Tag Archives: Twitter

It’s All Straw

The Twitterverse exploded this morning because of a tweet by Pope Francis: ”My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost.”  Many of my fellow conservatives in particular were infuriated that the Holy Father would appear to lay the blame for unemployment at the feet of capitalism, which is not in fact what he was saying.   Yet in writing what he did, the Pope called attention to something which many devout Christians in the Western world regularly forget: this life will end, and sooner than you think.

Before we begin, a bit of history should be kept in mind here by conservatives who are hopping mad at the Holy Father today, and who will then jump for joy at what he might tweet next week.   Pope Francis was not advocating some sort of socialist economic model, or saying that capitalism is the work of the Devil.  Keep in mind that he was the Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenos Aires until just a few weeks ago.  If you know anything of what has happened to Argentina economically and politically over the past decade, the Pope is all too well-aware of the impact of various economic theories and practices.  Moreover, he was certainly no ally of the current populist-socialist President of Argentina, who imagines herself some sort of Kmart version of Eva Perón.

There are many areas of overlap between conservatism and Christianity, but there are also many areas of tension.  While recently a number of Christian denominations have adopted a policy of going along to get along, with regard to various societal and political issues, the Catholic Church remains immovable on a number of fundamental points, as she has for the past two thousand years of her existence.  One of those points is that love of both God and neighbor is the basis for the truly Christian life.  And while not in principle against the possession of wealth, the Christian does not make its pursuit his reason for living.

As we heard in the Gospel reading at mass this past Sunday, “‘I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.  This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.’ ” (St. John 13:34-35)

Nothing the Pope tweeted today was new, as you can see here for example, from two sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which point to the inherent dangers of both atheist socialism AND unfettered capitalism:

2124  The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.”  Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

2424    A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.  A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.  Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. “You cannot serve God and Mammon.”

Secular materialism is not an illness confined only to those who practice socialism.  There are many conservatives, including those who call themselves Christians, who bow and worship at the feet of people like economists and market gurus, leaving God out of the picture entirely, or relegating Him to some sort of secondary place in their lives.  This is a very dangerous path to tread, and a choice which Catholics believe has eternal consequences.

In St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, the Apostle to the Gentiles lays out, very simply, why the pursuit of wealth leads nowhere:

For we brought nothing into the world, just as we shall not be able to take anything out of it.
If we have food and clothing, we shall be content with that.
Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.
For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

(1 Timothy 6:7-10)

Please note, no one is saying that wealth is something which is inherently evil.  After all, the ministry of Christ Himself, and later that of the Apostles and the Church, would have been impossible without the material support of those Christians with the means to help.  Rather wealth is a tool, and what one does with that tool, for good or for ill, will give lie to what is really important in one’s life.  For in the end, no matter how much wealth one creates or accumulates, we are, all of us, worm food.

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike are familiar with the prolific medieval writer St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers of the Church.  One of my favorite passages from his copious output - and be assured I have not even read 1/100th of it – is something which I not infrequently recall to myself.  It is useful to keep in mind both when things go wrong in life, but also when things are going well.

While celebrating mass one day in 1273, St. Thomas apparently received a mystical vision of Heaven; as a result, he stopped writing to prepare himself spiritually to go home to the Lord.  ”All that I have written seems like straw to me,” he is reported to have said, in response to urges from others that he resume writing, “compared to what has been revealed to me.”  St. Thomas was by no means rejecting the work he had already done, nor its value to those whom it had helped and indeed continues to help to this day.  Rather he realized that all he had been working on and doing in the material world paled in comparison to what was coming across the great divide, and knew that he had to prepare himself for it, even as close as he was to God.

The fact is that the Pope is right.  Many times hard-working people find themselves unemployed not because they are lazy, or because they are doing a poor job, but because the wealthy chose to protect their own fortunes, and not care for their struggling workers.  This is not a blanket statement, nor an endorsement of trade unionism or forcible wealth distribution.  Rather it is a simple fact of life: these things do happen, and are happening all the time, all over the world.

The Pope is also correct in reminding us of the inherent human tendency of selfishness, and this is why Christianity, which is founded on a Divine act of loving unselfishness, is not as easy a Faith to take on as many of us would like to believe.  The Catholic Church was built on sacrifice and blood, both of Christ’s on Calvary, and of the countless martyrs who suffered torture and death rather than submit to selfishness and sin.  Human beings never like to be reminded of the fact that we are sinners; we all like to think that we are, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, nice folks.  The truth is that under the right circumstances, we will not only take whatever we can from one another, but we will actually relish doing it – and that is what makes self-sacrifice such a very hard thing to achieve.

