Opinions are like...

So, this is a little rambling totally unrelated to anything currently running on this blog.  So, just a heads up.  (Also, it's REALLY long.  SORRY!)

Over the past couple of years I have found myself at Salon.com.  For those who don't know what Salon.com is, it's a quasi-news site that really is more focused on opinion pieces then actual news.  The opinions tend to lean very far to the left politically and socially, and for the most part, I've found myself enjoying the regular discussions on politics in America, as well as the continued social changes that our country is undergoing every day.  Still, recently I've found myself frustrated with the content posted on the site.

My frustration really started with the whole CancelColbert thing.  If you didn't read about it (lucky you), the whole thing started with a joke taken out of context and posted on twitter.  Suey Park, a hashtavist (yes, that is a thing now), responded to the joke, which seemed to make light of Asian stereotypes, with the CancelColbert hash tag.  The initial stories were interesting, as were the articles that popped up all over the internet.  Then the articles started to reveal something more important.  Suey Park's intentions, and more importantly, her complete lack of understanding when it came to her own motives, outside of drawing attention to herself (and a little more digging seemed to make that point even more clear, and revealed it to be a part of a pattern).  Quickly, other sites started dropping the story, and interest wained.  Not Salon, though.  No, Salon dragged the story on for what seemed like weeks.  They wrote opinion piece after opinion piece, sometimes writing opinion pieces about other opinion pieces.  While the rest of the world had quickly forgotten about Suey Park and her hastavism, Salon was riding it for all it was worth.

Then came their interview with Park.  To say the interview was a disaster is putting it lightly.  I can't even begin to describe how bizarre, and at times, non-sensical it was.  If you want to see what I mean, read it for yourself.

Salon Interview: Suey Park

Salon had thrown so much weight behind Suey, and in the end, it turned out that they were all blindly following a young woman who, while passionate about her cause, really didn't understand what her cause was fighting for.  More importantly, she was using her cause for selfish gain, and in turn, drew attention away from another cause that was finally getting noticed in the press.  (That cause happened to be Native Americans vs. the owner of the Redskins, a battle that has been going on for a VERY long time).  There was a discussion to be had in all that mess, specifically the fine line satire walks when dealing with issues such as racism, sexism and homophobia, and how context is important, but not an excuse when a joke misses it's intended target.  That conversation never started, because the person who everyone was looking to start the conversation didn't want to have that conversation.  She just wanted a pulpit to scream from, and after reading her interview, I'm not sure she even knew what she was really screaming about in the first place.

Now, it is not uncommon to see politically minded websites or TV shows, both on the left and right, throw their weight behind a particular person or message, only to have it blow up in their face.  Just take a look at Sean Hannity and the Cliven Bundy fiasco.  It happens.  My issue with all of this is really not so much about the whole Colbert incident, and more with the idea of opinion pieces.

Opinion pieces, unlike news articles, tend to focus on the author's own opinion, and person beliefs, as they relate to a current political or social topic.  They also, as I have noticed, tend to be very reactionary.  They spring up as an event begins to unfold, and people latch on to one particular aspect of a story, or one particular line of thought or reasoning.  The problem is, the people writing these opinion pieces tend to publish their stories before the whole event has played out, and all the players have revealed who they truly are, and what their true thoughts and beliefs are.  Again I point to Cliven Bundy.  While Sean Hannity saw in him a modern day cowboy, he later learned that Cliven's views on the current state of the world weren't so modern.  Hell, his opinions seemed to be trapped in a time before the Civil War!

People have a right to their opinion, and they have a right to voice their opinion, but sometimes, just maybe, it's a good idea to stop, think, research, and examine where this particular ideal that you are about to rally behind is coming from, and what the true intentions are behind them.  Also, look at your own intentions before writing these pieces.

