With Facebook and other social media outlets finally getting some heat for allowing the perpetuation of false facts, poorly-researched articles, and, well, blatant propaganda, at least some people have taken a moment to reflect on the power of words to shape our thoughts and actions. And the reflection comes with the question of whether we are surrounding ourselves with the right kinds of words. Are we basing our ideas on facts rather than fiction? Are we being swayed by others around us rather than standing with our individual principles? Are we allowing emotion to dictate what we want to believe?

I've noticed that even when people are called out for endorsing fiction, they refuse to admit they are wrong. With the advent of social media and biased blogs and "opinion news," we can easily build ourselves into a bubble of information that only further affirms our worldviews.

Here's my take on several things that are driving the way we think and communicate with each other, for better or for worse...

Social media: In 2006, Facebook only had 12 million monthly users, and it was only 2 years old; the concept of social media was still being molded. No Instagram or Snapchat yet -- no iPhones yet, either. No #blacklivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter and #alllivesmatter duking it out over Twitter. Our main source of news was still the paper and television. Today, Facebook has 1.23 billion monthly users. Think of your last family reunion; have you ever made it through without someone butting heads with someone, or someone feeling annoyed at the brush of a shoulder or getting snubbed in ways inscrutable to the snubber, or Aunty Betty saying something off color, or a circle of cousins interjecting while Uncle Jack inaccurately tells a story? Now amplify that daily by the millions or monthly by the billions. Amplify that on every possible social media platform out there. Amplify that with every questionable news site that has sprouted up like poison ivy, and every meme that spouts unchecked facts and has a 500-thread argument between strangers raging beneath it. Social media is still a way we share pictures and good stories and positive messages, but it is also now a place where we exchange news (credible or not) and opinion, especially on issues we care deeply about.

Do you think this might make everyone a little tense? Do you think it might cause people to feel existential angst? Insecure about who they are and what they believe, so that when others contradict it, they become inflamed and offended, and they quickly surf their favorite news source to find an article that reaffirms their worldview?

Conversation has become physically easier but theoretically more difficult. 

The advent of the smartphone: The first generation iPhone came out in 2007. Today, nearly 68% of American adults have smartphones, which means the majority of us has access to video cameras, partnered with the ability to instantly publish any footage -- from our cell phones or surveillance videos, etc -- on youtube, blogs, and social media. The white-dominated media used to edit clips and frame each story to make sense of it for its majority audiences, but today, the average person has access to raw materials and thousands of different ways to frame each story. In return, people have learned to shop for their favorite interpretation.

Take a look at how the mass public handled the stories of Eric Garner. John Crawford. Tamir Rice. Terence Crutcher. Do you think that type of injustice wasn't happening before? If so, what a magical unicorn cloud you must have been living on. Those who don't want to admit there is a problem grasp for a satisfactory way to make sense of it all. Suddenly, clear evidence is up for debate; we are a jury of 242 million. People find a news sources that frame things to their liking, or they come up with stories like It wasn't this bad before we had a black president or This is just Liberal America fanning the flames. But it's right there in front of us, a tragedy playing on loop but each time with a different victim. I’ve heard people point to "black on black crime” as if this is some context that makes police brutality and poor police training excusable; as if being the same color makes murder less tragic; as if civilian violence is the same problem as a police officer abusing power; as if it insults them that we now must talk about this.

In summary, there is a dueling nature to having such access to the raw story: while it is good to have more "frames" to our news stories, it can also be dangerous when news sites are not reporting the full story in order to perpetuate a comforting narrative for its audiences.

What's more, with smartphones it has not only become easier to access evidence, but it is also easier to share our opinions almost as quickly as they pop in our heads. This means spreading information quickly without necessarily thinking deeply about it.

The addition of more news sources is a good and bad thing. The big news media is notorious for creating panic, slanting its reporting to influence policy or agenda, and so on. It's good that there is more competition now. But it's truly a negative thing that so much of the competition has become unchecked. So much of what I have investigated, from BreitBart to Jezebel, is simply atrocious journalism.

Controversy for profit: Let's not forget that our news industry, which is ever-growing and increasingly more competitive in the Internet age, thrives on controversy. When we are angry and afraid and at each other's throats, the bait is ripe for the clicking. Isn't that evident already? So when the shooting of an unarmed black man is straightforwardly unethical and devastating, it is better for those profiting if we argue about it.

Humans are stubborn in their arguments. When we feel we are being attacked, we are unwilling to hear our attacker's point of view. That is why, currently, an "attack" narrative is fueling our discourse, if you could call it that.

