QotD
(Just substitute “Medium” for “Usenet” to bring it up to date ¹)
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.”
— Eugene Spafford.
Many years ago now (at least 15, I’d say), there came a stage when, having read so much in my life, I found myself able to recognise the kind of artwork applied by publishers to their catalogue and to certain kinds of author and material and, on the basis of the cover alone, began dismissing certain books in advance of reading the blurb on the back — only to find my suspicions subsequently confirmed by said blurb when I, despite my misgivings, read it nevertheless.
Intrigued by the burgeoning sense of recognition, I engaged in a small experiment by purchasing books from a very dangerous bookseller ² … only instead of reading the blurb and putting aside those I thought would be dross, I decided to pick some by their cover instead. At the same time, I similarly purchased a handful that I figured might be halfway decent by virtue of their title/cover alone.
After about six months of this … involving around twelve visits to the shop and purchases of between five and ten books of a variety of different types per visit (I read very fast), ranging from genres with which I was familiar to others I would normally ignore (e.g. Chick Lit)… fiction and non-fiction alike … taking one from each of the categories (good/dross) in each genre at some point during that time⁴ … contrary to the popular aphorism, I found myself able to (alarmingly reliably) judge a book by its cover.
Equally, of late, I have found myself reading essays by people on Medium to the end solely because I’m of the opinion that I should keep an open mind and allow someone to present their entire argument before making a judgement … only to find that my initial assessment, after reading the first paragraph (if even that much), was correct and (irrespective of whether they have any randroid-esque tendencies) their thinking … to be charitable about it … “that of people with the literary sensitivities of 11-year-olds who imagine they have fierce political sophistication.”
And not only is there, rather disconcertingly, a lot more of them about than there has been for a while but, furthermore, they are of increasingly poor quality — never mind the poor grammar and misuse of terminology, or the fact that they are based upon unfounded assertion (no citations needed, apparently), they are internally inconsistent, frequently contradicting their own argument within the space of no more than three paragraphs (if not within the very same one!).
I don’t know.
On the one hand, I approve of the principle of free speech and laud the attitude that everyone should be encouraged to speak their mind, so, let’s give a platform to those whose voices might otherwise be excluded from the public discourse for one reason and/or another. On the other, however, whilst we might not only not lock the crazies at Speakers Corner up but actually provide them with the pulpit of Speakers Corner itself in the first place … their spittle-flecked ravings aren’t published anywhere — Mein Kampf has value as an historical document, not as a work in its own right and, were it not for its place in History, should, rightly, not be in print today (not even on Medium).
My mother obliged me to learn critical thinking skills, whether I liked it or not (aged eight, I had to spontaneously conceive of Solipsism in the middle of a debate, just to get her to shut up and leave me alone rather than spouting further nonsense in lieu of an actual cogent argument) … my father terrified me into keeping my mouth shut unless I was absolutely certain of the veracity of my argument and could back it up with verifiably factual references and irrefutable logic.
The stuff I’m seeing on Medium … with, as I said, alarming frequency of late … often doesn’t even constitute thought, never mind critical thinking. You couldn’t even call it syllogistic … just a sequence of non sequiturs supposedly in support of some infantile proposition that a five-year-old would find the flaws in without any prompting.
e.g.
Person A: “No-one shows up at a protest with a gun, intending to keep the peace.”
Person B: “Possession of a weapon does not by any means imply intent to use it (legally or illegally).”
No?
If, you have no intent of ever using it … even when attacked by a bear … why have you got it then? What’s it for?
No … your use of it may not be premeditated, but you certainly have intent to use it at some point, if you feel it appropriate to do so at the time — otherwise you wouldn’t have one, because there’d be no point.
I’m not suggesting Person B shouldn’t have one, just pointing out that not only have they no leg to stand on, but it takes not even a second’s reflection to see the flaw in their ‘argument’ — seriously … making that kind of argument is just embarrassing yourself (like buying a car you don’t intend to drive, food you don’t intend to eat, or condoms you don’t intend to use).
I don’t know if Humanity has always been this stupid. My mother certainly used to complain that my own generation was ignorant … and I wasn’t too impressed by their ignorance myself … but she didn’t complain about our ability to reason based upon what we did know. But it seems to be increasingly the case that people are not only ignorant but can’t even string two ideas together without completely losing the plot … and, as non sequiturs always make me eat lampshades, I’m beginning to wonder if a box of lizards mightn’t be the solution to the problem.
—
¹ When you’re done, you can, further, substitute “the Web” for “Medium.”
² The kind of place that sells a lot of quality material from a very large range of subjects along with some complete dross as well, at prices that are perfectly set to encourage you to walk out with ten books rather than the three you told yourself you would indulge a modest budget in ³ when you set out — every time.
³ An absolute … outside … “Do I really want to read this book? Really? Really really? Maybe I should put it down for now and keep looking” … maximum of £5 per book.
⁴ You can’t expect me to read two Chick Lit books without a couple of months’ break, let alone in succession, no matter how good one of them might prove to be — I don’t care who Renée Zellweger marries.
⁵ Perhaps unfair (unlike the deluded ravings of QAnon, penises are, after all, a legitimate topic of serious discussion) … but you take my point: it takes a special kind of person to walk around with a sandwich board bearing that legend — a very special kind of person indeed.
