![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I often see things on social media that I want to refute, but as much as I think people should not believe these things, I also think it's best to try to avoid making one's political writing merely reactive to the popular arguments of the day.
For one, they're always being repeated, the same thing over and over, sounding like a broken record. Sometimes this is literal, with the same post being passed around by hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes it's just that different people will write out the same arguments, sometimes nearly word for word. So if most of your political writing is in response to these things, it will also tend to end up sounding boringly repetitive.
Another reason is that most arguments of this type are...not very well-thought out. They're mostly designed to appeal to people who already believe the conclusion, or are looking for any excuse to believe it. Sometimes they're not even an argument at all, but just a declaration. So even if the conclusion is true, the argument for it is often substandard. So intellectually speaking, spending too much time addressing these kinds of things tends to be the equivalent of taking a 101 class you already passed 5 times over again. It doesn't intellectually advance your own understanding of the world in any significant way, and it keeps you from using your own intellectual abilities to their fullest extent to help advance other people's understanding.
Lastly, because these types of responses typically induce a strong emotional response in people who disagree, and because they are typically easy to respond to (and often wrong in unsubtle ways even when the conclusion is true), many, many more qualified people have likely already responded to these arguments numerous times. If you really, really must address these arguments, it's probably best to just link those responses, and not bother with writing your own.
Basically, social media tends to end up using people's anger against them. It's much better to spend time either advancing and refining one's understanding of their own position, or to address a more advanced (and thus likely more neglected) argument against their position. But having to see so many basic arguments one disagrees with and sees obvious flaws in can cause someone to feel like addressing those arguments is the most important thing a person can do to advance their own, when it's typically the least valuable thing a person could be spending time on.
For one, they're always being repeated, the same thing over and over, sounding like a broken record. Sometimes this is literal, with the same post being passed around by hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes it's just that different people will write out the same arguments, sometimes nearly word for word. So if most of your political writing is in response to these things, it will also tend to end up sounding boringly repetitive.
Another reason is that most arguments of this type are...not very well-thought out. They're mostly designed to appeal to people who already believe the conclusion, or are looking for any excuse to believe it. Sometimes they're not even an argument at all, but just a declaration. So even if the conclusion is true, the argument for it is often substandard. So intellectually speaking, spending too much time addressing these kinds of things tends to be the equivalent of taking a 101 class you already passed 5 times over again. It doesn't intellectually advance your own understanding of the world in any significant way, and it keeps you from using your own intellectual abilities to their fullest extent to help advance other people's understanding.
Lastly, because these types of responses typically induce a strong emotional response in people who disagree, and because they are typically easy to respond to (and often wrong in unsubtle ways even when the conclusion is true), many, many more qualified people have likely already responded to these arguments numerous times. If you really, really must address these arguments, it's probably best to just link those responses, and not bother with writing your own.
Basically, social media tends to end up using people's anger against them. It's much better to spend time either advancing and refining one's understanding of their own position, or to address a more advanced (and thus likely more neglected) argument against their position. But having to see so many basic arguments one disagrees with and sees obvious flaws in can cause someone to feel like addressing those arguments is the most important thing a person can do to advance their own, when it's typically the least valuable thing a person could be spending time on.
