The Web has polarized politics? I find that somewhat amusing considering that politics (which has been around a lot longer than the Web) was already one of the most polarized aspects of human society. Politics, like religion, does a marvelous job at mixing and stirring irrational beliefs to the point where the only outlet is through emotional outbursts. I have to laugh silently to myself whenever I see people "heatedly" talking about some political issue. Whether it be about the massacres in Darfur or the current administrations draconian (you didn't honestly think I would hold back, did you?) view's about stem cell research, it never fails to give me a little amusement to see people turn red faced and start raising their voices. To be fair, I'm not that passionate of a person so to an extent, I have to admire people like that. They believe in a cause and are willing to fight for it; or, at least, speak a convincing lie.
But, I can't understand why some people think that the Internet has polarized politics. Politics was already polarized to the point where you can't sway people anymore. Just like polarized sunglasses reflecting the glare of sunlight, political beliefs reflect the light of truth from reaching so many people. What the Web has done, in my opinion, is actually filter some of that political glare. It is the new 100% polarization lenses that allow us to look past the talk and show -- in essence, the glare of politics. We can now see these great icons of American "beliefs" for what they really are: people.
Saying the Web has polarized politics is the exact same thing as saying that the gun created murders.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Web is to Polarizing as ...?
Share This Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh my God, sports are so polarizing too. It's so divisive! Why can't all these players just get along? LOL
As the wise Greek philosopher Plato observed long, long ago, "For every city (or state), however small, is, in fact, divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another."
It might be more accurate to contrast the "haves" to the "have-nots", and to include political power and influence, rather than just wealth, in that contrast, since some communities may not have much wealth, but still tend to be divided between those who have power over others, and those who are dominated by those in power. See how fundamental this divide is to the contrast between "liberals" and "conservatives" at LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/liberals.html.
The only way the "polarizing" can be eliminated is for one side to completely dominate the other, as happened historically when there were absolute rule monarchies or dictatorships, or by the achievement of Utopia (dream on).
I can sympathize with your frustrations. I myself find it hard to take politics seriously, mainly because of the pure bureocracy that is our government.
But back to the internet, I think the main thing here is that the internet allows easy access to information. We can see the good, but also some of the bad and ugly of all these candidates. They seems to be more like "people".
But also with the internet, we have definitely seen strength in numbers. Whether it's for a good cause like Save Darfur, or promoting a candidate or political party.
Post a Comment