I don't know if anyone else is crackling with toxic energy right now, but that's how I often feel during a major news cycle steeped in violence and uncertainty.
It makes me want to argue with the wind, doomscroll, go down rabbit holes...
A bunch of useless reactivity, in other words.
If you meditate, hug loved ones, have nature or prayer or nap and a snack to turn to... give yourself that good medicine.
The world will still have enough suck to go around when you're less fired up. I promise.
@MLClark Whenever that shit happens, I've learned to turn my empathy dial waaaaaaay down, my logic dial way up, and my acceptance of Realpolitik principles up to 11; then most things don't bother me nearly as much.
The remainder - things so heinous/troubling that they do still bother me even while my empathy is in sleep mode - often have solutions that would be pretty straightforward if more people did the same thing.
Sadly, it seems evil often wins because good refuses to seize opportunities.
I just wrote on a slice of the history of realpolitik last week. It's not as robust a theory of action as one might think, and this is not an empathy issue.
This is an "uptick of disinformation in my circles" issue. This is an issue of news cycles determining how much bullpucky I'm going to be fielding personally for the next while, and having to make judicious choices with respect to if and when I respond to the nonsense in my correspondence for the next few days.
The real issue is that I actually know how to do research on these issues, but I have many in my circles who are credulous af about whatever they see online, and don't understand that all wars are infowars.
So the journalistic researcher in me does find itself leaping to corroboration mode a lot when I know I'm going to be fielding junk in my immediate purview for the next while.
The *rest* of me does not benefit from that derailed attention and energy, though. Ergo the post.
@MLClark I think with the rise of AI, that's going to get a lot worse as time goes on rather than getting better.
I worry eventually it'll get to a point where it's no longer possible at all to verify what's true and what's not, regardless of how much skill and effort goes into it.
Absolutely agreed, all warfare is information warfare - morale can be more important than hard power, both in militaries and civilian government; if you lack the will to fight, you cannot defeat your enemy.
100% agreed, Torin.
There's also the behavioural component of "indifference to seeking truth". It's not exactly right to say that many people lack media literacy; many people are simply disinterested in having their initial assumptions challenged.
So there's an issue with surging deepfakes, but also with those who only care about the deepfakes that don't support their views.
And thank you for showing up with your initial thoughts and suggestions, too. It was a kind gesture. 🤗
@MLClark That indifference to seeking truth is something I've always found frightening - encountering it feels so alien, frustrating, and deeply *wrong* it's hard to express, particularly when it pervades most or all of a given individual's beliefs.
I still haven't really figured out how to reliably resolve division, or at least reach an amicable disagreement, through understanding in the face of pervasive indifference; feels like trying to sympathize with a vacuum and reason with a brick wall.
I'm reminded of this astute piece by Rob Horning two weeks ago, when he reflected on the importance of remembering how many different kinds of "fake" information we let into our life all the time.
We have to "stay with the trouble", as Donna Haraway famously wrote in a different context. Quick fixes might not exist, but wrestling with the problem still helps us to stay sharp in a discourse that pushes disillusionment and simplistic answers.
