I have to agree with the other commenters that what this OP thinks of as "defensive" writing is sometimes just better, more nuanced writing.
For me, it just boils down to a tradeoff. Oh, you want instant access and the ability to influence the billions of people who are on the Internet, and to do it for free? Then don't expect the insulation you get when your writing was previously restricted to a published journal or local newspaper column.
Tangentially related: In the academic world, people have been abuzz about Steven Salatia, a professor who was nearly in the door as a tenured professor at University of Illinois until the board of trustees, made aware of his stream of inflammatory tweets about Israel and Palestine, nixed the offer, leaving Salatia without a job:
Besides espousing the value of academic freedom, Salatia's defense has been: If you had only read my entire tweet stream, you would've seen that I don't hate Israel, and that my seemingly violent sentiments were just rhetorical flourishes when viewed in context.
Sure, I see his argument and I empathize with him. But he's being naive and Pollyanish about communication. The world doesn't have time to explore your mind-palace...each of us are already preoccupied with our own lives and thoughts. If you wanted to make catchy soundbites over a complicated issue so that you could catch our attention amidst the global debate, well, the other side of catchy soundbites is that sometimes they catch you.
Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.
> The world doesn't have time to explore your mind-palace...
But they have time to search social media sites?
If someone wants to twist an argument around to attain the goal they desire, you can take anything out of context and spin it in another direction. Informal language is informal because of this - it never conveys a true objectivity that can not be mutated with the slight of hand - and that includes things that have been invented and things that have not been yet.
There are no real rules to communication, only guidelines that are often informally adjusted via precedent. Politics is often a very tricky tightrope to walk.
> Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.
I do. I think it makes people visually aware of how a collective sentiment can build over small iterations of many dialogues. Maybe that would make people more empathetic to people who have such seemingly inflammatory opinions, and also not feel so alone in having fairly quirky ideas.
> But they have time to search social media sites?
...er...yes? I mean, that's why social media sites are popular. To go beyond text communication, that's why Instagram is popular even though its photo editing capabilities are less expansive and sophisticated than your camera + GIMP. Social media sites demand little from the producer and the consumer, which is partially why we are so inclined to spend time there instead of writing full blog posts or letters to Mom.
Should society just acclimate itself to be less reactionary to social media quips? Sure, but that's a bit of begging the question there. Social media networks are so strong because they can cause such emotional reaction for such little energy input. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I halfway assume that there's something physiologically appealing about the whole process, and that something would fight back against the ability for society to collectively take a deep breath and patiently consume the stream of social media.
You and I want both the same thing: patience and empathy in civic discourse. But you have more faith than I do that it can/should happen even when the scales are so lopsided: physically, it gets easier and easier to make and disseminate our thoughts, but our ability to physically process such information does not scale as well.
> ...er...yes? I mean, that's why social media sites are popular.
They don't have time to think about how that person thinks, but they do have time to search social media sites.
> Should society just acclimate itself to be less reactionary to social media quips?
I don't know? I am not sure what you mean by 'reactionary'.
> Social media networks are so strong because they can cause such emotional reaction for such little energy input.
I find that social networks require a moderate amount of energy input to maintain a position I do not find disagreeable, but additionally find somewhat insightful or valuable to offer (and here I must make some assumptions about any reader, so I apologize).
> You and I want both the same thing: patience and empathy in civic discourse.
Yes. I just think discourse is very complicated.
> But you have more faith than I do that it can/should happen even when the scales are so lopsided:
It's not so much faith, as it is questioning inwardly.
> physically, it gets easier and easier to make and disseminate our thoughts but our ability to physically process such information does not scale as well.
I can't say I experience this position either. In the past I may have agreed with you, so I am sure there is truth to your sentiment.
For me, it just boils down to a tradeoff. Oh, you want instant access and the ability to influence the billions of people who are on the Internet, and to do it for free? Then don't expect the insulation you get when your writing was previously restricted to a published journal or local newspaper column.
Tangentially related: In the academic world, people have been abuzz about Steven Salatia, a professor who was nearly in the door as a tenured professor at University of Illinois until the board of trustees, made aware of his stream of inflammatory tweets about Israel and Palestine, nixed the offer, leaving Salatia without a job:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/10/steven-salait...
Besides espousing the value of academic freedom, Salatia's defense has been: If you had only read my entire tweet stream, you would've seen that I don't hate Israel, and that my seemingly violent sentiments were just rhetorical flourishes when viewed in context.
Sure, I see his argument and I empathize with him. But he's being naive and Pollyanish about communication. The world doesn't have time to explore your mind-palace...each of us are already preoccupied with our own lives and thoughts. If you wanted to make catchy soundbites over a complicated issue so that you could catch our attention amidst the global debate, well, the other side of catchy soundbites is that sometimes they catch you.
Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.