Facebook Litter [Social Media]

        The other day a friend expressed their exasperation over all the litter that’s posted on facebook. I think I know what they mean. Here lately I’ll scroll through a dozen posts before seeing a post where a person is actually communicating. There’s also an endless stream of memes with false information being shared. I’ll see a post “informing” me about something and know immediately that it’s false and has usually been debunked countless times before because I’ve already checked up on it. Usually the veracity of a post can be checked in less than a minute. A lot of the time it doesn’t even take 30 seconds. I could spend most of my time on facebook pointing out false or useless information and false equivalencies that people are sharing. Then there’s the never ending stream of Click Bait.

       What do I mean by litter? I’ve already provided some examples above but here are some more. EXAMPLES: News feeds are full of them. See this sad-eyed child. Click to show that you love them. This horribly scarred veteran needs to know that you care. Click and share this post. If you love Jesus you’ll share this post. If you don’t you’re with the devil. Picture of a sad puppy. I’ll bet that I won’t even get one share. I support our nation! Click and share! They’re coming for your guns! Click and share! Are you old enough to remember this? Click and share! Do you know what this is? It’s a can opener! Click and share! What’s the answer to this riddle? If you know—click and share! And with each click and share we give the data cruncher’s vacuum a little more information about ourselves and our personal lives.

        What do I mean by useless information? I’ll see a post telling me to watch out for a particular individual in regards to a child abduction. A quick Less Than 30 second (LT30) check shows me that the missing child is in Australia. Since I’m in the United States there really isn’t a whole lot that my sharing this point will accomplish. The exception of course would be if I had a lot of friends living in Australia.

        What are false equivalencies? These things are posted all day long; usually they’re about hot button items like LGBT rights, gun control, religion, etc. Here’s an example: saying that a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the same thing as a Muslim-owned restaurant refusing to serve bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches. This is a false equivalence because the bakery offers the service of baking wedding cakes to the public. The Muslim-owned restaurant has no duty to have bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches on their menu. Another example of false equivalence comes from Trump’s Twitter feed, in which he accuses Hillary Clinton of colluding with the Democratic Party to beat Bernie Sanders for the nomination (as opposed to his collusion with the Russians). Oh, and guns: “cars kill more people per year than guns, so let’s ban cars.”

        Then there’s click bait. OMG so much click bait.  Click Bait is often a LT30 check. It’s possible to just hover the cursor over the originator of a post to see who is sending it. For instance there’ll be a picture of a sad puppy with a caption like “I’ll bet I won’t even get one share”. I’ll move the cursor over the originator of the post and see that it’s a radio station. What they’re trying to do is boost their traffic stats. The ones that really tighten my jaw is when they use pictures of veterans, children, cancer patients, etc. to boost traffic to their home page. In other words there isn’t any information going to the person portrayed. One LT30 click can tell you if it’s legit.

        How about boycotts? A post went through about a hotel chain awhile back telling people to avoid doing business with them because of a policy they had. The information was years old, had already been addressed by the business and all the parties were satisfied. But the meme keeps circulating. This one is also an LT30 check. The ones that are more difficult to check are toxic posts about someone being, or some small business doing, something despicable or things of this nature. Often they’re just people with grudges trying to hurt someone. I will read someone saying that they shared something because “better safe than sorry”. Okay let’s say someone accuses you of being a thief and starts posting that people should watch their stuff around you. Would you want that spread around or would you want people to check? This kind of junk is just harmful gossip. (BTW Christians aren’t supposed to gossip.)

        Political memes and news is a little more difficult to check. It takes effort. Sometimes a lot of effort. The main problem on this front is that people want to believe bad things about the opposition even if reality doesn’t support their position. People will share falsehoods simply because they don’t like something or someone. I’ll use Hillary Clinton as the best example of a person who has endured decades of falsehoods. One conspiracy theory and false accusation after another were hurled her way. I spent years tracking all the stuff down. Nothing to them. I would point out to people that what they shared as gospel simply wasn’t true and then provide the source showing that it was a lie. The answer that I would get back was well it’s kinda’ true and they would share it anyway. In other words they shared a lie because that confirmed their belief that she was a “bad person” and since she is a bad person it is okay to lie about her. I don’t like President Trump but I won’t knowingly share incorrect information about him.

