> 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.
...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.