“WRONG THINK” or The Incorrect Handling of Contradictions Among “We The People”

A strong nation is one where its citizens appreciate and celebrate their differences, not shaming others thoughts, but rather allowing constructive discussion and logical arguments that flesh out differing points of view. Our differences make us unique, unique like our particular experiences and diverse backgrounds. Each one of us has an individual voice and different way of seeing the world. These individual points of view constitute our opinions and they may or may not be consistent with evidence, proof and research; an opinion can be supported by facts, but is usually based on belief and personal points of view. Opinions can also be formulated because of indoctrination or submission and under these circumstances, points of view become biased and intolerant. Opinions are not frozen arguments that remain set in stone, they usually fluctuate and change with time and exposure. In such intellectual environments we learn to become sensitive and appreciative of other cultures and thought systems. It would be a very monolithic and stagnate discourse if we all had the same opinion; diversity of opinions is the backbone of a healthy society, yet the tendency in our modern world is to polarize extreme diverging opinions that group parts of society into irreconcilable halves, incapable of meeting common ground to sort out differences. This polarization assumes that our only choices are between two opposing factions which come prepackaged as the only truths available. The truth is manipulated by language and narratives that support false systems of justice like the ones that confuse equality with uniformity and liberty with the fist of a supreme state that is in surveillance of the truth. We must start with the ability to formulate our own opinions, and not simply repeat the official narratives and interpretations of history that are fed to us by the traditional printed media and talking heads of television that we glorify and have come to accept as the purveyors of truths and facts. The media was originally meant to convey the impartiality of professional journalism and to be informative and stay independent of ideological subjectivism. In these ideal circumstances, the informed reader would have objective data and honest reporting from which to extract and formulate their own independent thoughts. Instead, modern society is spoon-fed matrices of opinion that come in bits and pieces for easy consumption. The masses are lazy and prefer to be distracted, rather than truly informed. This indolent approach along with a depletion of our ability to focus, defers in-depth understanding for short and fast bite size information that appeals to our short attentions spans. With the open book of information available to us in today’s super internet highway, we can’t help but siege the unprecedented opportunity to get a 360 perspective of most subjects and topics.

Like a giant supermarket of ideas, facts and information, an awakened consumer can browse the seemingly infinite number of shelves available in all corridors of the modern digital library. A well-rounded reader would have his or her supermarket carts filled with items from many shelves from both sides of the aisle. The purpose of an open commerce of ideas is to expose us to many points of view and to make us sensitive of the changing perspectives and opinions so typical of contemporary dialectics. This changing information is a constant, like in the annals of scientific textbooks, where topics and theories are constantly being updated. This is the nature of scientific inquire as it refines and tests current theories. In other words concepts and ideas about different topics tend to change the more we learn and study the topic itself, unlike the closet of firm belief systems which remain frozen in time and are not subject to change. Spooked by great punishment and consequences, men and women throughout the ages have abstained from thinking differently. We can remember passages from history when the inquisition rained down on scientific inquire with death and the abatement of brave investigators of truth who dared to oppose the prevalent views. Forward thinkers like Giordano Bruno in the Italy of the 16th century are prime examples of how old thought systems resist and truncate inroads of scientific discovery and freedom of thought. These high walls of Roman sanctity condemned Bruno as a heretic, and he was burned in public, as a reminder for anybody who would dare challenge the prevailing world views. Modern day fundamentalism is equally contemptuous of those who are different or have contrary beliefs; the same atrocious consequences of yesteryear are still imposed to opposing religious and ethnic groups, like the purges recently found in the beheading and rape of Rohinga women in Myanmar. Dogmatic extremism degenerates into the atrocities of intolerance, violence and extermination, it reduces “the other” our human brothers and sisters, to expendable meat. And there are many more examples of ethnic cleansing, flogging squads, stoning and beheading of innocent people where one group feels superior over the other and with the moral authority to perpetuate, the kind of horrible genocidal intolerance that transfigure nations and people's. My intention is not to encourage any particular camp over the other, but to bring light to the relativistic nature of thought systems. History is full of two-way strifes that call revenge over each other, as both parties are responsible for the same kind of abomination. The common axiom of fundamentalism where we must accept ideas out of fear has imposed years of suffering and subjugation to entire communities in the name of God. This holding on to a belief system limits the way we interpret a changing reality, making us blind and no longer able to see what is around us. Clinging on to a set of beliefs makes us rigid and stubborn, alienating other perspectives that may arise in opposing camps of thought. We are all familiar with the narratives that promote the division of black and white, poor and rich, jew and christian, man and woman. This story stresses this polarization of society putting us in different sides of the same whole. In reality, yes we are all different, but we live under one same roof, and are part of the larger human family. These dualities stem from a prior state of unity and without dualism there cannot be any separation. The illusion of separateness arises the moment we define anything, when we define who we are and what we are not, definitions distinguish one thing from the other and in this process, one becomes two, becomes many. If we could only live with this understanding, in a world where we would tolerate the many points of view, we might be graceful and turn the other cheek, change the channel, flip the switch or look the other way and not feel like we must take an eye for an eye.

