Wednesday, June 15, 2011

What is Facebook, and is it a good, bad, or indifferent thing? (and should you accept my "friend request"?)

"Facebook" (hereafter, fb) is not necessarily good, bad, or indifferent; like so many things in life, it's all in how you interface with it (see this related post) .

fb is an ethereal interface that gives us superficial insights into the lives of other people. There is a broad range of what i call the "level of intimacy" with our "fb friends." this level of intimacy is characterized by the following essential factor:

  • whether or not, and to what extent, you interface with the given "fb friend" in the "real world."
so, perhaps there is a range of intimacy, from 0 to 10:

  • "0" - you don't know this person at all but none-the-less felt compelled to accept his/her friend request
  • "1" - you don't know this person, but this person is a friend of a friend
  • "2" - you don't know this person, but you see their comments on friends' posts and decide that they're cool and then send them a "friend request"
  • "3" - you met this person once at a conference in Vegas five years ago
  • "4" - you've rubbed shoulders with this "cool person" in your industry
  • "4" - you slept with this person in college (two decades ago)
  • "4" - you lived in the same dorm and were good friends with this person in college
  • "5" - you were best friends with this person in high school
  • "6" - you worked with this person at a software start-up in the Valley for two years
  • "6" - you've been in three local theatre productions with this person over the past several years
  • "6" - you work with this person every day in what we call the "daily grind"
  • "7, 8, 9, 10" - ok, now we're getting into the realm of family and people with whom you have a "real" friendship; people who actually exist as a part of your life.

so, you can be "fb friends" with your spouse, with your parents, your children, your siblings and various other family members. you can be "fb friends" with your colleagues at work; with fellow members of professional societies; with fellow parishioners; with fellow actors in your local theatre group; with your neighbors; etc., et al.

there is also representation of geography; that is, friends who live in your neighborhood, your town, your state, and elsewhere.

there is also representation of eras; friends from your childhood; from high-school; from college; from your adult-life.

Some people cross these various characteristics (perhaps you married your high-school sweetheart, for example).

All of these various "levels of intimacy" make for a broad representation of "friends" on your "friends list."

which leads me to ask: do you "filter" your posts, based on who is on your "friends" list? In other words, do you censor yourself on fb? Or do you just try to "be yourself"?

i once read that one of Mark Zuckerberg's goals for fb was to enable people to "just be who they are," no matter the context, in an effort to live less "compartmentalized" lives. i'm paraphrasing here, but the idea is that it requires much more effort, and is far less authentic, to maintain different personas for the various roles we live (husband, father, son, colleague, weekend jock, one of the guys, grassroots organizer, neighbor, parishioner, etc., et al). i like this idea, and i would argue that it is liberating to just "be yourself" and not filter or censor yourself based on how we might be perceived or judged by a broad range of other people. so fb could be a mechanism to break down barriers amongst and between people, however superficially it may begin. or perhaps this is overreaching, i don't know yet.

Then there is the question of how we interface with fb. I myself do not participate in any of the "games" (such as Farmville, etc., et al.) because i am utterly disinterested in said games. Nor do i "poke" anyone (as said poking seems to cross the line of good manners.) My interfacing with fb is limited to posting status updates and the occasional photo or link. This posting of status updates is the strength of fb, i think, because there is such a broad range of the types of status updates i've read.

Perhaps the variety of status updates could be categorized as:

  • utterly innocuous & vapid statements
  • brief quips meant to evoke sympathy, awe, envy or a chuckle
  • deep epiphanies
  • meaningful quotes from religious figures or other public figures, alive or dead
  • mysterious "in-jokes"
  • confessions of idolatry of a specific celebrity
  • requests for advice
  • random, on-the-fly "let's get together "
  • comments on "current events"
  • mini venting sessions
  • sharing about cool new products (aka, mini infomercials)
  • arrangements for flash mobs or other events
  • assessments on whether it was a good\bad\mediocre day
  • humorous observations on the inanity of humanity
  • a sentence or two just to show how clever we are.

these status updates can give us insights into people's lives that we wouldn't have experienced otherwise. getting insight into other people's lives can help us gain insight into our own lives.

in a nutshell, i would maintain that fb is a virtual social interface that can potentially enrich our lives; but that it all depends on how we interface with it. How frequently do we use it? Is it interfering with our "real world" interfacing with actual "live" humans? To what extent do we take it seriously? Are we highly sensitive and susceptible to misinterpreting innocuous comments? (For example, i was not offended when one of my "friends" decided to "unfriend" me when i posted a comment about the book "Go the fuck to sleep.")

fb is what it is because of what each person makes of it.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Musings on "Where I Stand" on Some Issues

What is my “life philosophy”? What are my grounding principles? What are the core tenets that drive my attitudes and behaviors? What are, essentially, my values? I think so many people ponder these questions as they approach middle age. Also, many people wrestle with these core questions as they’ve faced a major life crisis (death of a beloved parent) or a major identity challenge (coming out and living as a gay woman), or another type of major life event (giving birth and co-parenting a daughter). As I’ve pondered and developed my values, what I’ve found is that I am not easily categorized as “a tattoo’d lefty lesbian” or “Weird Christian sicko” or this or that. What I’ve found is that my faith in God helps me immensely with following the Four Agreements: be meticulous with your words, don’t make assumptions, don’t take things personally, and always do your best.