        People say they want unbiased news but they won’t accept the reality of what is being reported by what I’m going to call mainstream media. For instance I don’t like what is being reported about President Trump’s sex life any more than I liked what was reported about President Clintons. But there you are. Their sex lives may have absolutely nothing to do what how they conduct their business as President. But here we are again. Unfortunately it is news whether we like it or not. It’s going to be reported. When you go to a story and the site claims they’re news media, at least check their posts and see if they do anything besides post memes! A lot of these “people” are just troll factories.

        So if you’re unsure what to believe come back to normal. Check the major media outlets. They do get stuff wrong occasionally but they usually correct their mistakes when they’re pointed out. Yes, they have bias from left to right but what they’re reporting is true. The actual event is there. How they report it may differ. The hyperbole of words around the event or item is what’s different. In other words the Trump Administration has had an unprecedented turnover in Presidential appointments. The last I checked he’s had like a 40% turnover in staff. How is it portrayed? The AP would be more likely to give you just the straight facts and leave it at that. MSNBC in all probability will additionally tell you that that’s the highest of any President, whereas Fox News might not cover it at all.

        Who do I use?  In not any particular order I use these news outlets:  AP, Reuters, Axois, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC (Not to be confused with MSNBC), Time, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NPR, New York Times, Bloomberg, Politico, CNN. There are a couple that I get a kick out of like MSNBC and The Economist. They’re still fair in their reporting.

        Politifact, Snopes and Factcheck are all good sources to check. If they don’t have the answer then you can go to Mediabias. They will only check something out if the others don’t have it. You can also go to Mediabias to find out how your news source is ranked from left to right or anywhere in between. Keep in mind that extremist groups along with the Russians will pump out information saying that these fact-checking sites are biased and false. If you choose to go along with that assessment then you are indeed lost. Seriously, if Infowars is any source of news for you, you will absolutely believe anything.

        I have biases. I tend to lean certain ways about various topics. I believe that if one recognizes their biases they’re better able to maintain objectivity. If you’re passing stuff without thinking critically, you need to at least understand that’s what you’re being manipulated to do. Our prejudices should not get in the way of the truth. Just because it resonates with you and reinforces your opinions, doesn’t mean it’s true. If things are going to get better in our nation we all need to be more honest about our actions.

        Facebook is starting to go the way of email. 90% of email traffic on the internet is spam. At this point we don’t see most of the junk. It’s filtered out. Only all the junk on facebook isn’t being filtered out and it’s increasing. It is like writing graffiti on walls. This is why we can’t have anything nice. Too many people are willing to corrupt it for too many reasons.

        So, if you believe in the First Amendment, click and share this (copy and paste the url) with all of your friends!

       

Social media weaponized [SOCIAL MEDIA/POLITICS]

        It turns out that Mark Zuckerberg isn’t any different than any other money-grubbing CEO. (Seriously, why did I think otherwise?) He took money from the Russians to run fake election ads in support of President Trump along with fake Black Lives Matter ads to increase racial division which also benefits President Trump and white supremacists.

        Russians understand our gullibility and racism better than we do. They have played us like a fiddle. They were able to do it with the help of CEOs like Zuckerberg. Their troll farms worked facebook diligently. They weaponized facebook and Zuckerberg profited from it. They were able to figure out that using social media is the most cost effective way to influence our elections and that it is a force multiplier. Not only were they able to reach people who weren’t normally targeted with ads, they were able to design, rework and rearrange ads for very specific groups, like those sympathetic to white supremacists views though they may not self-identify as such.

        Facebook, Google and Twitter had employees assigned to specifically to help the Trump campaign. Obviously they did a magnificent job.  They had inside information as to how to best manipulate users.

