The past two weeks have been another weird, yet not unexpectedly chaotic time in the news cycle as we watch the media spin and report on a new state of Georgia election law. The state has been working to make elections more secure while simultaneously making them more accessible to as many registered voters as possible. In the end, the misinformation flying around the interwebs is daunting, hard to decipher, and mostly slanted in a partisan direction depending on the source of information, be it social media or more traditional sources.
The most egregious commentary comes from social media, and has been breathtakingly inaccurate. So much so, that it has led major corporations and even sports associations to make decisions based on erroneous information, instead of doing their own research. In the end, we are watching a psychological and sociological experiment in real time.
But the bigger problem we face with this information stream has been the need to verify and validate the information being presented to us, even while arguing the merits of a story, or a given piece of verifiable information. There are two problems with the modern glut of information at our fingertips through search engines and databases; one is the idea there is subjectivity to truth and fact, and two that people have become lazy in conducting their own research and education. Information has now become a weapon and the art of conversation and debate has taken a back seat to likes, mentions, retweets, and internet clout.
I have seen a version of the following argument placed before me in some of my internet “conversations” this past week, especially when I presented questions to either verify or clarify a statement or get more information: “google it yourself.” This is one of the laziest retorts I have ever been presented with and it frustrates me to no end.
Here is why.
It is easier to make an unfounded and false statement in a 280-character Twitter post, or post a petty meme on Facebook, than it is to take some time to research and develop a logical, cogent argument to a posted question or inquiry. During a couple of these conversations, I have asked for any number of reasons explaining why the new Georgia law will prevent minority communities from accessing the polls or being able to vote, or how it is voter suppression compared to other states, and the answers I have received have either been regurgitated media talking points, or “Google it.”
Google it. Yes, this is when my patience ran thin. Right or wrong (and I will never say I have not said this myself, but moving forward I will not), I began to push back. I began to ask for information backing up their assertions or clarifying their position. When someone tells me to “Google it” myself, I begin to question the validity of someone’s argument, as well as the reasoning and logic of the argument they are making. Many times in the conversations i engage in, I ask questions to clarify, not to refute. I want to try and understand someone’s point of view first before I ever start to discuss or give a differing point of view. It is a process I have worked hard on for years and one I will continue to pursue and perfect. I believe it is imperative to good conversation skills and trust building, while also vital to effective communication and problem solving, as well as being invaluable to learning and educating oneself.
I call this problem the Google Theory of Debate. This conversation and rhetorical theory states that as the number of questions on a given subject or argument increases, the availability of information to support said given argument decreases at a near exponential rate and leads to outward frustration, with the possibility of vitriol and social media blocking. Use of the statement “google it” or “research it yourself” is strictly a way to avoid having to answer and defend a position that may be erroneous or misstated, and usually leads the person being asked to frustration as they learn that an argument is flawed. It is natural human reaction to not want to be wrong, but the anger and vitriol associated with this theory, from what I have observed and experienced, has been exacerbated by the keyboard warrior mindset where we don’t have to look a human being in the eye. This is making conversation a dangerous prospect and ripe for ridicule and disdain.
Our ability to converse and debate is becoming an ancient skill that will hopefully never become obsolete.
Reality Politics 