Today there is a lot of dysfunctional dialogue, but there is also meaningful momentum. On a more positive note, these changes have also allowed (1) a platform for a multitude of voices that can speak to what is life in America, and those uncensored voices can be amplified when they are determined; (2) the ability to produce evidence of injustice, lay it out for all to see, so that there is no logical denial of what happened to Tamir Rice and Terence Crutcher, and we can demand accountability or changes in procedure and policy where it once was overlooked; (3) a more competitive news world to challenge our former framing and one-sided narratives -- a sea of information that can push our country forward if we figure out how to use it better.

​But that's the key: we must figure out how to use it better. In the name of a better, more informed society, I ask that you challenge yourself more. Read opinion pieces that challenge your worldview, and not for the sake of posting an angry comment in response. Read balanced, nonpartisan studies about evidence-based practices that will contribute to a better world (ALWAYS question who is funding each study, what the objectives might be, and whether it was a reliable method of collecting data). Stay off of Facebook for your news. If you find that something you are reading is making you angry, ask yourself why -- is it because you feel challenged, that the truth is difficult to hear, or that it is not factual (if so, check those facts!)? Steer clear of opinion pieces regarding policy, and read straight-forward articles about what is going on in the world. Push yourself to think for yourself. Get into arguments for the sake of understanding others and with the hope that others are willing to try to understand you. Let's stop the foolish commotion that has overtaken us in this information age, everybody.

My long-winded argument aside, it's not a bad idea to take a moment to root for love. Play a game of cards with your family, go somewhere you can dance to loud music that drowns out the politics; sing with your mother in the car and ask your cousins about their health and happiness. Go on living out and internally checking your convictions despite many people who might loathe them. Remember that all humans suffer from myopia and egocentrism, including me, myself, and I. Learn that you can be friends with someone who contradicts so much of who you are or aspire to be, yet still makes you laugh and see beautiful things in the world. Appreciate that there is more to being human than being right.

In recent days, we have witnessed vengeful burning. Sobbing. Sopping. People shaking their fists and people shaking them right back. The list of names - bigot, racist, sexist, xenophobe, xylophone, hammer, what? - dictated to deaf ears, no dialogue to ensue. The new information splurged, like who are his top picks for Cabinet, and the collective groan. The hysteria and the understandable worrying. The tactful idiot and the sloppy arguer who attempts to deconstruct ideas through grammar correction. The rant and the one-word posts like "Revolution" and "Done."

And finally, there are the ones essentially saying: Go down with grace, Liberals!! We sure wouldn't have (not with a rigged election, of course!), but we just don't want the same behavior from you, the crazy, emotional Left!

I don't know which fight to pick: the blatant hypocrisy, or the fact that the Right has long ruled solely on emotion-based politics (see: Trump's fear-laden campaign. For further reference, see: War on Drugs. McCarthyism. Barry Goldwater. Ho!).

Instead, to distract from the real issues at hand, I shall pick a fight about this meme, which someone I know gleaned from The Conservative Post:

2016 might have been the year of realizing that people you love have morbidly different opinions than you. 2016 was also the year that you didn't want to come to terms with that. It was the year of shutting your eyes and throwing punches, hoping they impact the right place -- or, in other words, it was the year of pontificating on social media through ill-researched memes, pretending we had answers and that those answers were going to land on the correct ears and somehow transform the world. 

It was, and still is, a shit show.

Maybe what makes me angry about this meme, or whatever you'd call it, is that it is inaccurately hitting close to a truth. We have become a little soppy about how things make us feel -- something Conservatives flail around and cry about constantly. Our soppiness is also known as political correctness. College campuses are at the forefront of teaching people how to talk about sexual assault, substance use disorder, race, gender versus sex, and so on, as well as promoting awareness of the marginalized perspective. I do realize that the language that has emerged (for instance, cisgender or binary) is threatening to people who are new to it. No one wants to feel stupid. And it can be marginalizing for those who have not undergone the elite training in how to be politically correct. But come on, we also live in an age where it is pretty easy to learn more if you are so compelled. Learning new things is just like masturbation: you only need the Internet and an open mind. Okay now, only kidding. We politically-correct people like to make a joke once in a while.

