Day 26: Guest Blog #3 Emilee Leach

They say that you should never discuss religion or politics among friends and largely, I agree with that statement. Unless, of course, the friend you're discussing these "taboo" topics with happens to be my third guest blogger, Ms. Emilee Leach. Emilee is my favorite Facebook poster; She's a port of well-researched, level-headed awesome in a sea of mixed-up, one-sided crazy. Emilee is intelligent, articulate, but most importantly, she never fails to make me laugh my arse off. All that and she's a scientist too!

If you don't already know Emilee, you should fix this problem immediately. Start a conversation with her. She's open to new people, new topics, and new opinions. As long as you're not splattering on her wall, of course. Enjoy!

 
The Splatter on the Wall

By: Emilee Leach

From thoughts about current events to religion, social networking sites have become the go-to place to splatter one’s own opinion across their walls, and worse on the walls and posts of others. I use the term splatter because so many rants that I see on Facebook and Twitter, have absolutely no backing and there is no attempt to provide support for the argument; people are simply splattering all over the internet, in a stream of consciousness style, a way that makes me want to do the same to my brain. Not to mention, most are inundated with so many typos and grammatical errors, one has to wonder if that the person only had minutes to live and felt the need to express their final opinion from their deathbed, OF COURSE not having the time to proofread, use proper grammar, or at times make any sense whatsoever. But the fact remains that sadly these people are not dying, only dying to express their unsupported, uninvited opinion on some issue.

To understand where I am coming from and why this is such an infuriating practice, one should know some basic information about me. I am a news junkie, a writer (What? Really?), a science enthusiast, and one of the most outspoken and opinionated person you will have the pleasure or dissatisfaction of meeting (just ask yourself on a scale of 1-10, how narrow-minded are you? Anything over an 8 and I would go with extreme dissatisfaction). Oh right… and should mention that I think I am funny, but that could and has been disputed. I tend to be particularly vocal on issues pertaining to politics, women’s rights, science v. religion, human rights, animal rights, and current stories in the news. So basically, that is everything but what… gardening? Finally and most importantly to the article, I consider myself to be an excellent Facebook debater. And I don’t say this just because I want it to be true. I feel like my proof comes not only from the ridiculous amount of experience with it, but also the fact that my friends inviting me into their conversations when they have an ignoramus splattering all over their page. I believe they know that I can be trusted to do my research, be respectful, and be unrelenting in continuing to participate in the conversation until it has come to an end. Please notice that I did not claim to be a top arguer, because I LOVE a good debate and feel that in most circumstances that it promotes knowledge and understanding between people who do not see eye-to-eye on an issue; however, I find there is absolutely no point in getting in an argument with someone about my beliefs and opinions or theirs.

Because of the increased amount of splattering I have seen as of late, especially over the George Zimmerman case this week, I think it is worth examining some such cases and looking at the lessons that may be applied, according to my newest initiative that I am hereby deeming to be Chat Don’t Splat Act of Facebook 2013 (CDS Act of FB 2013).

 Let’s start with at a great example from last week. I had posted that I was looking forward to it being October, so that I may be able to finally have health insurance through Obamacare. While, I knew I would probably have to take some heat from my Republican friends (who are always more than willing to provide said “heat”), what I did not see coming was this:

“The Obama brotherhood=Muslim brotherhood! He gives more free stuff but some one has got to pay for it. It ain't the rich but the working class. Liberals r socialist. I really hope u don't fall for all the free stuff Obama is giving out cause while one rejoices two or three or more r working their ass off to pay for it in sweat and tears. But if u do I'm not mad at ya. I'm just sayin.”

Ok. Great. I am just sayin’… SPLAT!!!! 

Lessons to be applied as they pertain to the CDP FB Act of 2013:

          

   1.) Making an outrageous claim, using insulting and poorly written language, and finalizing with a condescending statement are not ways that going to help me understand your point. It only makes me want to call you an idiot and move on with my life.

         

   2.) I recognize that we all have differing levels of education, especially in the English department. That being said, it should be noted that it is not a crime to TRY to speak proper English, especially if you want someone to be able to understand where you are coming from on a political issue with which you are attempting to disagree. I KNOW that you know how to spell “you”…again… just sayin’.

I bring up education because segues perfectly into the next part of the discussion in regards the ways that one should not splatter. This is a great example because it addresses both the education issue and the religious aspect of the discussion. It was actually a continuation of the rant that had started with the Muslim Brotherhood. In this part of our long, painful, yet pointless conversation he had asked me my beliefs. I tried desperately to get around it several times, but as he kept probing, I eventually told him it was based in realm of science and that I thought the Bible had a lot of really positive messages about how to treat one and other, and also that I personally felt as though Jesus was a notable historical figure, a philanthropist and a humanitarian, which per his response was taken as me somehow defending the Bible. (Note: I really shouldn’t have gotten into this one, such a waste of time and over 100 comments.) Anyhow here’s the response:

“U made me feel stupid because u r double minded. Your foundation is your own and can either go one way when it suits u or the other when it suits u. U say u seek truth, but who's truth. U say Jesus is a humanitarian like u like him but then u call him a lier. What's up with that. U say u believe in creation but then say that god could not have spoken it into being like the word says. U r half way on the fence here do u see why I'm flustered at u right now. U bark at me to not speak of this stuff cause u know u have no foundation and half way truths fall apart. The word of God exposes u for who u r. Case in point. I'm sorry but truth is truth right”.

More lessons to be applied as they pertain to the CDP FB Act of 2013:

             

     3.) When did I say I believed in “creation” (ism?) and when did I call Jesus a liar? Oh yeah. I didn’t. Read what someone says before responding. Please. It is hard to have a debate when you spend half the time debating over what was has been said. All I am asking for, in this case, is that before contributing your random splatter onto a post that you please first read the comment to which you are splattering, I mean responding. Should I even have to point this out? No. But sadly, I do. It may seem like common sense; however, in my experience this is something that people do WAY too often.

             
   4.) Accept my right to believe in a different religion and please respect that I am NOT looking to be converted. Why can you not empathize with this? It would seem to me that your beliefs make you insanely desperate to show your love and ever dying devotion on a person’s page that you barely even
know… so why can you not just be happy with your very correct and unwavering opinion and leave mine alone.  In short - “Thou shalt not proselytize on Facebook”.

These are just four simple examples of why we need the anti-splatter regulation, as addressed by the rules of the CDS Act of FB 2013. Just abiding by these four suggestions could provide some type solace from all the the idiotic splatter and honestly make the internet a better place for all (who care to be involved in intelligent conversation).

Two more quickies to consider in regard to name-calling:

* Don’t call Democrats - Obama-loving, drone kissing, socialist, welfare-loving, baby killing liberals.

* Don’t call Republicans – Bush-lovin’, women hating, bible thumping, pro-life gun crazies.

It makes you sound ignorant. More or less, I find it similar to calling someone a “stupid-face” on the playground.

There will always be those who will break the laws outlined in the CDS Act of Facebook 2013 and will continue to make Facebook and the internet a less-intelligent/enjoyable place to interact with each other. I would be delusional if I really thought EVERYONE would actually post well-researched, respectful, intelligent ideas on my page and the page of others. 

But seriously, how nice would that be?