Skip to main content

Anger on the Social Media

Courtsey: Google Images
The social media has brought in great changes in the way we live our lives. It has touched the way we shop, the way we connect to the people around us, the way we think. We no longer drive to our friends to have tea with him and talk to him or her, rather we poke ( not a nice word, I think) each other. These are the changes brought in to our lives by all pervasive social media, but that is not what I wanted to talk about. I have been thinking about the impact social media is making with respect to the causes which we follow as masses and the impact of social media on it.

The twitter, Facebook pages and now, the cause pages has made it much easy for us to pursue a cause. It is easy to pursue, easy to get angry and as violent as the non availability of physical media could permit on the Internet. It is at the same time as addictive.
We closes the twitter at night with anger and wake up in the morning, all charged up with renewed fury, scouting for the latest annoyance to get furious about. Supported with a glib keypad, we shift from one annoyance to another, swiftly with the grace of an expert dancer.

The social media has brought down the walls a bit too much. While in the older, saner times, it would take a great deal of deliberation, thought and effort to decide on the friends we had. We had the liberty of time, and it was taken up with well-deserved seriousness. Becoming a friend was not something to be taken lightly, it was a life-defining activity. You would take days, weeks and months, before graduating someone from being an acquaintance to being a friend.

We would chose friends with great deal of thought, with those, who even if not matching us in temperament, but in line with our fundamental thoughts of right and wrong eventually allotted a space in our lives, our minds and our thoughts. With social media, it became easy to be friends.
All it needed was the click of a button, twitter called those you consented to be in touch with by an ego-boosting term called 'follower' , which many are late to discover after getting the venom thrown at them by so-called follower on account of some belief held dearly by them, as totally misleading as erroneous.

It is so easy to get angry on the social media, that I feel at times, it is causing two way damage. One, it brings too much of negativity in the thought, as it is so easy to get angry on the social media. You need not think great deal about how to project it, how to follow your anger through to a logical conclusion. Two, very soon the seriousness with which your beliefs ought to be taken fizzles away.

To quote a case, I had a classmate in the college, much to religious in his thought and way to fundamentalist in his approach. We would meet up at time, and with a proper address for the time of the day, went our way. We never sat together, eat together or drank together. When I came across the same person, many year later on Facebook with a friend request, I agreed. So on the social media we were friends, while as I had explained, when we were at a physically knowing distance earlier, we never could go beyond being acquaintance. I was spared of his militant religious thoughts and he was blissfully left in peace unburdened by my religious thoughts bordering at times to utter atheism.

When connected on Facebook, my thoughts were as much in his face as his were in mine, to the discomfort of both of us. I understood long back that we both have lived long enough with our respective thoughts and convictions to consider any conversion. But I am not sure he shared the view. The ease of propagating the thought on the Internet probably prompted in him a desire to mould my thoughts and those like me and thereby change the world. I used to be known to slip easily into violent actions when young, but this gentleman, who at that time was quite a good citizen of the small republic of our college, turned out to be quite belligerent in his thoughts. Very soon after we connected, we went into an argument where he proposed that indian army should get into a war with our neighbouring country, and I posited otherwise, proposing that we should take a stringent position without going to a war. He called me unpatriotic and coward in some well camouflaged words, and I did not like it anyways. I thought it was a healthy debate till then as I pointed out that such belligerence seeking soldiers to die on the whims of citizens sitting in our respective comfort zone, me selling technology and he trading stocks. Thankfully, neither of us was in a policy framing mode, but the sudden drop of decency as I was blamed for something which I was all my life sure I never was and never will be was shocking.

I thought about it for some time, then thought about the time when we were together in person and chose never to connect beyond a level. The answer was there, we were never friends, and that was because we were so different. This easy connect on Internet, offered immediate access to my thought and a strife devoid of any sense of mutual respect. The message was clear, I immediately disconnected from being a friend.
I can only share my thoughts with those who I am sure to have some respect for them, even with dissent. Your thoughts are precious, no one should be allowed to trample over them. You are your thoughts.
Thus I resolved to a. Be selective of those I connect on social media, and be ruthless in disconnecting those who are discomforting to my basic beliefs and b. to be selectively with causes, so my anger, my fury on the causes which I follow do not become too discomforting for my own being. It is important to be watchful about the causes your pursue, and not be addicted to an eternal, ever-present sense of disgust and anger. The responsibility to ensure that our causes do not become too common place rests with us, also does the responsibility of maintaining our own sanity.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man- James Joyce- Book Review

Amazon Link 
Some books are an act of education; they cannot be read in haste, cannot be understood in one read. James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man gives one such feeling.
It is a coming of age story of Stephen Dedalus. Nothing extraordinary about that. But then there a rich, slowly flowing lost river of philosophy which moves beneath the surface, turning an ordinary story of a boy growing up, encountering questions about faith, religion and sex, into an exceptional, extraordinary and engaging story. The story moves along the timeline, much in the manner of Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, where the writer is seemingly a passive narrator. Further, while this book is more of a philosophical essay wrapped around a story, Ms. Woolf’s book, on the other hand, is rather a Story primarily, with a philosophical touch. This book is blatantly philosophical, dwelling into the dangerous territory of religion and how a growing mind looks at God. It begins with his school, whe…

Bahubali 2- The Conclusion- Movie Review

We are living in an extremely cause-heavy world where causes - real and imagined cloud our minds. I saw this in the case of the movie - Beauty and The Beast. There the quarrel of the social commentators was that it explored the gay angle of one of the characters only briefly, only fleetingly. There can be nothing more absurd than that. You are demanding more from an artist than possibly he can offer. Art is a profession of lonely persuasion, and it serves the purpose its creator desires it to serve. Nothing more and nothing less. It is sad and unfortunates that the liberals, which in Indian context largely translates to Leftists, insists that art is nothing but a vehicle that should be provided to them for their political agendas and narratives to ride on. It is like insisting that the reference to the Negroes in the "The Great Gatsby" should have been expanded to cover racism in detail. The brief episode was merely to substantiate the character and nothing more. Just as cre…

Resurrecting Hinduism- Without Embarrassment

I have been pondering about the sense of despondency, the sense of shame which has been imposed on the Hindu thoughts in Indian society. Every act of faith has to be explained, justified. When partition happened, Muslims fought and obtained an independent Nation, while the other large chunk of population, which, in spite of numerical supremacy, was subjugated for centuries, got India. In line with inherent openness and flexibility of Hinduism, India became a secular nation. This is a matter of pride, since it acknowledged the basic secular nature of Sanatan Dharm. However, as things would evolve, vested political interests considered India as unfinished agenda standing in the path of a religious empire being built world-wide. Through a well-calculated intellectual conspiracy of neglect and vilification, it came to a stage that modern Hindus where embarrassed of their religion and apologetic of their faith. This neglect also resulted in the religion being left to the guardianship of un…