I make this post only after seeing someone make a judgement about my post on a Twitter post. Then I checked the analytics- they had not visited the link. Only reading the headline is an act of lack of intellect.
How many of you judge an article only on its headline? Now let’s count how much of you will post a comment of the article only from the headline itself? What if the article was the opposite of the headline? You have just proven your ignorance and ignorance to learn.
This seems to be a common occurrence in the world of social media. With bite-size media and lower attention rates, people jump to conclusions without reason. Context has been lost and unfortunately, we seem to be entering an age of ignorance.
Now we can question- how many of people’s opinions come from only headlines? How much of it comes from actually reading articles? Perhaps we must fight back against ignorance and call them out with “faux” articles containing information opposite of the headline.
Age of ignorance, headed by social media.
I argue that we can call the Neo-information age, an age of “ignorance”. People claim they don’t have time to read the article but they browse social media for hours. It is simply an excuse for their laziness and lack of wanting to think for themselves. There’s also the idea that some bend the headlines to agree with their own viewpoints and opinions.
Not only does this backfire once one points them out but they often become defensive once called out. Therefore, I believe that the ignorants who use this tactic only want to strengthen their opinion. Perhaps it is the lack of focus or begs the question that intelligence is on the decline…
This is an opinion piece. therefore, I am free to change my mind if one brings forth a good argument against this post. Please keep arguments civil.
The dehumanization of Russians because of what their government is undertaking is a dire attack on ethics. How can we fight for human rights in Ukraine if we have people blaming the Russians- not only their government but the people too. I argue that ethics is dying- that we must cure it.
It’s easy to blame others for your problems or other problems. That’s what Hitler did to mobilize Germany. It’s their fault why we’re in this mess- not ours! That type of mentality. The mentality we’re seeing with some masses blaming Russian people.
Yes, I don’t agree with the war with Ukraine. But I won’t blame Russians. I don’t want you to, either. It’s clear that the people don’t have power over the government. It has been like that in almost every country on this planet. Russians are just like us- trying to live their lives. Grow businesses, be a part of their families and just being human.
If we dehumanize groups, we’re no better than the murderer. Ethics is key.
Humans are complicated- I think we can all agree. Therefore we can be brainwashed, especially in the case of North Korea. How do you not know you’ve consumed propaganda? Without questioning the status quo, how do you make your own mind up? Question everything. We must not take the easy way and blame others. We’re all responsible for our problems in this world.
Collectively, humans can make changes. Henceforth only censorship can stop that change- especially the case of Putin’s war on information. If you limit the people to only propaganda- I argue that it will kill the possibility of questioning or critical thought.
By destroying intellectualism- we kill ethics and humanism.
I end this section by saying; that if we dehumanize people- then are we better?
Are other wars worth less than Ukraine? Why is it Ukraine gets media coverage, not Yemen? Is this ethical?
I could mention numerous other wars. Though, we must look at other perspectives when covering Ukraine. Why did we ignore the war in Yemen, Palestine, and the Tigray war? Should we ignore those because they’re not developed countries? All humanity deserves equal treatment and coverage. It’s only now that a war is being propagated through media only because Ukraine involves a Great Power.
Do we not want to stop wars, but only when it involves us- the “first world“? Looking around the globe- we must adopt an ethical perspective. Involve ourselves in other conflicts- not with conflict but with communication. We conflict when we don’t understand each other or converse about our problems and how to fix them.
When arguing war, we forget the other side is also- human and requires ethics too.
We can stop attacking whataboutism- it does help. Despite the fact that it deflects an argument- it can also bring new conversations to the table. It’s a fallacy, yes- but it can be used justly when the other party only acknowledges the other. Does this not highlight that we all have problems that we all should equally fix?
When arguing, however, one side will almost certainly bring up an insult. Humans don’t like being wrong. I observe this often- it’s rather dehumanising and derails an argument. Instead of arguing war; we must agree that all war is bad and give equal coverage to all wars.
Only then, can we say that we have finally evolved civilly as humanity.