 |
| I declare a Twitter war! (Image: ikkevold.no) |
I get it, the views of those on social media don't fully reflect on the world we're living in today - but their voices are getting louder, and it's being echoed by influencers such as politicians and newspapers. Perhaps my evidence is anecdotal, but those who I particularly follow on Twitter don't have the measured views on politics and current affairs as they used to. They're getting more extreme, more severe and increasingly malicious. I don't know where I stand anymore.
Please don't get the violins out. My views haven't particularly changed and the crazy world of social media won't stop me to express myself, and I'm sure neither has the majority of people. Yet, the solutions offered to various contentious stories, which get the most attention, are the ones that finger point and expose.
Who have we been finger pointing at lately? Oxfam comes to mind. It's a charity most of us know through the grapevine. Many of us have supported them in some capacity through donating unwanted clothes to their shops, or monthly donations. They support millions living in extreme poverty around the world. However recently, their squeaky-clean reputation has been completely tarnished by a series of wild allegations surrounding inappropriate behaviours of aid workers.
 |
| Oxfam executives (Image: County Times) |
The reports that came out about the charity were tough to read. Those who were paid to look after the disadvantaged took advantage of those they were meant to care for. It doesn't look good on paper. Things were fuelled when their UK CEO, Mark Goldring, downplayed the situation by saying, and I'll paraphrase, 'It's not as if we've killed children'.
As a supporter of the charity - through clothes giving and one-off donations - I had hoped this story would blow over. When the story first broke, I instantly thought 'Well, that's a setback for Oxfam. I should hope that the stupidity of a small number of staff wouldn't overshadow the great work the charity does as a whole'. I was completely wrong.
We've seen celebrities such as actress Minnie Driver dissociated themselves, and Goldring confirms 7,000 people have officially followed suit. The Charity Commission find themselves involved and the government have decided not to fund them until they've full confidence in the organisation's running. I'm certain, after I publish this, things will escalate further.
Unfortunately, I found myself more surprised by people's reaction to the Oxfam 'scandal' than I was of the drama itself. While it is damning of the charity to cover this crisis up, social media went in total meltdown. There were cries of Oxfam's UK CEO to resign and calls for the charity to stop supporting new people. Or, if you're Katie Hopkins, urge people to support charity Save the Children by texting 'CASTRATETHEBASTARDS'.
Of course, none of these emotional comments are going to help the fortunes of Oxfam and the people they support. Make no mistake, the charity has dug itself into a deep hole. Yet, whatever decision they make from this moment on, is the right one for them and their invaluable services. We all like to think we know what's best for them, but that's far from the truth because we're not involved in their daily comings and goings.
 |
| Kate Middleton at BAFTAs (Image: Express) |
But it's the 'Time's Up' supporters who sent the Duchess to the doghouse because of her choice of dress. How dare she! I don't understand the argument that she 'disrespected' those women who felt their freedoms were lost when being harassed or forced to do something they didn't want to do, simply so they were guaranteed a career advance. I'd like to think the Duchess made her decision to dress what she liked without being forced or harassed.
Ultimately, from these events I mentioned, there are clear themes. Firstly, there isn't a sense of optimism or genuine praise without cynicism and pessimism. Secondly, those who have opposing views tend to dismiss the other for being a label. If social media was your life, you're either 'a leftie', to describe those who have so-called left-wing views, or 'a far right fanatic', to describe those who have so-called right-wing views. It's an easy form of attack to say someone belongs to a particular wing as it gives them a sense of entitlement to the 'wing' which they feel they resonate with.
Labelling others because they have differing views to yours won't make them see your point of view. Equally, it won't provide solutions that would satisfy anyone. With the situation concerning Britain leaving the European Union for example, the views we're consuming are either 'stop Brexit altogether' or 'we're leaving every union associated with Europe, get over it'. In America, they're averaging a mass-shooting every other day. The so-called 'right-wing' are hugely protective of the Second Amendment (the right to hold arms) and think everyone should have one, while the 'lefties' - and Piers Morgan - want a total crackdown. I'm with the latter on this argument, but I respect those who disagree. If only others did too as the war of words on social media is exhausting to digest.
It's great that everyone has a unique perspective on how the world should be, however shouting at each other without substance isn't going to solve the global problems. We're drifting away from accepting each other and towards a situation where we judge people by the number of characters they type. For example, I'm sure columnists Owen Jones and Julia Hartley-Brewer can get along like a house on fire. They probably are good friends. The point is, you can have varying points of view of how Britain should leave the European Union or how the Duchess of Cambridge should dress during a night out, but these don't define you as a human. Quite the contrary. Drop the 'wings', stop treating it as a defensive mechanism and talk without prejudice. Is it that difficult?
Comments
Post a Comment