I have been consciously spending much less time on Facebook or other social media lately because I find that it’s not only a huge time suck but I have noticed how irritated I become with “friend” updates that either broadcast self-obsessed trivia or treat it as an opportunity to shout from a soapbox. The latter posts always carry a preachy message aimed at rousing enough guilt to generate several “likes”by other users out of fear being ostracized or, worse, unfriended.
While some posts can be
informative and shed light on a particular issue, I find more often than not,
that I get just plain annoyed at the simplistic sloganeering that seems to pass
for discourse. I have tried to
take the laissez-faire approach to these self-righteous posters and gloss over
them because I find that these posts don’t really tolerate real debate – they
only seek to bludgeon everyone over the head with their tone of moral
superiority, demanding absolute consensus.
I am trying to consider things in balance -- to go back and see
reason in the arguments of those who I often reflexively disagree with. I can
often find my own views in alignment with these same people on a number of
issues so I am no ideologue and remain suspicious of anyone who is.
I'm even prepared to back down when confronted with stronger facts in a debate,
yet it has become apparent repeatedly that many of the arguments I've wasted my
time having on Facebook are with people who claim to be progressive yet display
a very narrow and inflexible mindset that is quick to go into pack mode and
attack any dissenting voice with insults and labels. It is the ultimate in
groupthink -- like devotees of a cult who close ranks around any of the
non-believers. They have memorized their tenets and are cued to actively
oppose any who defy them.
Maybe I’ve just gotten old. I can remember not long ago, clinging to a lot of
illusions how social justice was immediately attainable, if only we could all
agree to outlaw human nature. But I have come to realize that the most stable
form of progress isn’t necessarily revolutionary, but incremental, and should
not always require hasty legislation in order to placate an aggrieved interest
group and to seem culturally relevant.
Change is inevitable but not all
change is desirable. Does that make me a reactionary or a realist? I
don't know but I do know that some will be tempted to pidgeonhole my thinking
as a way to vindicate their position.
I found myself in the unlikely position of defending the Catholic Church
and Pope Benedict in one of my Facebook exchanges recently. I was the
only voice who challenged the poster's sneering dismissal of the Pope as a
"homophobe and misogynist" - as if two hyperbolic, unfounded
accusations should be the only criteria on which an individual who presides
over such a long-established and complex institution should be judged. I got
irked at what I thought was the irony of someone, denouncing the Pope for his
latter day “heresy” for not sanctifying gay marriage or having more
“progressive” views about sexuality. I objected to how easily these
labels are flung around as a way to manipulate with emotional language and gain
points while at the same time not having to do the intellectual work of
providing evidence and arguments. Granted, Facebook is not a forum for serious
debate, still, it is open and public and offers a stage for discussion.
I countered that these terms "homophobe" and
"mysoginist" were just lazy labels and were misleading as they
suggested hatred and mistreatment of women and gays. I added that I doubted
that the Pope advocated these kinds of behaviour just because his positions did
not take a favourable view toward western lifestyle choices.
I realize that it is impossible to have a meaningful debate
with strident types of any political persuasion and that hardline proponents of
one bent or another, are often good at twisting logic around to serve their
ideological point of view. This is precisely where I begin to see
anti-democratic strains – and increasingly by those who proclaim to be
enlightened and tolerant.
Take for example, the zeal of
some social progressives to de-limit free speech - there’s more
than a hint of Orwellian thought control at play here. This is practiced by all
ends of the political and belief spectrum but when it is coming from those who
profess to be so egalitarian and fair, it is more troubling.
Just like good Maoist students of the Cultural Revolution, the younger
generation of the left is not content to merely tolerate opposite opinions but
are compelled to call them out - denounce them and have them dragged before the
court of public opinion and shamed. As a student of history, I can see how rapidly
those advocating for the new “orthodoxy” are also becoming the new McCarthyites
-- quick to expose anyone who questions their cultural authority as a
throwback or a homophobe or a racist -- these ready-made labels once they are
thrown, stick to the intended target and can ultimately discredit them.
Accordingly, purifying language
means purifying intent. Purity and uniformity in thought are becoming more and
more common among those who see no contradiction between their theories and
their methods. I find it deeply ironic and troubling that so many people in my
own circles of friends, willingly subscribe to this and have not tempered their
views despite the wisdom that comes with life experience.
To be brash and enamoured by new
ideas is almost the duty of the young as they are just testing the waters of
life but I feel increasingly alienated from those in my age bracket, who by now
should know better than to act like soldiers of any orthodoxy. I think
this reflects the failure of our education system which has preferred to teach
people "what" to think not "how" to think. Instead, the
hallmark of the culture wars in academe and public education system is
visible, it is one that negates genuine independent thinking and now we see the
rise of a lynch-mob vigilance that seeks to drown out dissent with quick and
easy labels.
I have come to feel unease around those individuals who pride themselves
on being "independent and daring" for vocally supporting all the
"right" causes especially by smearing anyone who opposes them with
quick and easy labels. Perhaps this is just a symptom of aging but I have come
to learn that some principles work better textbooks than in life.
