Oops, did it again with my latest entry. Had more fun with rhetoric, and didn’t really care about reason. If people aren’t paying attention, they can be swayed by really shoddy reasoning. That’s an argument against real-time opinion gathering…

Imagine a debate between two presidential candidates. Imagine a TV with full interactivity. Imagine the candidates being judged in real-time by the people, with bar graphs in the corner of your screen. One candidate tells a lie. The people don’t know. It’s a real zinger, and the approval shows in the graphs.

Usually, you don’t even have to resort to lying. The way you frame an argument can totally confound an opponent, even if your argument wouldn’t make sense under further scrutiny.

So, further scrutiny. That’s one thing the world just has too little of. With the faster news cycles, there’s no time to analyze anything anymore. You post your opinion right away before the news story becomes stale. As a result, your opinion is not as solid as it could be. You miss a lot in order to get a point across.

Of course, no one cares, the debate dies before it can be resolved because another debate arises too quickly. Nothing ever gets solved anymore.

Must we agree to disagree? Then, how does the world move forward? You convince enough people to your side to overpower the other?

“It’s all about perception.” That’s one of my guiding Post-It notes. Does it even matter if I resort to rhetoric instead of reason? Do people care?

Well, I care. This weblog is a medium for experimentation and self-improvement. If I make a mistake, I’ll call myself out on it and make changes. Even if the news story is stale.

I’m wondering how I should go about things now. Should I hold off with my opinions, form them, revise, and then finally post? Or, should this process be transparent? Should I engage in a debate with myself?

This is a weblog. A place for experimentation. The first option I’ve done for years: It’s called an essay.

Let’s see what’s behind door number two.