Thus Pope Francis’ job, lest those reading this forget it, is not to help the Republicans take over the Senate or lower the cost of crude oil.  The Holy Father is on Twitter not to chit-chat, but to get as many people to Heaven as he can.  You may not have thought about that, when you posted your snarky comment about the Pope this morning, but there it is.  He is trying to teach us both by word and by example what it means to be a Christian.  Sometimes that instruction is easily palatable, and sometimes we find it bitter and difficult to swallow.

For at the end of your life, God will not care whether you had 100 or 100,000 Twitter followers, or whether a celebrity re-tweeted you, or whether you appeared on Twitchy, BuzzFeed, or any other aggregate site.  Nor for that matter will He care whether you died a rich man or a poor one.   Rather, when you die and go before Him, you are going to have to show Him that you loved Him, as He loved you, and that you demonstrated that love in the way you treated other people, sacrificing your own comforts to meet someone else’s needs, in imitation of the same self-sacrificial love that Christ demonstrated to His followers.

Remember that, as He Himself pointed out, the Son of Man had nowhere to lay His head.  He was laid on a bed of straw which did not belong to Him at His birth, and He was laid in a rock tomb which did not belong to Him at His death, and from which He rose on Easter Sunday.   So now would be a good time to ask yourself, if you were angry at the Pope today, whether you are so detached from the world and materialism as to remember that if you are a Christian, these three things are more important to you than absolutely anything whatsoever having to do with the economy.  You are not made for this world, but for the next.

Tomasso

Detail of “The Vision of St. Thomas Aquinas” by Santi de Tito (1593)
San Marco, Florence

10 Comments

Filed under culture

I’m Auctioning Off My 100,000th Tweet for Charity

If you follow me on Twitter, then you may be aware that after several years on said social media site I am rapidly approaching my 100,000th tweet.  Normally this would be an achievement of dubious distinction – though I am friendly with people who have had two and three times as many tweets.  However I have decided to put this opportunity to good use.

Thanks to a suggestion from my good friend, the redoubtable American Papist, I am going to auction off my 100,00th tweet for charity.

Here are the rules:

1.  I will reserve my 100,00th tweet for the auction winner, and will post whatever tweet you want.  Your only restrictions are to please keep it clean, unoffensive, and under 140 characters.

2.  Think creatively! For example, you might want me to wish someone a happy birthday or anniversary; promote your business or blog, or just have me say something amusing and unexpected.  You are only limited by your imagination and by generally accepted standards of good taste.  The resulting tweet will reach not only my Twitter followers, but also readers of my blogs, and listeners to the Catholic Weekend show.

3.  Bids are in $5.00 increments.

4.  To bid, please tweet to me at @wbdnewton using the hashtag #100KBilly.  If you are not on Twitter, get someone who is to bid on your behalf.  You will then be able to do a search for that hashtag or look on my timeline to see what the current high bid is.

5.  For the sake of clarity, I will also periodically announce the highest current bid both on Twitter and via updates on this blog post.

6.  The auction will end at 12:01 AM Eastern on this coming Saturday, February 9, 2013.

7.  The winner will be announced on the “Catholic Weekend” show at 10:00 AM Eastern on Saturday, February 9, 2013, as well as on Twitter and this blog.

8.  The charity to benefit must be one which we can both agree to.  Ideally I would like to help a Catholic charitable organization, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have homes for the elderly poor in cities around the U.S. and all over the world.

Even if in the end my tweets are only worth two or three bids, I will be beyond happy.  To have the opportunity to help out a worthy cause in a creative way, rather than just let this moment pass by, is a great privilege.  Thank you in advance both for your readership, and for your generosity to those in need.

LSotP

The Little Sisters of the Poor care for the impoverished and elderly
in many cities across the U.S. and around the world

+++++

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/7/13 6:30 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/albertagooner/status/299633028207087617

Current High Bid: $150.00

———-

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/7/13 4:00 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/PatGohn/status/299620996636356608

Current High Bid: $100.00

———-

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/6/13 6:30 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/annie3592/status/299278232870592512

Current High Bid: $75.00

———-

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/6/13 5:00 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/mariannasipod/status/299260614692438016

Current High Bid: $60.00

———-

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/6/13 1:30 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/mariannasipod/status/299212743507050497

Current High Bid: $50.00

———-

AUCTION UPDATE: 2/6/13 12:00 pm Eastern

Current Leader: https://twitter.com/bymags/status/299182762664005632

Current High Bid:  $25.00

2 Comments

Filed under culture

Pulling Heartstrings on Social Media

Sometimes I may not appreciate being told what to do, but I always resent being told how I ought to feel.  Yet on a daily basis, in matters large and small, I find myself being told that I must have emotional reactions to things as grave as the civil war in Syria, or as trivial as which brand of loo paper will better my life, all couched in the same terms.  Whether you realize it or not, gentle reader, this insidious type of manipulation is happening to you as well, all the time. Only now, it is not only happening in print or television media, but in your social media world as well.

