Social Media keeps everyone more connected; that can’t be denied. It’s also very easy to see when people disagree with something in large numbers. An example of this is the ESPY’s recent decision to give a transgender person the courage award over a young lady who had battled brain cancer, and a military veteran who had lost limbs in battle. Many people who were against it argued that what she did wasn’t courageous in comparison to the other two individuals who were up for the award. I kept seeing #boycotttheespys all around the internet.
I get all of that, it’s understandable how you could feel that way. I’m just confused why we let shows like the ESPY’s give validation to our opinions or thoughts. I don’t know what percentage of people didn’t want the transgender lady to win, but I bet it was relatively high. Ignore the ESPY’s just because it’s a large corporation putting on the event doesn’t mean anything. It’s probably a panel of 5-10 people who ultimately made the decision. The power is still with the general population. The same thing happens when someone wins album of the year, (or doesn’t) at the Grammy’s and there is a big uproar because that album should or should not have won. If it’s uni- versally agreed upon that these award shows don’t mean anything then why do we still give them validation when giving out awards? If you and the majority of the population think Beck had the best album does it even matter what the Grammy’s said? 7 people out of touch with music, looked at album sales, a few reviews of it, and a made a decision. I think the general population gets so caught up in outrage that they overlook the fact that everyone feels the same way they do about a particular topic, and they’re arguing with no one. This is just something to think about the next time something pops up on the internet that you’re tired of seeing. There’s a good chance that you’re not the only one tired of seeing it.. Condoning things is with the people now more than it’s ever been.