How are we expected to make social change possible when we pick and choose our exposure alternate opinion? Welcome to the Echo Chamber.
We’ve all got a certain point in internet arguments where we wonder how people can cling to such obviously false facts. Well, turns out there’s a science to it.
After the Dalai Lama made misogynist comments in an interview, the internet has cancelled him entirely. With Buddhism now destroyed, I ponder what our next stop will be?
Debate in an academic realm is quickly becoming a thing of the past, with studies split by conflict built on assumption, not evidence.
To the rest of us, the Trump supporter is easy to see. A racist, sexist wriggling mass. However, the more we draw them in caricature, the more likely his ilk will return to power.
We’re living through a golden age of satire. But it’s not causing as much change as we think.
We’re all veterans of social media battles fought over reactive predeterminations. However, now that we’ve witnessed the damage, is time to put down our guns?
With the results official, the real challenge is what comes next. While the postal vote split us, it is our responsibility to return as one, to debate.
I’m of the mind that the more Gen Y talks, the less we’re actually saying. We espouse the “how” in favour of the “why,” and the only content born from this is directionless and blunted.