Then There's That Way of Getting Attention
September 18th 2007 11:09
From my internet experiences thus far I've found that you can never expect to be disappointed by sensationalistic claims. It's full of it, what’s worse is it gets attention, just stay within an inch of calling yourself a neo Nazi and you're good to go.
Isn't it strange that people care what other people, complete strangers, may think? Worse yet, people care what absolute idiots think? What’s alarming is such views can go and gain traction online, there is no universal condemnation, at least none that has an auro of unity. People can write anything they want, put it online, and no matter how sick or twisted it may be people will read it.
Worse yet, they'll come back for more of it, if for anything simply to criticize (read: insult) the writer. In a way this shows that base emotions rule people’s judgements beyond anything else.
Even satire sites benefit from this, take Shelley The Republican for instance. You will find some of the most radical opinions expressed on that blog yet it is openly satire. Though it doesn't end there, if you try something else like 'The Political Brief' you find there are people who repeat the exact same things but do it with the utmost of seriousness.
But what of the attention? Is it worth it? Well if you're interested in raking in some really massive traffic you might want to give it a shot and see just how well it works. In a sense rationality is weaker than emotions, it's actually ruled by them. We don't get a sense to act unless emotional and our brightest minds may never act because rationality does not give the same raw drive as emotion.
In many ways one could say such events as riots based on racial hatred or perceived singling out only occur because those who are quick to emotion are involved more so than those who think first. People are only too happy to act when in an extreme state of anger or love or happiness but seldom do so at opportune times when the ability to think things through arises.
In both linked riots there was some reality to the matter, in one there is the fact some people have disrespect for another culture, the other, the newspaper was setting a double standard with the cartoon strip it chose to publish, however in neither case was any point made by the riots. Yet if they were protests with a clear and relevant message they would never have occurred, there would not have been enough drive for it.
Even if it did, no one would have cared beyond passing glimpses, no one would want to know why it happened or how it happened. So when it comes down to it all it's just a simple matter of, do you want to be heard and not understood or do you want to be understood and not heard?
Isn't it strange that people care what other people, complete strangers, may think? Worse yet, people care what absolute idiots think? What’s alarming is such views can go and gain traction online, there is no universal condemnation, at least none that has an auro of unity. People can write anything they want, put it online, and no matter how sick or twisted it may be people will read it.
Worse yet, they'll come back for more of it, if for anything simply to criticize (read: insult) the writer. In a way this shows that base emotions rule people’s judgements beyond anything else.
Even satire sites benefit from this, take Shelley The Republican for instance. You will find some of the most radical opinions expressed on that blog yet it is openly satire. Though it doesn't end there, if you try something else like 'The Political Brief' you find there are people who repeat the exact same things but do it with the utmost of seriousness.
But what of the attention? Is it worth it? Well if you're interested in raking in some really massive traffic you might want to give it a shot and see just how well it works. In a sense rationality is weaker than emotions, it's actually ruled by them. We don't get a sense to act unless emotional and our brightest minds may never act because rationality does not give the same raw drive as emotion.
In many ways one could say such events as riots based on racial hatred or perceived singling out only occur because those who are quick to emotion are involved more so than those who think first. People are only too happy to act when in an extreme state of anger or love or happiness but seldom do so at opportune times when the ability to think things through arises.
In both linked riots there was some reality to the matter, in one there is the fact some people have disrespect for another culture, the other, the newspaper was setting a double standard with the cartoon strip it chose to publish, however in neither case was any point made by the riots. Yet if they were protests with a clear and relevant message they would never have occurred, there would not have been enough drive for it.
Even if it did, no one would have cared beyond passing glimpses, no one would want to know why it happened or how it happened. So when it comes down to it all it's just a simple matter of, do you want to be heard and not understood or do you want to be understood and not heard?
| 35 |
| Vote |