        Zuckerberg gives mea culpas after the fact. The election is over. He already made his money. As it turns out facebook the corporation is good at polarizing and dividing the country; that and making Zuckerberg filthy rich. Facebook gives lip service to doing the right thing but so far what they do best is protecting trolls, disseminating fake news pages, enabling those with evil intent like the Alt Right/Nazis et al and herding users into more easily marketable niches.

        Social media, along with the Russians and President Trump, will continue pushing fake news because it best suits their agenda of undermining a free press. A free press is their competition. But they don’t have to have the expense of all those people that it takes to support a free press. They just need laptops to make stuff up and upload it to a waiting public willing to believe any garbage they produce and ask for more. They understand the National Enquirer mentality and that there are a lot of people who want to believe the worst about our country. The leadership of the Republican Party has spent years helping make this possible.

        Think about that. Thousands upon thousands of sites pumping out disinformation 24/7. We are drowning in it. The reality of what is actually taking place gets lost in all the noise. Social media does it for money. The Russians did it to help elect a President and destabilize our country.

        Now we’re faced with having a seriously flawed and challenged President undermining the country with a fascist agenda and a Vice President pushing a theocratic agenda. In the meantime government is crashing. Now this may be something that President Trump supporters celebrate but be careful what you wish for. When governments crash civilization usually unravels in the chaos that follows. There are way more have nots than haves.

Rambo Jesus [Religion]

        As usual I had trouble deciding on a title for this piece. I started with "A Provocation" and from there went to, "Would Jesus have carried an M60?". I have settled with "Rambo Jesus". I’m not the first to come up with that concept. I think that it was mentioned in a movie as well.

        Awhile back I saw a post on facebook of a picture of a young Army wife holding a semi-automatic weapon and carrying a bible while standing in front of an American flag. I avoided posting a comment. Evidently her picture set off quite the facebook firestorm. The subject matter is intentionally provocative. The young woman has made at least one other provocative pose.

        Did you see what I did there? I tried putting the thought of another possibility in your mind. Normally I wouldn't spell it out like this but I think that it's important in this instance.

        In the other picture she made this comment, "ATTENTION LIBERALS: do NOT look at this picture. Your head will most likely explode." The theme was also religious in that picture. Her picture is making the rounds again and probably will be for as long as we have an internet.

        The subject that I'm going to address isn't about the constitution and our associated freedoms or lack thereof. It's how we as Christians often present a mixed message to the world of guns and bibles or intolerance for the freedom of others based upon various interpretations of what our faith means.

        I won't pretend to have any kind of answer since what I'm usually left with are more questions. I have guns and bibles; various quantities of both. I served in the military and was quite prepared to do my job. I'm also grateful that I wasn't called on to use those talents and training, though I did train others.

        What message does our love for guns and Jesus send? What message do we send as Christians when we mock liberals, conservatives, sexuality, dress, taste in music, physiology, the politics of others, etc.? Pick an issue. Come find Jesus, you abomination you. Then throw in that there are Christians on both sides of most of the major issues facing our country and faith. I realize that we aren't alone. Other faiths face the same kind of conundrums. Non-believers deal with the same kind of issues as well.

        So if there is a picture in your mind of Jesus, what does he look like? What color is he? How is he dressed? Is he wearing a headband and carrying an M60? Is he wearing a suit and tie or in an open collared dress shirt with a sports coat and jeans? Does he smell? Is he wearing cologne?

        When he was here he blended in with the crowd.  So I think, just think mind you, that he wouldn’t now be dressed like Rambo. He would dress in such a way as to minister to the poor, the sick, those who were hungry, those in need. He would be dressed for the lower echelons of society. He would not dress to appeal to the Romans of the day.

        Shouldn't Love be our unified message as Christians? That sounds easy but that's a hard page to turn to at times. It's easier to provoke. But those chance words, viral videos, critical little catchy sound bites do damage and cause separation. They aren't intended to win over hearts or change minds. They are lines in the sand—not invitations to meet and share fellowship. So yes, Love should be the Christian message.