Yesterday afternoon, barring some unforeseen intervention, a dog who shall remain nameless was put down at an animal shelter which shall also remain nameless. Admittedly this is not some new occurrence: it happens every day, all over the United States and indeed around the world.  I only know about it because someone placed this information in my social media timeline. Yet what truly struck me was not so much the plight of the dog, but rather the way in which I learnt of her impending doom.

For you see, the shelter housing the dog tweeted out that unless the dog was rescued by a certain time yesterday afternoon, the dog would be destroyed. This tweet included a picture and brief description of the dog, as well as contact information should the person who saw the tweet decide to save the dog’s life.  Needless to say, I found this rather dramatic.

As an experiment, I decided to share the tweet and see what sort of responses it elicited from my followers.  I asked those who cared to respond what they thought about this tweet, but I did not include any editorial comments of my own.  Rather, I wanted to see what sort of reactions I would receive from a cross-section of people. Admittedly this was not a scientific poll nor a carefully controlled survey, but the results are still instructive.

Reactions were split almost exactly into two equal camps. Half of the respondents were moved by pity to say that the tweet emotionally affected them, and were saddened by their inability to do anything to help the dog. These ranged from expressions of wanting to adopt the dog if they could, to feelings of heartbreak, concern, and so on. I did not have the heart to point out that a visit to the shelter’s profile page would reveal that there were, in fact, dozens of other dogs with the same sad story of nearing death unless they were adopted by a certain deadline.

Others, however, had quite a different reaction to this tweet, including at least one dog owner.

One described the tweet as “cheap” and “sensational”. They felt that the attempt failed to make them feel guilty, however, though they could not explain why it had failed. Another compared the shelter unfavorably to those who post images of dead people on social media to shock people and attract attention for a particular cause, while another said they had never seen anything like it on Twitter before, and did not appreciate it. Still another described the tweet as merely “crass emotional manipulation”.

What was particularly interesting was the fact that some of those whose strongest emotional reaction was pity did not at first appear to realize the effect the impending deadline had on them.  Once this was pointed out to them, upon further reflection several suddenly realized that they were being manipulated. Once they had accepted that there was nothing they could do for the dog, and their initial sense of sorrow for the dog had given way to rationality, they recognized that they had been “handled”.

To my mind, there is something rather more macabre about announcing that you will be killing an animal, than simply doing it quietly. It reminds me a bit of posting a bill at a place of execution such as Tyburn in London, saying that so-and-so will be hanged, drawn, and quartered by order of Bad Queen Bess on such-and-such a day, should you care to come along and bring a picnic lunch. Though of course there is a very important difference here, and that is that animals, much as we may love them, are not human beings. To react to the putting down of a dog as something akin to execution is to hold an imbalanced view one’s place in the natural order.

More to the point of this piece however, this is an example of how a group of people can have completely different reactions to the same information, based on how that information is presented to them. Both editorial boards and advertising agencies have understood for a long time that by playing the emotional heartstrings, the public can be manipulated into doing whatever you want, whether it is selling newspapers to start a war, or asking people to watch a monkey throw excrement from behind a screen. William Randolph Hearst built San Simeon as a result of the former, and Piers Morgan is on CNN because of the latter.

Despite the supposed media-savvy nature of those of us who are Gen-X and younger, Americans are still far too easily influenced by those who whip up an emotional overreaction on the part of their target audience. This is nothing new, of course, for examples abound in American history. Yet so often we focus on national and international issues, analyzing what a pundit or a politician means in a major speech, that we miss the more mundane forms of that level of manipulation when we come across them in daily life.

Therefore pay attention in your social media, gentle reader, the next time you read a tweet or see a post that makes you feel emotional. All human beings feel emotions, but not all emotional reactions are ultimately beneficial. Take the time to ask yourself: do I really agree with what I am being asked to do or believe, here? For oftentimes you will discover that the rational, adult reaction is to take a deep breath, and not allow yourself to be manipulated.