For those who feel marginalized by an approach that is specifically meant to de-marginalize the marginalized, I'll break it down in two paragraphs. Political correctness begins with understanding that a certain voice (particularly white and male and heterosexual and cisgender, but not always. Please, just for a moment be rational and think about our history) has dominated the conversation for a long, long time, and other voices that have been talked over are asking for respect and space to be heard equally. I know this is an uncomfortable conversation for people who possess a so-called dominant voice. You must recognize that the "dominant" voice has long failed to consider that marginalized people have more authoritative knowledge about certain issues -- such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. We know we can't coddle everyone or always say the right thing, but it is not a negative thing to teach people how to communicate effectively cross-culturally. It is not to say that words are more important than action, or that honest and open dialogue is forbidden; it is to teach us that certain assumptions we make can further marginalize those who deserve to be equals at the table. And sometimes - no, often - our opinion IS unnecessary, because so often we speak without really asking ourselves, "Am I really an authority on this? How would I know? Why am I not listening to other people who have first-hand experience?" Politically incorrect is a white person mockingly shouting "ALL LIVES MATTER" to a scared African American mother who fears for her son's life whenever he leaves the house because STATISTICALLY he is more likely to be killed by police than his white peers. Statistics aside, you should recognize her personal experience is valid.

In sum: It's difficult yet possible to learn how to be less of an idiot about others' feelings. I didn't like it when people used to tell me I was "gross" because I have cystic fibrosis. Such experiences did not make me identify as a victim, but I will say that I found it helpful when the age of political correctness kept coworkers from prying into my private life with questions like, "Do you always breath so heavy? Are you going to die? Isn't CF that disease with all the PHLEGM!!??" That is because political correctness is not about celebrating victimhood, as many people have construed it to be. Bottom line, it is about learning how to communicate better with people who didn't grow up in the same silo. I don't see the harm in that, as long as it is not obstructing productive dialogue. And certainly, there are people who can get over-analytical or extreme about this all. But don't miss the forest for the trees.

Speaking of productive: Rather than griping about the "sore losers" in this election, it might be more productive to consider why this particular election was so substantial, resulting in the "whiny" uproar. I don't think it is whiny for my friend to voice worry over the fact that her entire family will likely be deported. How would you feel if you were in her position? There are thousands of American children of immigrants who will end up in foster care. We have a privately-run internment system that is already violating human rights, and Trump's plan to overload the system will only make it worse. How whiny we are! I don't think it is whiny that women are sharing their experiences of sexual assault that they have encountered since the president-elect set the tone that men can "grab pussy" without permission. I don't think it is whiny that Muslims are afraid that their basic Constitutional rights may be stripped because Trump and much of his electorate have never educated themselves on Islam, or ISIS for that matter -- two very different things, everybody. I don't think it is whiny for people with disabilities to fear they may lose their medical coverage. For me, I may have to watch as a new administration undoes all the evidence-based progress we have made in criminal justice reforms, while they operate in the name of Fear and Tough on Crime Politics (these approaches, by the way, have already been tried and empirically proven ineffective and an expensive burden on taxpayers. Ironic that Conservatives are in support, isn't it?). I shouldn't go on, because I am sure that anyone who disagrees has stopped reading by now, and anyone who agrees and decided they can't help but keep reading this rant & ramble already knows what I am talking about.

I think we sound "whiny" to Conservatives because they are sick and tired of not listening. It takes a lot of energy to block people out, especially as they become more vocal in this age of political correctness. We must be exhausting.

Back on track. The meme above. What bothers me most about this Conservative Post post is the fact that 18 year olds ARE still dying at war. They are, in fact, VOLUNTARILY enlisting to fight for your freedom while you fart around on the Internet all day. They are dying in Mosul right now, as we sit and flap our mouths. 

Finally, we are faced with the utterly illogical argument in the meme above. Just because a college student hasn't gone to war doesn't mean his or her opinion isn't valid; nor does it mean he or she does not know suffering. When I was in college, everyone appeared casual and carefree on the outside, but that didn't mean they lacked wisdom. I had friends who had endured cancer and serious personal loss. I knew many who had fled civil war and genocide, witnessed neighbors blown up in front of them. Others had served the US, or were in the reserves. Others had admirable compassion for the people around them, and they knew how to respect others who were different from them. They committed their time tirelessly to public service and improving their communities.

Besides, don't we wish less suffering on the generations that follow us? Don't we want better things for our children and grandchildren? Why does it make sense, then, to disregard their voice if they haven't experienced the mind-shattering sacrifice of combat? This only makes sense if one believes that nothing a college kid says is valid to begin with, which is irritatingly circular and myopic if you ask me.