I put up an article on here yesterday. It is an article I came across some 10 years ago which I shared with my facebook friends back then. There was a reaction to it. Most people at the time found it funny or somewhat truthful; no one was particularly irritated by the article. You know how facebook reminds you of what you posted this day years ago, that is how I stumbled on the article again. I read it and I felt differently about it than I had felt back when I first read it. I decided I was going to share it on PoiseSocial to see the reaction and compare it to the reaction I got ten years ago. I have been putting off sharing it because I feared what happened will happen. Yesterday, I decided to put it out; I mean no one will kill me for it. The good thing is I got my test results.
Any-Ha!
So when you read, I suggest you start by understanding the writer’s motive for writing because it helps you better make sense of what is written. I agree with the writer that men have lost their cajones. His style of writing and his name suggest that he is either an ex mobster or a wannabe mob life aficionado. It was obvious to me that his bravado and bluntness stem from a need to demonstrate he was cut for that life hence the overarching hyperbole in his piece. It was obviously over-exaggerated.
I am quickly reminded of an article that Wandji Wilfred wrote on here addressing some Mboko Gang members. In trying to make his point, he was also having fun demonstrating his creativity and the amount of sophistication he can bring to his style of writing. To me, it was first of all amazing to see someone put pen to paper in that manner. It was like an artist watching another master at work. It so happened that the main criticisms of the article were not related to his opinion on the gang. He was being reprimanded for writing “big grammar.” - what many used to dismiss the validity of the article.
Back to the article of yesterday, there was also something else that happened which has been happening and which I want to address. A recurring opinion or comment was in the light of “This is not something we expect from PoiseSocial. Poise is known for intellectual content but this is disappointing, etc.” Now, I get it, thanks for holding us to such high esteem but I prefer that you talk about the content and not what you expect from the platform. We have standards and we try to stick to them but when you start telling writers what you want to hear from them, you lose.
I have articles in my computer which I think we can all learn from or which I think can lead us to some very interesting debates but I’m worried just like I was worried about the article of yesterday. In our line of work, sharing a piece of information is not necessarily equal to endorsing it. When it is the case, we make sure to state that.
Finally, when you read, you need to keep an open mind. You need to understand the author’s motive for writing before you can know what to make of what is written. Also, no matter what is written, always cross examine the content against its validity on subject rather than against the character of the writer or your expectations from the writer. There is a reason why writers like Charles Bukowski only got celebrated really late in their lives and even more after they passed. It took them getting old for many to realize the art in what they wrote. He was a sad mad man to many until then. I want you to bear in mind that every writer sometimes adopts a voice other than theirs to add more meaning or color to the message or just to explore their creativity.
Lastly, when you want to over emphasize how much power PoiseSocial has as a platform in a bid to make a case for why we should not share articles you deem toxic to society, we would appreciate it if you shared more often the many articles even you have found to be edifying enough for you to hold us in such high regard.
Have a nice day!
- Tino Foy