We all don't have to agree and like I have said, a sign of a civil society is one that is open and tolerant of diverging opinions and creeds. Tolerance is the willingness to accept divergence and there is usually degrees of how tolerant we ought to be. Could we be tolerant of pedophiles? Could we be tolerant of abortion? Should we be tolerant of slavery? Yet tolerance is the defendant clause on the moral suit that coats our foremost freedoms of thought and expression. It's not the tolerance that is preached in the current political correctness movements that has attacked language and made the use of words like white and black, mother and father, a thought crime by which you become a victim by association. It's all part of a well-crafted agenda pushed by social justice warriors. This new reality of identity politics suffocates the rights of free speech and freedom of association. Political correctness replaces bona fide law and impartiality with some form of manufactured justice that promotes a victimized culture. The notion that our feelings may be hurt by the opinions of a third-party is debatable and subject to logical analysis. The assumption that my opinions will damage your self-esteem and intrinsic value is relative and does not justify the ominous protection of a parental entity which will prevent us from feeling hurt. These approaches entitle large sections of the population to “feeling based policies,” these policies have led to the creation of “safe spaces,” “crying booths” and to the banning of “trigger words”. Life experiences tell us otherwise, and we must understand that feeling uncomfortable characterizes the exposure to differing thought systems and this in itself is a tolerable situation that denotes maturity. Perhaps these moments are opportunities to grow and may well be times to be constructive of one another. One thing is to cause harm to reputation and livelihood of a person, but to condemn the use of a word or term is a contortion of the right to free speech. My opinions and points of view may offend somebody else and that is the beauty of an open society. As long as I am not defaming but rather taking a stand or generating an opinion on a topic, it is absurd that a third-party would feel aggrieved. On the contrary this is precisely the kind of tolerance we must practice, the kind of tolerance that accepts the liberty of thought that the first amendment of the United States gives us right to. Not like the “tolerant” mainstream media and high-tech platforms whom ostracize anybody who thinks different to their fabricated narratives. Like the social media platforms that ban political messages of the opposing parties and literally meddle with the public perception of political ratings. Once you begin to attack the use of language it becomes an excuse to silence free speech.

These 1st amendment rights come with great responsibility. The exercise of these freedoms applies across the board, allowing for contrary opinions as a necessary variable, not as a justification to hate the other and antagonize others unilaterally. Freedom to practice your religion of choice, which was at the center of the 1st amendment, did away with the religious bigotry that persecuted religious minorities throughout the ages and forced the first American settlers across the North Atlantic. However religious freedom comes with sensible restrictions, for example we could not accept religious creeds that promote injustices like the sacrificial killings of the past or like the religions that accept polygamy, nor could we be tolerant of one-sided codes that entitle men to beat their women for insubordination. Only by the virtues of a supreme moral code could there be an ultimate judge. In reality, it is up to common sense that we not allow exaggerations and inappropriate applications of any moral code to our political freedoms.