Sargent
“Marionettes” by John Singer Sargent (1903)
Private Collection

5 Comments

Filed under culture

Social Media and the Sluggard

If you’re a regular reader of these pages you know that I often look at new and social media in the same light that I do art, film, and so on, questioning whether there are some problems we need to be aware of.  To wit.: a friend recently shared this rather lengthy, but very much worth-reading article from The Atlantic, which asks what anyone who uses social media asks themselves, at some point, if they are honest.  Namely, are sites like Facebook actually making us feel more lonely? As a jumping-off point for a bit of reflection, the question is extremely useful in the broader consideration of whether social media actually makes us lazier than we ought to be.

What do most individuals put out on social media sites like Facebook about themselves, as opposed to their simply commenting on the events of the day? As the author of The Atlantic piece points out, most of us tend to share happy pictures of ourselves, family and friends doing wonderful things.  The net effect of this, intentional or not, is to say, “Look how wonderful things are for me!”  Rarely does one see pictures of babies waking up covered in their own excretions at 3:00 a.m., and screaming until the entire house wakes up, for example.

There are certainly people who use their social media accounts to one-up other people, by saying, “Isn’t my boyfriend/job/lifestyle/car/etc. more fabulous than yours?”  There’s even a half-joking hashtag on Twitter, #BeJealous, which is quite literally daring people to despise the person using it.  The intent may be humorous, but unless what is being talked about is so awful that it is clearly meant as a burst of humor – e.g., “Fixing a hair-clogged drain #BeJealous” – sometimes we can’t help but indeed feel a bit jealous, and perhaps a bit less well-disposed toward the person who made us feel that way.

Going to social media to find some support and comfort can be a good, temporary means of pouring balm on our wounds when we need it.  Yet the more time people spend focused on their unhappiness via social media, the more unlikely it is that they will act to improve their life.  They will become more and more sluggish, the more they find an audience willing to indulge them in their unhappiness.

I should point out that we are not talking here about people suffering from clinical depression, who need to seek professional help. Rather, I mean the kind of people whom Kyle Scheele talks about in his book, those people who need to find a way to turn off the television – or indeed, the social media platform – and actually interact with the people whom they live and work with, instead of criticizing their life or the people on it (or not in it.)  For there is a definite escapist element to social media which can reinforce some of the worst aspects of our personality, if we are not on guard against it.

It seems many people are creating a world of broader but shallower friendships in social media, as The Atlantic piece rightly points out.  We spend more and more time talking to more and more people whom we do not actually know, about all sorts of things. And in the process, perhaps imperceptibly at first, we are spending less and less time in the company of people whom we do.  For those already susceptible to this sheltering aspect of social media, i.e., people who are shy or lonely by nature, it may at first seem to be a wonderful outlet, but this is only the case if they use it as a tool to create with and build upon, rather than as a substitute for human relationships.

Life has its wonderful moments, but quite a good deal of the time it is simply a slog.  And like that fact or not, social media is simply no substitute for action on what needs to be done in life, however unpleasant or difficult it may be. We do not win any real points in the human race by having more followers, or more posts, than someone else, but rather by the quality of the relationships we develop, and the people whom we help and interact with in real life.

Social media can connect people who can aid and encourage each other, but it can also encourage lethargy, envy, and self-absorption. Taking a step back every now and then, in order to make sure your real life is in order with respect to the people actually in it, is a good thing.  Indeed, it is going to be more beneficial than reinforcing the tendency to sluggishness which all human beings have, and which can be reinforced by an over-dependence on social media.

Detail of “The  Sluggard” by Frederick, Lord Leighton (1890)
Minneapolis Institute of Fine Arts

Leave a Comment

Filed under culture

Avoiding Disaster in Social Media

Social media is an area of our culture that at times seems about to sink under its own weight, even as it continues to grow in wealth and influence. With the news that Facebook is paying a ridiculous sum of $1 billion for internet photo site Instagram, and the well-deserved, accompanying backlash of ridicule that followed, it was inevitable that someone had to ask: when did Facebook lose its cachet? John Sutter over at CNN attempts to address this question, in a piece published this morning looking at various factors including growth, size, and corporate policies, that have changed public perceptions of the company.

Yet as well-thought-out as this piece is, no one seems to be looking at the underlying problem: the proverbial iceberg, if you will.  I refer to the point of social media in the first place, and the bad messages arising from childhood and from pure hedonism which social media oftentimes seems to reinforce.  I hope the reader will bear with me as I take him on what may be, at times, a rather choppy voyage.

