Unfortunately, I see too much polarisation and aggression in modern discourse. On social media, for example, people are quick to display their political views and opinions, wearing them like some kind of badge. This is probably done as a means to “fit in” and be validated by one's peers. It also seems that many people are hyperbolic online, probably in some vain attempt to be funny or entertaining. But such people usually end up contributing to a climate of division, hate and conflict.
With online discourse, there seems to be a strong impulse to have rigid convictions about the world. But to understand things accurately is to be nuanced, fair and open to different viewpoints. Understanding things accurately, however, is quite difficult to do. It requires some amount of mental discipline and periods of discomfort. It requires you to genuinely question yourself and the world. Unfortunately, I don’t see enough people trying to do this. It isn’t fashionable, one might conclude, to have evidence-based and thoughtful views about the world.
It is important to be aware of what is happening to us, psychologically, when we engage in online discourse. A lot of the time, people are trying to be accepted by “the crowd” and are emulating what they think is the correct or moral way of speaking. Other people are looking to gain as many likes and followers as possible, regardless of what they are uttering. In consequence, such people don’t think for themselves or form insightful arguments. For example, if there is any criticism of the dominant COVID vaccine narrative, many people online, usually liberal, use labels like “anti-vaxxer” or “science denier”, when in reality these labels are often untrue. But this, apparently, is the morally acceptable way of speaking about this issue. Similarly, people who voted leave during the EU Referendum were regularly labelled racist. People who use such labels don’t seem to realise that they are contributing to an already fractured, hateful world. There is something odious about sanctimonious behaviour.
Russell Brand is one of the few commentators who, in my view, is trying to heal division and have thoughtful conversations about global issues. I think this is partly because he has an understanding of the effects of cultural conditioning and of deeper philosophical thinking. Deeper philosophical thinking means that he has a perspective on reality which is contextual and goes further than superficial, materialistic concerns. He also doesn’t fall into traditional political groups. He doesn’t come at things with an agenda or ideology, but assesses things with some degree of objectivity. We need more commentators like this.
Tech companies and those in positions of power encourage unhealthy behaviour on social media. Those in power wanted us to argue incessantly about Brexit and Trump. Those in power want us to judge and ostracise those who don’t want the COVID vaccine. Those in power want us to stay perpetually divided and distracted. Those in power want to create hysteria about certain issues and want you to ignore other issues. Those in power encourage all forms of opinionated, judgmental behaviour, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Those in power will inflame and exploit any issue that keeps us divided, whether it be racial tensions, opinions on gender or positions on COVID.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve observed, many otherwise decent people fall into this game of polarisation. They are sucked into a seemingly endless historical cycle. A cycle characterised by the phrase divide and conquer. I think they are sucked in because their weaknesses and emotional inclinations are tapped into by those who want to control and exploit. In order to combat division, ignorance and hate, more people need to cultivate thoughtfulness and true self-awareness.
No comments:
Post a Comment