I avoid talking politics like I avoid lava. I’m probably asking to get burned even writing this little nugget.
In my last post, I talked about things that are culturally/socially depressing. Now, I’d like to coin a better term. I thought about what to call this for five whole minutes so I hope you like it.
So·cio·tard·ed:
(noun)
- Instance or phenomenon where mankind behaves embarrassingly on a large scale.
(adjective)
- Describing instance or phenomenon where mankind behaves embarrassingly on a large scale.
But how does one know if something is Sociotarded? I’m glad you asked.
If you’d be embarrassed to be a member of the human race in the event that you were selected to explain a cultural/social phenomenon to a technologically advanced alien species, it’s probably safe to label said ‘phenomenon’ as sociotarded.
I’m still not sure, could you use it in a sentence? Hey, no problem man, I relish the opportunity to be a smart ass.
The conservative/liberal dichotomy in the United States is sociotarded.
Wow, I bet that was a fortunate segue to the rest of this post? This entry only needs one smart ass.
Yes. It’s staggering to me that all discussion of social issues starts with pointing a finger at conservative or liberal politics. Are all these countless articles just meant as entertainment pieces? So people who already agree with the writer can press the like button and spam their various social media feeds with articles that bolster support for their opinion? If so, this is sociotarded in and of its self.(hmm..sociotardation?)
I fail to believe that these authors have any desire to sway individuals of opposing opinions. One can’t imagine that they are accomplishing something worthwhile by starting an article with “the problem with liberal politics [X]” or “because of the conservative bias [Y].” In addition, you can’t really imagine that you, the reader of said article, accomplishes anything by sharing it.
If the underlying motivation behind your article/post is an attempt to appeal to a certain demographic, then you immediately sacrifice any attempt to convince your readers of anything. You accomplish the opposite, you push those who might have been swayed away and cause them to bolster their support for their conflicting opinion. At best your start an argument. Since we all learned this on kindergarten playgrounds (I’m not saying anything anyone doesn’t already know), it begs the question of why the practice continues.
Is the individual or entity publishing the piece insecure about their opinion, so they begin their piece in a defensive manner subconsciously? Sociotarded
Is the writer’s only intention to gain followers from a specific demographic? So they appeal to that demographic while intentionally offending other demographics? This is an effective marketing maneuver with the side effect of creating social polarization. (not to mention its clearly morally bankrupt). Sociotarded
Are these writer’s intentionally creating vitriol between two opposing opinions? Was that the goal from the start? Who does this benefit? What is the value gained in doing so? Discuss among yourselves.
I was driving down the street the other day, listening to the radio, and I had to turn it off. I don’t even remember the issue being discussed. What jumped into my head was so simple preschooler’s probably think it. The problem with Washington is that it’s filled with republicans and democrats. Labeling the range of human opinion into two opposing factions is sociotarded. It’s like trying to label the range of human emotion as good or evil. The result of doing so is to take a fact and turn it into an artificial opinion:
Fact: Lust can lead to sex.
Opinion: It’s evil when lust leads to sex.
Sigh. Why do you always bore us with the obvious when getting to your point?
If you can’t write an article without a belligerent attempt to appeal to a bias, don’t write it. You aren’t doing anyone any one any good. If you read an article specifically designed to do what I’m describing, don’t share it, as you only propagate the problem and make the strategy effective. Writers: Research facts as best you can, state a conclusion if you see one, but if you can’t resist the urge to express that conclusion in a way specifically designed to make someone feel stupid, then you’ve already invalidated your own opinion.
If you find an article that does its best to state the facts without appealing to a bias: LIKE AND SHARE THE SHIT OUT OF IT. You’ll know if you have found such an article when you get to the end and find you aren’t sure if you would “label” the writer as one demographic or another.
If you find and article that actually changed your opinion about an issue without appealing to a demographic, then HOLY CRAP, don’t just like and share the shit out of, link it in the comments because I want to read it.
Additional (1): I am aware the word retard is not politically correct. Socio-special just didn’t feel as catchy.
Additional (2): I am probably guilty of the very thing I am describing above, I can only hope to be mindful of it moving forward.
Additional (3): That I live in a Era where I can choose which bias I get my news from scares the crap out of me. #sociotarded
Additional (4): In the event this pissed anyone off, I’ll be hiding from you.