Recently, I made a rare Facebook visit to see what I had "missed." I read a post by a friend on her page. She was lamenting the way people behaved when she and others responded to "friend’s" postings regarding a perennially controversial, touchstone, social, and political issue. Many of the responders to her posting reflected the basic idea that they "just keep scrolling until you see a cat video" (paraphrasing). I was so troubled by the way that thoughtful people are cowed into silence, from civil dissent and conversation, (cowed – manipulated by fear of threats, violence, etc.; intimidated). Such silence threatens our Republic and culture.
Civil dialectic and verbal intercourse are highly stimulating. They excite the mind to learn, investigate, and grow as a person benefiting the whole of society. Free societies only exist through the basic rights of free speech, the right to own property, the right to self-protection, etc. The willful silencing of those who civilly dissent is a threat to all free societies.
During the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s colleges and even high schools taught debating. People would compete for school pride with other schools in debate events. All students were taught refined skills of civil debate. Those skills armed them with a practiced ability to interact with the world at large which regularly presents them with dissenting beliefs and opinions. Since then there has been a subtle retreat from free discussion and debate. Two entire generations have lost the skill of deep, civil, verbal discourse. The evidence of that deficit is obvious in nearly every corner of today’s Western society.
Civil dissent is not expressed through blocking traffic, breaking shop windows, burning vehicles, or threatening violence against the opposition. If people devolve into such behavior, their opposition, over time, will lose their patience and composure. They will eventually respond in kind. We need civil discourse to maintain a civil society, not sound bites, shallow rhetoric, or “gotcha moments.” The only way that controversial issues will be resolved is for both parties to honestly cooperate in a DIALECTIC thoughtful discourse. The outcome is not a winner and a loser, it is the correct resolution, supported by implacable facts.
Sadly, modern mass media and academia has inundated Western culture with an endless stream of images with the intent to normalize the behaviors of a subset of society. The favorite images of hypersensitive, safe space, teddy bear hugging people who fall into depression and childish violent tantrums when presented with dissenting views. They have no problem pushing their views on you. The prevailing narrative is clearly intended to normalize such weak and lazy behaviors. Freedom, civility, and its supporting order depend upon hard work, difficult choices, an engaged population, and a continual straightforward dialectic.
Such problems are solely an ailment of first world nations. In the rest of the world people are busy with important concerns; survival, food, shelter, water, safety, and security. Residents of first world countries can live in their parent’s basements at 35 years of age. The parents and a successful society enable them in the avoidance of labor and engagement in productive endeavors. Those same people believe they have the right to rail about inequities, “fairness,” and “rights”, all the while failing to contribute to the same. People who live self-reliantly have no time to waste on gel nails, bedazzled iPhone covers, and 20-inch spinner wheels. Only opulent, pampered people in nations where the bulk of society is engaged in the work of creation, generation, and the future is it possible for others to “opt-out.” Anywhere else they would struggle and produce or die.
The simple ability to spend so much valuable time on such trivial issues is strictly a result of living in a first world country.
Unfortunately, a predominant number of those "defining" the narrative are not attempting to establish a dialectic ("a way of discovering what is true by considering opposite theories" and empirical data), or even a civil debate. They have no interest in coming to a consensus of the minds. They thrust their ideology upon you refusing any dissent or disagreement. Those who are well versed in a subject relish the opportunity to “change hearts and minds” civilly. Even when misguided they relish the opportunity to sway opinion and positions. A firm grasp on the facts, empirical data, and language is required. Emotional outbursts and rhetoric are commonly deployed as distractions to obscure their true intentions. Most of the time their approach betrays their lack of depth on the topic. They often only know the talking points or their "feelings".
Civilized societies only survive through a complex dance of dialectic, cultural preservation, and law. Empirical data not statistics, facts not feelings, objective versus subjective. Those who fear a dialectic are either uninformed, shallow, or have more insidious intentions.
Conversation is healthy. Sadly, one of greatest threats to accuracy is for people to surround themselves with only those who agree with them. How will you ever detect a flaw in your stance? A change in the data? Only through trial by comparison to opposing views in a civil discourse.Discerning people who are trustworthy, loyal, and honest is a daunting challenge. These highly divisive topics have a silver lining. Those who are exploring the data around the topics and engaging in thoughtful dialectic can apply those results to help fashion well designed solutions. We also have a rare opportunity to cull those who are wolves waiting in the shadows of our hen house. They lay in wait for the moment where their self-interests exceed the value they place on yours. DO NOT SQUANDER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURGE YOUR CLOSE CIRCLE OF THREATS FROM WITHIN. Part of that approach might be to begin by defining “friend” from acquaintance. Such identification is critical to your survival, happiness, and sanity.
Those who get angry, unfriend, name call, or worse show you their true colors and are likely warning you of other threats to you and your circle. All humans, especially those in close proximity, will eventually disagree. It is how we process and manage those disagreements that make us civil and defines those who are worthy to be in your world from the threats.
The lessons that we learn affect the way that we interact with others. Self-interest is critical for your survival, those for whom you care, and society. You cannot help others, if you are disabled yourself.
Unbridled altruism will disable you if you are not careful, please refer to the article entitled; Survival, Altruism, and Self Interest for more on the topic.
