy was a distasteful.
Although "verbal excretement" is, at times, an accurate way to describe some social media participants, I feel it is a very belittling and degrading statement to make.I realize that not every single thought is a share-worthy, intellectual goldmine. But Sometimes it is nice to share just because. Not everything has to have a deep, stimulating meaning. I think Postman's insinuation is a bit pompous.
The only good point Postman has made so far (aside from realizing how pompous he sounds-- it's almost like he heard me say that) is that a person's ability to detect crap is embedded in that person's values. This, unfortunately, is very true. And depending on what somebody values, they can be blind to facts that contridict their beliefs. I don't think this is inherantly tied to superstition, and I think categorizing values as such says a bit about Postman's views of religion. Since superstition is generally born from religion or spirituality, it would seem that "superstitious crap" would also mean that (devout) religious beliefs would also be crap. So would that mean that people who are very religious, according to Postman's logic, are ignorant and unintelligent?
"Fake communication" is a good way to describe over communication. But I feel Postman did not really discuss "fake communication" as much as condemn the habit (or inability) to recognize it. I did not really care for this piece. I felt it had potential, but instead, was mainly elitist bullshit.
Although "verbal excretement" is, at times, an accurate way to describe some social media participants, I feel it is a very belittling and degrading statement to make.I realize that not every single thought is a share-worthy, intellectual goldmine. But Sometimes it is nice to share just because. Not everything has to have a deep, stimulating meaning. I think Postman's insinuation is a bit pompous.
The only good point Postman has made so far (aside from realizing how pompous he sounds-- it's almost like he heard me say that) is that a person's ability to detect crap is embedded in that person's values. This, unfortunately, is very true. And depending on what somebody values, they can be blind to facts that contridict their beliefs. I don't think this is inherantly tied to superstition, and I think categorizing values as such says a bit about Postman's views of religion. Since superstition is generally born from religion or spirituality, it would seem that "superstitious crap" would also mean that (devout) religious beliefs would also be crap. So would that mean that people who are very religious, according to Postman's logic, are ignorant and unintelligent?
"Fake communication" is a good way to describe over communication. But I feel Postman did not really discuss "fake communication" as much as condemn the habit (or inability) to recognize it. I did not really care for this piece. I felt it had potential, but instead, was mainly elitist bullshit.
No comments:
Post a Comment