That takes me to my current issue with Salon, and opinion pieces, both in print and on TV in shows such as The O'Reilly Factor or their liberal counterparts, in general.  When I see an article with a title that basically says "So and So is wrong because..." or "So and So is the worst person in America because...", I lose all interest (Well, there are a few exceptions).  Why?  There's no real chance for discussion.  Automatically the article or segment takes a hostile tone with it's subject.  Add in words such as bone head, idiot or stupid, and you've lost me completely.

Good opinion pieces, at least in my eyes, are not just about stating the author's opinions, but also attempt to start a dialogue on the subject at hand.  Unless you are just trying to troll, your aim should not be to yell at the person with the opposite opinion of you, it should be to engage them.  You can't change someone's mind if they stop listening, and you can't learn if you, in turn, refuse to listen.

This brings me to my third, and final issue with Salon.  The readers.  This is not just an issue with this one particular site, but with the internet as a whole.

One of the responses to the Colbert incident was written by Brittney Cooper.  She usually writes pieces that deal with racism in America, specifically it's continued effect on the Black/African American community.  I've read a few of Cooper's pieces, and while I don't always agree with her, I can tell you right now that I have learned from what she has written.  Her pieces, while harsh, and at times loaded with frustration and anger, are never cruel, and while she is very clear in her opinion, she never attempts to belittle those she is speaking out against.  Her pieces are not nice, they are not friendly, but guess what, neither is racism.  Cooper's response to the CancelColbert hashtag was just like her others, unflinchingly honest, and a reflection on her beliefs.  It pointed out the sometimes buried racism that lies within even the most open minded and accepting of people.  It was honest, and at times painful to read, but it was her opinion, based off of her life experiences, and it was obvious that she had put a lot of thought into what she had written.

Her article was not my problem.

My problem was the responses she received.  I'm sure you can guess what that response was.  There were threats of violence and rape.  People called her an idiot, among other names.

What saddens me most about this is that these responses are not shocking, and even worse, expected.  While opinion pieces written by professionals can sometimes be sloppy, and occasionally done for a grab at attention, the opinions voiced by the general readership is like listening to the ramblings of a sociopath.  Even with the internet to keep us safely anonymous, why would anyone feel that it is appropriate, even in jest, to threaten, or belittle someone?  In my mind I try and remind myself that the people who write that stuff are either a)unbalanced psycho paths who are holed up in a bunker with a shotgun and twenty years worth of army rations or b)a troll who is just trying to get a rise out of someone.  I try to say that a is worse then b, but... I can't.  Which is worse?  A mentally ill person, who lives in a world of delusion that is shaped not only by their own thoughts, but by a constant stream of outside influence that has warped their already fragile mind so badly that they are no longer fit to be in society, or someone who is considered sane, and just likes to use rape and death threats for fun? Rape is not fun.  Murder is not fun.  Inflicting violence on another person is not fun.  Not if you are normal, sane human being with a conscience.  So why is using these threats considered a fun internet past time?  How can the person receiving the threats know that they are fakes?  Even if the threat is a joke, the fear that they cause is not.  These people are not just trolls, they are sadists who enjoy causing fear and pain for another individual, and for what?  Shits and giggles?  To feel slightly superior to someone else while you sit in your mom's basement getting Cheeto crumbs trapped in your keyboard?  Threatening to rape someone, or murder them (or their families) does not make superior.  It makes you a psycho.

I have been thinking about all of this for a while, and I'm sure most people won't even make it to this paragraph, as I have found myself rambling on for much longer then I had intended. My whole argument boils down to this.  Growing up I was always told to think before I speak.  Maybe next time, before you or I post something on the internet, be we paid journalists or just a person posting in the comments, we look at what we are about to put out into the world, and we stop, we think, and really consider not only how our words will reflect back on us, and what they truly reveal about us, but how those words will effect those exposed to our ideas.  Will they help?  Do they have a true purpose outside of getting people to react like an unfocused angry mob? Will they further a conversation, or will they hurt someone, or worse, stoke the fires of hate in someone?  Earlier I had called Opinion Pieces reactionary.  They are.  So is our culture.

Maybe it's time we changed that.