4 ms·

That type of direct action on an individual level is definitely valuable but it is also challenging and difficult to scale. The issue you originally brought up

That type of direct action on an individual level is definitely valuable but it is also challenging and difficult to scale. The issue you originally brought up though concerns mass communication on a different level than those individual actions. For example: Is the top of my facebook news feed an article about Daryl Davis (how his methods are helping misguided people and how I might apply or examine those in my own life to gain a better understanding of and more useful role in society) or is the top of my facebook feed an article about how there are many fine people on both sides and that maybe the KKK has a point and I should hear what they have to say?

bjt2n3904 6y ago
I can't speak for what's at the top of your Facebook feed. (I can hardly speak about what's at the top of my own!) This is something beyond my control. It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change. (Especially, I might add, when algorithms control what people see. Even so, when I directly respond to my friends, that's hard for them to ignore!) The only thing I can be in control of, is what comes out of my own mouth. These are the things I believe in and stand for, that I earnestly think have a far better chance of rectifying things like racism, hatred, and our divided nation. Having Facebook and Twitter do the work for us is alluring. But judging by its results so far, I don't think it's working. As Daryl said, he's a musician. Not a trained psychologist. If he can do it, so can you! Where should we invest our efforts? In what has been proven to reduce hatred, but is difficult -- or what we falsely hope will reduce hatred, and is easy?
- shuntress 6y ago
  That is an example. Not a literal description of my facebook feed. >It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change. The point is that these are two separate things that should both happen and should enable each-other in a positive feedback loop. I wouldn't phrase it in as dismissive a way as calling for facebook to "change the channel for me". Rather, I would say that I don't want facebook picking the channel for me in the first place.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

I can't speak for what's at the top of your Facebook feed. (I can hardly speak about what's at the top of my own!) This is something beyond my control. It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change. (Especially, I might add, when algorithms control what people see. Even so, when I directly respond to my friends, that's hard for them to ignore!) The only thing I can be in control of, is what comes out of my own mouth. These are the things I believe in and stand for, that I earnestly think have a far better chance of rectifying things like racism, hatred, and our divided nation. Having Facebook and Twitter do the work for us is alluring. But judging by its results so far, I don't think it's working. As Daryl said, he's a musician. Not a trained psychologist. If he can do it, so can you! Where should we invest our efforts? In what has been proven to reduce hatred, but is difficult -- or what we falsely hope will reduce hatred, and is easy?

shuntress 6y ago
That is an example. Not a literal description of my facebook feed. >It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change. The point is that these are two separate things that should both happen and should enable each-other in a positive feedback loop. I wouldn't phrase it in as dismissive a way as calling for facebook to "change the channel for me". Rather, I would say that I don't want facebook picking the channel for me in the first place.