2012 Presidential Elections: Rules for Blogging, Articles Commenting and Facebook –Twitter Posting
Posted: Saturday, August 20, 2011
by Chris Kanyane
Global Center For Research World Wide
A social virus that could sound our demise is gradually creeping in and needs to be reigned in as soon as possible. I write this article against those who are determined to make the internet a place of terror to others.
In as much as the internet remains an easy way to disseminate information, it is also significant to note that there is no gain in basking in splendor to destroy the creativity of others. The art of writing is such that what you may consider irrelevant may be completely relevant to the writer and others. Such is the unique nature of human beings and this remains one of the features that make us tick.
Central to writing is critique; writing is about critique in most instances. Often an issue will develop in our human societies and people follow it up by providing a critique, a critical assessment of the issue through blogging, commenting on articles, posting on facebook and twitting. For example the emergence of the Tea Party as a dangerous populist political movement has seen millions of articles composed and posted on the internet to critique and reflect on this issue. As of writing this article there was more than hundred millions of articles in reference to the Tea Party. As we move into the 2012 that ushers us in US Presidential elections and subsequent election of the man or woman who will not lead Americans but the rest of the world there is a need to relook on what we post on the internet.
The internet is a powerful tool to influence and swing people’s views, hence the unending stream of articles, blog posts and twitting- facebook postings, sharing and liking over the internet.
There is no doubt that for public conversation to achieve desired goals, civility remains an essential ingredient. It is only with civility that rationality can be achieved in internet debates and discussions, precisely in commenting on other people’s articles or commenting developing breaking news.
Guy and Heidi Burgess at the University of Colorado have done in-depth research on this issue of debating and commenting on the internet. The premise they come from is that the inability of mankind to deal with broad range of problems could be largely attributed to the destructive ways in which most issues are addressed.
Civility is not viewed as instant acquiescence to opinions and postulations. The need for the society to raise tough questions and queries when their vital interests are threatened cannot be over-emphasised. An important issue such as the re-election of Barack Obama or whether he should be dropped and be replaced by a Tea Party leader deserves the benefit of a thorough debate that could sometimes throw up emotions and primordial instincts.
The essence of creating blogs, posting articles, commenting on other people’s articles, posting and sharing ideas on facebook and twitter should not be about creating enemies. However, there have been documented cases of acrimonious discourses leading to harm and disasters on the internet.
I once read comments posted on the most high quality deeply researched article, the comments were very acrimonious – one commentator even went so low at a point that the author of this well researched quality article suffers from a “genetic” problem.
There is no substitute for civility in achieving rationality on the internet. We can disagree to agree or agree to disagree. This should not be ground for name-callings, insults or demonstration of uncouth and uncivilised behavior. Rationality still remains the best standard for public discussion.
Matured writing and commenting on the internet requires that you make an honest and continuing effort to understand the views and reasoning of people you consider being your opponents.
Constructive debate needs to focus on solutions which are most likely to be successful, and not upon personal attacks leveled by adversaries against one another.
It is often very easy to allow complacency to take hold and submit to the powerful hold of negativism, otherwise known as destructive criticism. Negativism is described as “criticism performed with the intention to harm someone, derogate and destroy someone’s creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem,”
Negative language is the harbinger of discord and confusion. It breeds hatred and enmity and has been the cause of much of the wars and confusion the human race has ever witnessed.
What then are the common attributes of positive or constructive criticism? These, in a nutshell, include:
1. Make your criticism specific
2. Don't exaggerate the problem
3. Watch the adjectives you use to describe what you are criticizing - Some are so loaded with venom and anger that so often you wonder what brought it up in the first place
4. When offering criticism, it’s wise to also suggest a solution
5. Sarcasm is the coward’s way of expressing negative feelings or criticism
Frank A. Clark in his far-reaching observation stated that:
"Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a person’s growth without destroying their roots."
Thus, positive criticism is the greatest gift one can behove to another. It nourishes and enriches. And it takes self discipline to cultivate.
Tuko Pamoja
(Swahili word meaning Yes Together We Can!
This Article has been viewed 226 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.