what sort of society do we promote when a social media site becomes the primary means of discourse? What does it say about us and our values?

I recall reading "letters to the editor" that my father would write to our local paper when I was a kid. If he had something "political" to say, he would say it via the "Brighton Argus". He took great pains to make sure what he wrote was accurate, well written and well thought out. He then had to submit it to the paper in hopes that it would be run. Today, anybody can post there political thoughts to Facebook, or any other social media site or aggregator. More people may read your feminist friends posts than read my fathers letters to the editor.

what sort of society do we promote when a social media site becomes the primary means of discourse?

I thought this post by khaaan does a nice job of humorously pointing out what social media does, it makes everyone feel like a pundit, an artist, someone with something to say that is worth hearing. Social media just seems to simplify and amplify. It's easier to write that "letter to the editor" and you can potentially reach more people. Everyone loves a microphone.

I understand that people have a penchent for forming uneducated opinions, but before facebook they just never talked about it.

Yes they did, they just didn't do it in an online setting so you didn't have to be subject to it (you still don't). They did it around dinner tables, at soccer games, over a beer etc. They couldn't write the editor for every opinion they had but they could espouse those opinions in any social setting. If you didn't like the opinion they were championing you could stop hanging out with them, not sit next to them at the soccer game and stop drinking that beer. Same goes for Facebook, yet on FB people seem less likely to "unfriend" than they are in real life -strange, isn't it?

Also, the status that set this off was an image macro of Dwight. The rough transcript is "There are women's studies but no men's studies? False. Men's studies is called history."

I think mk had a comment that summarized my feeling on this quite well because I think you can fit gender in to his response as well -Here it is in context, but he wrote:

Personally, I dislike any type of "pride in heritage". IMO your pride should begin and end at your accomplishments and the nature of your character. I hope that someday all unions of-conditions-that-you-were-born-into will seem an archaic absurdity. Tribalism is one of our worst, and yet most celebrated, traits.