Common sense is not the same as the common good, especially when the common good results in state control of what is said or is not said. This state control substitutes free speech for some arbitrary form of unilateral thought, designed to protect imaginary victims from the sins of extremism. Unfortunately or fortunately our right to free speech comes with the right to offend somebody on the basis of differing opinions. We normally gravitate towards people and ideological principles that agree with our points of view and validate those who think like we do. Moreover, we feel threatened by anybody who is different and feel partial to what is familiar. Political correctness rides on these core insecurities, disallowing consideration for contrary opinions. The purveyors of this agenda push the manufacturing of a cognitive dissonance that condemns any thought systems that diverge from their monolithic code. The famous writer known as Voltaire was censured and suppressed for his views. His writings and free speech were considered a threat to the 18th century French government. In response to this threat, the state ordered some of his books to be burned by official executioners at the public square. Famously, Voltaire reminded us of the universal axiom which says, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. The speech police and the persecution of thought crimes, are now running amok within the social media giants that posed as public utilities as well as in our universities and cities. They have become the gatekeepers imprisoning us in a tight box that exudes fundamentalism and fanatical happenstance. This reminds us of times in our history where intolerance and cognitive distortions got ahold of the best of us. These bleak moments have all to often come with terrible results provoking regressive inversions of reality, like when Alexandria’s library posed a threat to the status quo, this led to the burning and destruction of thousands of volumes of the best exaltation of human antiquity. If we apply hatred and violence as default mechanism to anything or anybody that differs with our opinions, we are left with the same kind of vindictive behavior that has caused such horrible crimes to our cultural heritage. This kind of intolerance is based on subjective perceptions that lead subjects to record anything they feel threatened by as a hate incident. The result of this subjective justice leads to the suppression and assault on language and free speech. It also gives the moral upper hand to the thought police that enforces the “wrong think”. The political correct will monopolize the notions of tolerance and acceptance, condemning our personal opinions and freedom to speak, they will draw the line and decide what constitutes “hate speech,” putting anybody who thinks differently as malicious, racist, sexist, and offensive. These extreme positions are leading us to a dangerous Orwellian social credit system like the one that is deployed in China or like the recent policy from the NHS in the UK which denies non-emergency health care services to anybody who uses what they define as “Threatening and offensive language”. Twitter has also recently announced that they are flirting with a “Troll Score” or point system whereby the twitter community, code for AI algorithms, will decide whether you are censored and ultimately banned.

Are we at the door steps of a dystopian authoritarian system disguised as social warriors who defend the weak? Will they drop the iron curtain reign of terror that has come to purge our free speech and criminalize the right to think differently, contradictions that will always coexist and must be permitted in the public discussion arena of an open and free society?

_________________________________________________________________________

References:

Poole , Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal T. “The Polarization of American Politics.” The Journal of Politics.

Chesser, Preston. “The Burning of the Library of Alexandria.” EHISTORY, ehistory.osu.edu/articles/burning-library-alexandria.

“Giordano Bruno Executed.” History Today, www.historytoday.com/archive/giordano-bruno-executed.

Green, Emma. “The U.S. Puts 'Moderate' Restrictions on Religious Freedom.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 28 Jan. 2014, www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/the-us-puts-moderate-restrictions-on-religious-freedom/283331/.

Jones, Jeffrey M. “Trump Third Year Sets New Standard for Party Polarization.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 24 Jan. 2020, news.gallup.com/poll/283910/trump-third-year-sets-new-standard-party-polarization.aspx.

Josh. “Josh.” Tea Party 247, 10 Nov. 2019, www.teaparty247.org/socialized-medicine-in-the-uk-now-operating-on-orwellian-social-credit-system/.

Keogh, Susannah. “Pregnant Rohingya Woman Gang-Raped by Soldiers after They Beheaded Her Son among the Brave Survivors Who Escaped the Burma Purge.” The Sun, The Sun, 7 Dec. 2017, www.thesun.co.uk/news/5082256/pregnant-rohingya-woman-gang-raped-by-soldiers-after-they-beheaded-her-son-among-the-brave-survivors-who-escaped-the-burma-purge/.

“No One Was Left.” Doctors without Boarders, https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/'no-one-was-left'_-death-and-violence-against-the-rohingya-in-rakhine-state,-myanmar.pdf.

Novak, Michael. “Social Justice: Not What You Think It Is.” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it.

quoteresearch, Author. “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.” Quote Investigator, 12 Oct. 2019, quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/.

“THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.” Home Page of the ReligiousTolerance.org Web Site, www.religioustolerance.org/relbigot.htm.

Thompson, Nicholas. “It's Easy to Be a Jerk on Twitter. And Twitter Wants to Fix That.” Wired, Conde Nast, 7 Feb. 2020, www.wired.com/story/twitter-kayvon-beykpour-ces-2020/.