I’ll admit it. I like to receive “likes” for what I post. And I can see the usefulness of rating products and services. But we all need to keep these things in perspective. There is an episode of “Black Mirror” in which real-time ratings determined everyone’s social status. Enough “stars” provided a better job, a promotion, or a raise, as well as permission to associate with desirable people – others with high ratings. In short, one could hang out with the cool kids, while those with too few stars were consigned to lead a miserable life with others who didn’t measure up. The problem is the more ratings a person accumulates, the more difficult it becomes to raise the average. So, everyone must constantly angle for the best ratings, even if they are forced to compromise their integrity, dignity, or self-respect to do so. In this scenario, life is all about pleasing others.
I’ve seen too many posts in social media shared to “own” the opposition, to garner “likes” from the like-minded. I have seen memes presented, not for their truth or accuracy, but to offer up a cherry-picked bit of information confirming the poster’s status or beliefs. The thinking is crooked on many levels – with abundant either-or fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusions, over-generalizations, “Texas sharpshooter” and straw-man arguments, and “no true Scotsman” assertions. Yet, the goal is the same: demonstrate approval (or outrage) for the right things and get approval from those who agree. We are expected to like what our tribe likes and hate what they hate.
But expressing approval is not the same as working to improve something. People say things to appear to be “righteous” when they might be better off just going out and doing righteous things. Even so, there remains the problem of figuring out what “righteousness” is. If a person wants to “defend the Constitution,” it’s probably a good idea to have studied it at length before jumping to conclusions about the “right” way to defend it. If a person wishes to support “freedom and justice for all,” it’s probably a good idea to stop talking about freedom for our side but not theirs. And it’s always a good idea to acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of all persons, not just claim rights for our side and leave the responsibilities to the other side.
The overarching question of likes and stars has to do with who we are seeking to impress. If we seek the approval of this or that group, it seems to me we are mistaken. I once heard a sermon in which the main point was that what took place in the service should not be intended to please the congregation, or the minister, or the musicians, or anyone other than God. Now, you don’t need to believe in God to hold your words and thoughts to a higher standard. Are those words and thoughts, the things we share, compatible with the words and thoughts of God, the embodiment of our highest concepts of ethics and straight-thinking? Or are we sharing them just to get likes? Would a higher being find them acceptable? Do our words and thoughts reflect good humor, respect, truth, helpfulness, and fairness, or are they just a means to something more selfish?
“May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to You, Lord…”
– Psalm 19:14
MurrayWorks 