Crying wolf: on having too many opinions

Though midterms are looming, last week Princeton students endured the first real storm of the season, the tail end of Hurricane Joaquin. With everyone confined to their bedroom for the two days of downpours, Yik-yak was saturated with one-liners about “Netflix and chill” and other complaints or celebrations of getting “wet.”

In typical impassioned college student fashion, some students took the heavenly seepage a little more seriously. In particular, some were outraged, and perhaps justifiably so, that the University watered the grass after the University received more than 6 inches of natural precipitation, as covered in Beni Snow’scolumnlast week. Now Beni is absolutely correct that it was a waste of water. It is true that such actions are not in line with the University’s stated efforts to move towards sustainability. And it may be that there really does need to be broad analysis, critique, and reform of the University’s groundwork, energy, and water usage practices.

However, in this case the student became upset over an automated watering system that, by and large, is not a serious problem on campus. It is likely that during the storm a grounds worker was simply so drowned in other work, which the rain caused, that he forgot to turn off the sprinklers. Although it is not an ideal situation, is it really worth of such fierce condemnation.

What I am trying to say is that pointing fingers whenever things are not ideal is futile. Yes, there are real issues on campus and around the world that deserve our attention. But simply finding fault in every move our friends, the University or government or President make will not do anyone or anything any good. By flooding our ears and numbing readers with an endless flow of complaints, critiques and calls for reform, keyboard warriors can often do more harm than good.

When at each turn we have a new complaint, a new outrage or a new outcry for reform, our voice loses significance; We become the boy who cried wolf. When we pay attention to anything we grant it a certain dignity and respect. The mere act of talking about a subject carries with it the assumption that the matter is important enough to be spoken about, and thus worthy of our time.

Certain matters are simply not worth addressing. Not because such issues do not have any significance, but rather because focusing on such issues will divert attention from more important matters. At the end of the day, we have a limited amount of time and voice to raise and we should allocate it to issues where it will be most effective.

Raising attention to inconveniences only trivializes our voice. When fundamentalist Christians on Facebook complain about how gay-marriage is unconstitutional, they neglect the heart of their message of redemption which this country sorely needs. When Republicans continuously spew about how Donald Trump is derailing their election, they fail to reflect their own vision for this country. When we constantly call attention to matters which most sane people would just role their eyes over, matters that neither demand our immediate attention nor are worth being mindful of for a prolonged period of time, we quickly undermine our own voice.

At least the boy who cried wolf had a legitimate fear, for there are real wolves and dangers around us. We are worse than that. We are the boy who cries worm, hooting and hollering over the things that, while inconvenient, no one truly cares about. When our cry and call for help is no longer indicative of genuine danger, we lose our ability to use our voices to fight for causes that matter.

While “Keyboard warriors,” hyperactive and aggressive Facebook users who post long-winded statuses, are often seen as the most likely to be oversensitive, we are all guilty of this problem. The press, this paper and perhaps even this article are equally guilty of the same mistake when it operates under a policy of “all press is good press.” When such organizations care more for their quarterly readership statistics than whether it is truly informing and educating its readers, they do a disservice to the public they claim to serve. In the United States the media enjoys incredible freedom; but what sort of use do they put this freedom to? We use our megaphone not to call attention to real problems on campus and around the world but to simply “stir the pot,” to attract readership.

Fifty years ago, in his commencement speech at Harvard, Nobel Prize laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn called the press out on it’s verbal vomiting, noting how many superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed in the papers every day. In his view, “people have the right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk.” Whether it’s a during a midterm, on your Facebook page, or at your desk as you write for your University newspaper, think before you raise a fuss. In the words of,George Saunders,”Turn that megaphone down, and insist that what’s said through it be as precise, intelligent and humane as possible.” Sometimes it really is just water under the bridge.