Sites like Facebook often reinforce the kind of flawed logic which many users of my generation and younger had drilled into their brains by those in authority over us during our childhood.  We were all assured by our elders that everyone is somehow “special”.  The truth is that this type of placating platitude – telling little Jimmy that he is not an uncoordinated couch potato, even though no one wants him on their baseball team, or comforting little Suzy over the fact that she is not pretty enough to get on prom court – does not really do anyone any good.  It creates a culture in which everyone considers themselves to be somehow uniquely gifted and entitled to succeed in the material world, when this cannot possibly be achieved in all cases.

Teaching one’s children or students that they can achieve literally any goal they set for themselves, if only they want it hard enough, is tantamount to psychological child abuse.  Encouragement needs to be tempered both by realism, and by an honest assessment of the goal itself.  Having the most lavish sweet sixteen party *EVER*, or getting 1,000 “likes” on Facebook, is hardly an achievement for the ages.  This sort of achievement is predominantly an exercise in the kind of nonsense which has brought us into the cultural mudpit in which we now shamelessly wallow in porcine glee, with young people unable to read, write, or perform basic arithmetic.  And social media is unquestionably a major supplier of this sort of muck: visit a site like Facebook or Twitter any day of the week, and you will not only witness spelling mistakes that would make Sister Mary Margaret roll over in her grave, but also profoundly disturbing displays of ignorance, such as whether the sinking of the Titanic was an actual event.

Now, before I am accused of unrestrained misanthropy in my views, allow me to make a couple of points. I have no issue with encouraging young people to do well, even if the odds are against them, or pointing out that they must focus on doing their best.  We see amazing achievements all the time from people born into the most difficult circumstances, whether they suffer from poverty, a physical malady, a broken home, etc., that might otherwise hold them back.  However, what we need to question is what the end goal of such encouragement ought to be, and what exactly we are motivating our children to strive for.  We do this by questioning ourselves, in the process.

What social media sites like Facebook do, at least in part, is distract us from the fact that we are all headed to the coffin, and that the vast majority of us will be forgotten within a generation or two – perhaps sooner – even within our own families.  Ask yourself when was the last time you thought about that uncle who died twenty years ago, or try to recall when and where your late grandmother was born, and you will see what I mean.  Then imagine what will happen with your friends, who have no blood ties to you at all. Are you still friends with all of the people you played with when you were small? Do you think the grandchildren of your current group of friends will know or care about you, when you are gone?

Not to put a damper on things, but social media lends itself to frivolity a great deal of the time, in encouraging a kind of disposable culture where everyone is allowed to be famous, but no one actually achieves anything worthy of fame or emulation.  As an entertainment it is fine, as far as it goes, but for many it seems to be the exclusive reason why they make use of such technology.  It is as if the only time one stopped in at a library or museum was because it was a place to relieve oneself while on the way to somewhere else.

This is not to ask what good come out of Menlo Park, of course, for good certainly can and does.  Via social media you can learn more about the world, and meet people with whom you may act to make the world better, even if only in a small way.  While it is not some sort of charitable association, a site like Facebook does allow us the opportunity to be of service to others, in ways which might not be possible in real life.  This is something all of us no doubt have experienced, whether in reaching out to someone we do not actually know in person to offer assistance, or connecting people who are trying to work toward a laudable, common goal.

The reason to be a part of a social media site like Facebook has to be something more than the assumption that since virtually everyone else I know is on Facebook, therefore I must be on Facebook as well.  That kind of reasoning, after all, is the same used to justify the formation of a suicide pact.  Being a part of a group or a community can be a good thing, if the goal of that group or community is positive.  It seems to me very unlikely that those who approach a social media site with the goal of becoming popular merely for the sake of accumulation, rather than contribution, are going to find their experience to be of any lasting benefit – and indeed, the experience could actually do them more harm than good.

The humility to accept the fact that few of us are so very special, at least in the eyes of the world, and that our goals while in this world ought to be to try to do good for others employing the abilities we have each been given, rather than in simply promoting ourselves, is after all what helped build Western civilization.  Our loss of focus on that fact is one of the primary reasons why we see our culture sinking back into a kind of pedestrian narcissism, where the goal is to have others look at us for the sake of it, rather than trying to attract attention in order to encourage aid to the needy, the fostering of knowledge, and so on, thereby to build up our culture again from its present decayed and crumbling state.  Whether or not you choose to stay on Facebook, or move to another social media site, try to ask yourself exactly what you are hoping to achieve by being involved with such media: if there is nothing for you to be gained other than the attention of others, to no real purpose, then perhaps you are wasting your time, as well as everyone else’s, or simply helping to steer our culture toward a more disastrous breakdown.

Advert for Vinolia Otto Soap on R.M.S. Titanic by Unknown Illustrator (1912)

Leave a Comment

Filed under culture