Russ M.’s Post

Should we judge the 'rightness' of a perspective by the least intelligent expression of it? It is difficult to bring a thoughtful perspective on social media. If people disagree, they are often not confident enough of their arguments to contest your view. So they will ignore your view in favour of the most crass, extreme or silly perspective they can find on the topic. They will then triumphantly point to this foolish view as being definitive of all opposing views - and therefore not worthy of debate. I saw this approach in action this week when a person jeered at "free speech warriors" for not being consistent, by claiming they want free speech but then attacking people whose views they dislike. Many people are consistently in favour of free speech, no matter the circumstances. It is not difficult to find them on social media. This person chose, however, to ignore that group in favour of a handful of the noisiest, most exaggerated and least principled voices on the topic. In this way, he impressed upon his readership that all people in favour of free speech are wrong. The theatre of social media is underpinned by the need to find 'goodies' and 'villains'. This practice is corrosive to our democracy and increases social division. I believe it is important to be aware of this behaviour and push back at every opportunity.

This is generic information, but very relevant.

ARE WE IN THE AGE OF OUTRAGE? Artists and actors as storytellers often have the most acute perspectives on our time. Peter Sarsgaard (remarkable in Dopesick and Presumed Innocent) gives an incisive interview in today’s Observer. He makes three societal provocations that join so many dots, just as the ‘Crazie in Chief’ Trump himself is quoted as saying: ‘the world has gone crazy right now’. 1. Isolationism “We can project any meaning on to an image, because we are all in such isolated little pockets of points of view… Can a story be changed because our beliefs have changed what we see?” 2. Action Supporters see “somebody who is promising something significant… (Trump) looks like the type of person who can change things: he’s a large, rich, white bloat of a man. People blame DC – and he’s the guy who’s promising to take an axe to it.” 3. Outrage “Without the media (Trump) would be nothing… But why is our attention drawn to outrage? Outrage is one of the main fuels of news journalism. Violence and outrage. Well, he’s got all of that.” As we see people of every persuasion across the globe mobilise within their polarised narrative of injustice or inaction, we see ‘isolation’ fuel ‘action’ as ‘outrage’. While the media continues to attack and toxify itself from within, is it not time for our narrators to resist modelling outrage and embody deeper, calmer curiosity? Or is that something we can all do? So rather than retreat, can we better regulate, not just the system, but our nervous systems, to explore the greys? Are we prepared to accept this End of days? Or can we feel a call to communion? Ps. I have yet to read this book by Karthik Ramanna… #outrage #crazy #isolationism #storytelling

Since lies are spreading MUCH faster than the truth in our digital spaces, perhaps we reframe our thinking about moving at the speed of news. Maybe it's more like moving at the speed of fake news. The dark forces working diligently to drag us down are multiplying like rabbits. So moving at the speed of news won't actually cut it? We need to move and respond as quickly as the darkness is spreading. And that requires an infusion of major support into consistent counternarratives that expose the falsehoods and hypocrisy that's misleading and confusing the public. Yes, that's partly journalism. But it's other types of storytelling and narrative, too. In the words of one of my all-time favorite bands (Daft Punk), we need to be "harder, better, faster, stronger" than these forces. And kicking authoritarian ass requires a ground game that's a bit less polite than we currently are. (Respectfully.)

If we spend our days watching 24-hour news or reading it on the internet, we would feel that the world is feel that the world is completely divided. If we talk to other people, even those we disagree with, we can find quite a bit of common ground. Let us please stop the rhetoric and the labels. Let us discuss ideas rather than criticizing individuals. Let discuss ideas and not labels. I started to write about how the terms are being used incorrectly in the news. Understand the terms that people are using, but don't get caught up in them. I think if we turn off our television sets and start talking to each other, we can solve some of these issues. I am not saying we need to agree. I am not saying we shouldn't argue. Healthy debate is good. We do need to stop attacking people when they have a different point of view. Attack the ideas not the people.

Overcoming the Fear of Expressing My Opinion: Confronting Alarm Bells Discover why being afraid to share your point of view is a signal to dig deeper. Learn how to prepare yourself to confidently express your opinion on controversial subjects. #ConqueringFear #SharingOpinions #ConfidenceBuilding #SelfExpression #OpinionMatters #OvercomingChallenges #PersonalGrowth #FindingYourVoice #BreakingBarriers #MindsetShift

This offers a historical and cultural context behind the rise of the "morning routine" phenomenon. The piece sheds light on how this obsession has become deeply ingrained in our society. https://lnkd.in/eF4JAcfy

Disputes sow distractions and drain our energy. While we may not always see eye to eye, constantly disputing every difference in opinion breeds conflict. Instead, let's assess the significance of each disagreement and its potential impact. Let's reserve our opinions for more opportune moments and avoid sweating the small stuff. By directing our time and energy towards more meaningful causes and important aspects, we can make a greater impact. Follow Dipendra Shringi for more exciting, engaging and encouraging posts. #conflicts #arguments #opinions #impactfulchange

The Buzz: If you’re in the policy comms world, you come face to face with logical fallacies every day — maybe every hour. You’re up against misinformation, disinformation and sometimes sheer nonsense. But how good are you at spotting bad arguments? Check out these tips from a recent BBC story: https://ow.ly/9MPQ50TAK7z

Can you believe these questions