After the tragic events that took place in Paris on Nov. 13, I felt more frustrated than ever. I felt sad for the 129 lives that were lost and the hundreds wounded, but my sadness was also for Beirut, Baghdad and other places that have been impacted by recent violence. And by the look of what many posted this weekend on social media, I don’t share this conflict with many other people I have connections with online.
Since I have so many opinions on all-things pertaining to conflict around the world — I am a journalism and international studies major, a minor Arabic studies and a member of UO Beyond War — I constantly think about sharing my thoughts online. I want those who think differently than I do to read about what I have to say. And I want the people I agree with to know I support their opinions.
But I have yet to come to a conclusion on whether it is worth it.
Despite the unfortunate fact that catastrophes occur every day in the world, I was ethically challenged in a different way this week when I saw how popularized the Paris attacks were on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. The pictures, comments and filters flooded my feeds.
People want a great change to happen in the fight against the Islamic State group responsible for these events, as do I, but I was bothered by the fact that ISIS probably knew their perverse message would be taken heavily by the international community — just because it was a city within a first-world country.
I am disappointed that an attack in the City of Lights is what had to happen in order for these types of conversations to start among those I follow and have befriended online. This isn’t the first large-scale attack on humanity by ISIS, so why is it being treated as if it is?
Over the past few days, I have wanted to respectfully comment on people’s posts: “What is it about the Paris attacks that made people want to take so much cyber action that tragedies in other places don’t have? Why is the loss of Parisian lives so much harder to cope with than the death of thousands of Afghans, Yazidis, Palestinians, Iraqis and others around the world?”
I knew how they might respond. I could have easily sparked conversations online about ethnicity, security, politics, religion, stereotypes, classism, racism, patriotism and a variety of other hot-topic issues, but I kept catching myself. Is it worth it? Is it worth the chance that some may not want to participate in a calm cyber conversation with me, but rather feel attacked or offended by my comments? If people feel strongly about my words? Is it worth it to spend my day defending myself in back-and-forth comment threads? Is it worth it to have my feelings and words potentially be toyed with by responses to what I have to say?
We all have the right to form our own, individual opinions on what happens in the world and create a dialogue online with what we have to say. Powerful activism and positive change have occurred as a direct result of people posting their beliefs and experiences on social media.
But when disagreements arise from person to person, this is when cost-analyses need to take place and respect must exist – respect in the form of thoughtfulness and validity in what is being said. We should all agree that there is no need for conflict in person or online. If this were our reality, I wouldn’t question my postings all the time on my social media accounts. But unfortunately, I don’t think we’re all there yet.
 

Gallery • 1 Photos

Photo Credit: Creative Commons