Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:56 am
Kamala Harris compared Trump with the little man behind the projection in the Wizard of Oz, but it raises the interesting question of whether the internet has turned civil discourse more generally into an interplay of lots of 'wizards of Oz' behind our computers.
Imo, interactive point-to-point media is a good way to engage in the civil discourse that makes democracy more than just a power game of installing representatives to wrest power from the people. But is the image of the tiny man behind the screen in the Wizard of Oz sufficient to shame people into thinking there's something wrong with engaging in discussion from behind our screens?
Does anyone think it's better to have face-to-face arguments and live meetings where most people can't even get enough time on the podium to fully voice their thoughts and opinions? Or is the democratization of Oz-wizardry a positive development in the evolution of civil discourse?
F2F has been the minority channel in the community of ideas since forever. Be it bards, heralds or Gutenberg bibles. Ideas don’t require it, they stand or fall on their own merits.