Clowns to the left of me…

Nuance, subtly, sharing of ideas, debate, and argument are increasingly overshadowed by blundering, bullying, self-assured, self-opinionated, self-righteousness… Say’s me offering another opinion piece.

I write in defence of the former, and aghast at the sound of the march of the latter.

I am not one to not say something about things which are up for debate. Not only do I adore debate, I see it as essential. It is increasingly important to engage in debate actively and thoughtfully in a time of megaphone politics. Especially when the megaphones are in one hand, and weapons are in the other.

I think I know that at their core, most people are disinterested in serious debate. I don’t mean they don’t have more-or-less well-informed opinions about things, but for the most part, most folks are more concerned about the mundane necessities of life. However, the opinions that these ‘most people’ have are now often sore points which if nudged, even slightly, elicit an increasingly irritable, irritated, and agitated expression of unguarded, spiteful bile.

There are many routes to this outcome. Social media algorithmic targeting is a channel by which these effects occur, but it takes people, or bots put into action by people, to generate ideas and information. I wonder then, who are these people, and is there something that can be said about ‘them’? I find that there may be.

Evangelism

Evangelism is deliberate recruitment to a movement. It has long been the practice of religions. People are recruited and imbued with a sense of belonging and being ‘in the club’ of those who know the truth. Everyone else is either mistaken or wickedly and deliberately up to no good. Thus, we have political, and social evangelism at play, for myriad reasons.

There are those who seek to draw people into their fold, who are engaged in a campaign of recruitment, and who have not only no interest in debate but will stamp it out if it occurs. These people are relentless self-publicists. They draw their personal succour from their followers and supporters. We all do this to some extent, but some of us are willing if not eager to debate and welcome informed dissent. Not so those engaged in a rallying march. They are looking for supporters. You’re either with them or against them.

So it is that I have found myself blasted and abused by such evangelists, blocked by them so I cannot cause any mischief to their marketing message, or both. Fascinating to me has been that I expect to get knocked by the right, but recently, it’s been people who are apparently recruiting from the left.

The irony is that in both the cases that spring to mind in the last week or so, it’s been people recruiting with messages of being against gender, sexual and race discrimination – all of which I support! The problem has been that I don’t support it from within their agenda, and that doesn’t get them on more boards or gain followers and publicity now does it…

It seems that there is Capitalism to be had, and money to be made, from virtue signalling to the left, as much as there is to the right. Both are understandable activities because in both cases those doing this are recruiting for their own gain – so really it’s just people “tryin’ ‘a make a buck”. Yet this is an underhanded pernicious activity in a world heading toward the brink… again...

The inability to engage in debate with people that are overtly espousing contradictory information, and positions, who make declarations and will not discuss them even in the face of reason and evidence, is a real problem. This is totalitarianism and authoritarianism, and it’s happening in bubbles and pockets everywhere, from global leaders to the proletariat. Allow this, and we will end up with violent expression being our only recourse.

Science

In thinking about all this, science has a lot to answer for, because we have been persuaded that the world and our experience of it consist of binary facts and falsehoods. If one uses the words “scientific” or “evidence-based” then one must be correct, and all else, folly.

Pop-academia has overtaken the Zeitgeist – the spirit of the people and the world in which they live, is black, or white. It is male, or female – or definitely not either of these. It is left, or right. It is Capitalist or Communist. It is theist or atheist. Debate is increasingly difficult to encourage and explaining that the scientific method is a rolling formulation of the best-supported opinion, is just too many concepts, with too many nuances.

Science, which is the realm of positivism (not positivity – it’s a subtle difference in words, a huge difference in actuality – life can be SO tricky eh…) relies on the evidence of experience, which can be accurately, reliably, and viably repeated. This is all well and good for things which science can measure, but it can’t measure things like meaning, experience, psychological time, joy, sadness, etc. There is a battle going on in academia between the positivists who can appeal to the accountants and funders, and the rationalists (like me) who need a bit of space to explain things, rather than give numbers, and revise them.

In conclusion

Please, enter into debates with gusto by all means, but enjoy the debate and listen – take time, think, and go back, and allow others to do likewise. Life and our experience of it are not best served by a series of sacrosanct proclamations, followed by an inability to consider any further thought or evidence. This is anti-science and anti-rationalist. It is, therefore, frankly, just for the most self-centred, insecure, ignorant, and arrogant.

Don’t be like that.