I have found these four agreements to be a life-affirming and highly positive way to live my life. Why does my faith help me follow the four agreements? Because my faith fosters humility and compassion. Because my faith diminishes my ego. Because my faith fosters reverence in something beyond myself. My faith does not make me a dim-witted anti-intellectual lemming. My faith actually diminishes the arrogance that a lack of faith can foster. Instead, my faith fosters these practices of questioning, of pondering the meaning of the “big picture.” And most importantly, my faith challenges me to avoid stridency, to rest assured that I do not have all the answers. The way I practice my faith, I am led to places that I can seek only with an open mind. Stridency, I have found, leads to fundamentalism. And fundamentalism is dangerous, regardless of whether it’s practiced by Christians, Jews, atheists, or Muslims, or whomever. Fundamentalism negates the rich variety of human experience amongst and across our nearly seven billion inhabitants of Earth. Fundamentalism also negates the rich variety of humanity within each person. Fundamentalism fosters a narrow and confining view of “legitimate” beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.

So, where do I stand on “the issues”? My faith has driven me to the following perspectives on the following:

Drug policy – I am firmly against the criminalization of Marijuana. The “war on drugs” has failed, has promoted grotesque violence, and has created and fostered a dangerous black market that has exploited humanity. I believe that we should align our policy on marijuana purchase and consumption along the same lines as alcohol: that is, a controlled, taxed substance, available only to adults 21 years and older. I believe it is inhumane to criminalize a substance that is a medical benefit to those suffering with ailments such as cancer and AIDS. I am neutral on marijuana for recreational purposes. If alcohol is consumed for recreational purposes, I believe that we should stop the hypocrisy and treat marijuana the same way. Decriminalizing marijuana would also drive significant reduction of incarceration rates across our country. I believe that decriminalizing marijuana is a humane and compassionate act. Would we deny a sufferer access to her pharmaceutical pain medications? Of course not; so by what rationale would we deny her a natural substance that is just as efficacious (and perhaps with fewer side effects) as a pain reliever? And who are we to judge how another treats her pain?

Abortion – Ever since I became a parent, my stance on abortion has evolved substantially. I used to be a strident pro-choice feminist fundamentalist. Now, I am what you might call “pro-child” – I do believe that we must hold in utmost reverence every conception. There is an aspect to this debate that I think proves its core nuance; and that is: many aspects of life are unplanned, AND, many aspects of life are unpredictable (despite our “best laid plans” and our frankly tenuous control over our life’s course). That is, sometimes a pregnancy is unplanned. This is a fact. The question is, how do we react to such a fact? With casual disregard, or with utmost reverence for the sanctity of life? I don’t think there’s a whole lot of wiggle room here. Abortion ends a life and all of its potential. The parents must wrestle with the enormity of this fact and all its implications.

Capital punishment – I believe that state-sanctioned killing is appalling and I am utterly against it. Now, I am not saying that evil doesn’t exist; I acknowledge that horrible crimes are committed by truly sick individuals. But I cannot justify killing these individuals, either as a “deterrent,” or as a safe-guard against their escape from prison, or as a safe-guard against an eventual release back into society. If we truly believe the goal of rehabilitation of prisoners, how does killing them rehabilitate them? Or, let’s be frank about the goal: if the goal isn’t rehabilitation but is merely human warehousing, let’s call it what it is. And if we have resorted to the practice of warehousing humans, we have other issues to evaluate.

“Free” Trade – While I firmly believe that Capitalism is the most efficient and benign form of economic system, I do not believe that “just let the markets run themselves” is a mantra that is legitimate. I believe that government market regulations are necessary to rectify the innate unfairness of life. Look folks, life isn’t fair; can we all agree on that? So, government regulations can serve to mitigate the unfairness of life and markets, and discourage exploitation.

Conspicuous consumption / mother earth / “global warming/climate change” – I believe strongly that we must be responsible stewards of our home, planet Earth. What are the aspects of good stewardship? Responsible consumption; being aware of our consumption and how we contribute to potentially wasteful practices. Diminishing a “hoarding” attitude that encourages massive purchasing of goods and often ends up in waste. Fostering a “sharing” attitude that encourages joint purchases of big-ticket items (lawn mowers, etc.). Evaluating ways we can consume less, waste less, share more.

Feminism – to me, feminism is all about opportunity and equal access. Do girls and women have equal opportunity? This question always leads me to education. Women for Women International, an advocacy group for women around the world (especially for women in war-torn countries, the most vulnerable amongst us), has made one of its core endeavors to ensure equal access to education for all girls, across cultures, across socio-economic status. Educated women have much more opportunity to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. And, there is no question that women should receive equal pay for equal work; this is non-negotiable. These are the milestones for which to strive: equal opportunity, equal access to quality education, equal pay. Period.

Gay marriage – this is an issue that, to me, is a no-brainer. Why would we ever discourage two people whom have expressed the willingness and desire to make a life-time commitment to one another? This is a non-trivial commitment that has deep societal implications. I am in favor of extending all marriage laws, benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples. For the contingency against “gay marriage” because it somehow dilutes the “sanctity” of marriage, I would encourage them to instead devote their efforts to outlawing divorce.

Public education – I am a strong advocate of public education; I think we must have a broad and deep perspective on this issue. That is, we must acknowledge that our K-12 public education is the foundation of the next generation of our citizenry. We cannot underestimate the importance of the power of public education to shape our citizenry. I believe we must overhaul our public education system to redefine its goal: that is, the goal of public education is to enable each child to become a responsible, law-abiding, employable, tax-paying citizen. This is a loaded statement; we must facilitate each child’s ability to secure a job that will enable them to earn a living. WE MUST UNDERSTAND THAT EACH PERSON MUST BE ABLE TO EARN A LIVING. This is a tall order for our public education system, but I believe it’s a goal for which we must strive.