MennoNet.com

Valerie wrote:No, I don't, but his observation is accurate about 'information rage'- unfortunately I witness it on facebook constantly- I wouldn't even be on fb if it not for a few people I need to keep up with there as that is how most people share or message you these days- but the 'rage' is a very accurate word-

Yes, the title "Information rage" is a good one.

Valerie wrote:Kathy Griffen felt holding a bloody 'fake' head of President Trump would be well received for some reason-
And to have a famous actor recently imply assassination of the President-these are true stories-
People like this feel they have a supportive audience out there-discern the times-

And those are true and alarming examples. The shooting at the baseball practice is another true and alarming example. The death threats against this professor - and many news professionals and others - is another true and alarming example.

On my Facebook feed, I see this kind of rage from people on both ends of the political spectrum, sometimes with fake news stories. Rage works for the media, social media, and for politicians. It increases "engagement". But it's terrible for society. In general, I suspect each of us can do more about rage by asking people who largely agree with us to consider what they are doing. The other people aren't listening. Especially not the ones who are spreading rage.

I don't share much on Facebook. When I do share, it is very rarely about politics.

Bootstrap wrote:

appleman2006 wrote:I really do not care which side it is. But the day that I cannot speak out against it will be a sad day. Not in a hateful way. Not in a revengeful way. But hopefully in a way that says things do not have to be this way. There is a better way.

I think the better way is to let them have hearings and wait for the facts to come in. Speaking out now is just letting the media and social media manipulate us.

The college, the local press, and a lot of professors are saying the right-wing media is misrepresenting what he said. His Facebook page is not public, I cannot read what he said in context, but he says he was not calling for violence. He is now facing death threats. The college had to be shut down because of threats of violence.

Fair enough. My source besides what Max had said on here which he said was CNN. was the Washington post which would hardly fit under right wing media. But hey I am very glad he apologized and for the record I am also just as upset that people would make death threats against him.

I hope you believe me when I say, boot, I really don't see 'rage' on the right, in my own facebook friends comments- they are usually addressing the rage of others on the left- honestly- if I did see this, I would address that as well as I believe there is 'righteous anger' as we witnessed in our Lord Jesus- and as He dwells in His followers, we too, will have righteous anger- it may be at a variety of evil, including in our own camps- but I think mostly what Max is bringing out is this change of the commonplace of rage in general, and the influence of those who have a listening audience- many simply, as Jesus said of His accusers "they know not what they are doing"- truly we do not want unbelievers to be held 'eternally' accountable but we also need to be aware, because those with influence will lead young impressionable people astray away from God.

Rage and violence aren't exactly new problems, and our society today is less violent than it used to be - murder rates are not at their peak, for example.

Personally I don't watch TV and our church avoids TV news, and generally I assume what's on TV news is questionably false, or at least isn't the whole story. If I need to be informed on something, there are plenty of sources to read. I avoid reading things that whip up my emotions about things I can't do anything about.

One of my friends thinks most political news falls in the category of sinful gossip. I'm inclined to agree. A preacher told me gossip is when I'm talking about somebody else who isn't there, and I'm not part of the solution, and the person I'm talking to isn't part of the solution.

And that's what this whole situation seems like.

Josh wrote:Rage and violence aren't exactly new problems, and our society today is less violent than it used to be - murder rates are not at their peak, for example.

Personally I don't watch TV and our church avoids TV news, and generally I assume what's on TV news is questionably false, or at least isn't the whole story. If I need to be informed on something, there are plenty of sources to read. I avoid reading things that whip up my emotions about things I can't do anything about.

One of my friends thinks most political news falls in the category of sinful gossip. I'm inclined to agree. A preacher told me gossip is when I'm talking about somebody else who isn't there, and I'm not part of the solution, and the person I'm talking to isn't part of the solution.

And that's what this whole situation seems like.

They are not 'new' of course, but the 'increase' is a sign- Are you familiar with Jesus teachings on discerning the times, what people will be like before His return, and what the Apostles wrote as well about how people will be? It was pointed out that the 'mockers' are the ones who will be saying 'things are always as they were'- just saying-

I've just finished phone calls with some old faculty colleagues.

My colleagues updated me on the cases of social media rage that involved faculty. Many have made national news. Many have not. So far they've counted 57 cases of this behavior.

We are putting together a professional ethics presentation as an inservice that academic entities can use to train faculty. We'll start with a clear definition of academic freedom; how it's not a carte blanche for all behavior; then proceed from there.

It's a beginning.

MaxPC wrote:My colleagues updated me on the cases of social media rage that involved faculty. Many have made national news. Many have not. So far they've counted 57 cases of this behavior.

What criteria are you using for "social media rage"? Are they different from the traditional criteria for hate speech, speech that incites violence, overt discrimination, etc? If so, how, and why?

Most professors deal with this issue regularly, I assume they would have well-defined concepts if they teach in a university.

MaxPC wrote:It's a beginning.

Hmmm, I think most universities are well beyond a beginning on these issues. This is an issue they face every day. Debating controversial issues in a safe way is central to what universities are about. And it looks like Trinity College had responded by the time this came onto our radar on MN.

Might want to start by looking at what universities already have in place.

Truce ?

Sudsy wrote:Truce ?

Sudsy, if not a truce, then at least a calming of these social media outbursts that not only erodes academic credibility; but also seeks to incite violence.

My colleagues who are still within the systems hope to restore the professional ethics training that has disappeared in the past few decades, particularly in the larger public institutions. Having a program designed and ready for presentation will make it easier for the BORs and administrations to implement.

MaxPC wrote:

Sudsy wrote:Truce ?

Sudsy, if not a truce, then at least a calming of these social media outbursts that not only erodes academic credibility; but also seeks to incite violence.

My colleagues who are still within the systems hope to restore the professional ethics training that has disappeared in the past few decades, particularly in the larger public institutions. Having a program designed and ready for presentation will make it easier for the BORs and administrations to implement.

My reference to a 'truce' was an attempt at peace making when it seemed to me the on-going friction between you and Bootstrap continues. My feeble attempt at peace making. If my perception was wrong, both of you, I ask forgiveness.

Moving on, sounds like an interesting program you are into to bring about positive change. Keep us posted on how it is going. It is sad when so many in our culture look up to those who don't act in a 'political correct' way when they use that term to mean degrading comments to 'tell it like it is' are OK. James chapter 3 talks about the power of the tongue and how it cannot be tamed. Although man, to some extent, can be taught control, the ultimate answer is what James calls "wisdom from above" and as James describes this wisdom, I certainly need more of it.