"ππππ€ ππͺπ§ ππ€π§ππ¨ π€π§ π½π πππ‘ππ£π© ππ€π§ππ«ππ§π’π€π§πβ it is a shameful cry
The recent political assassination of Charlie Kirk and even the reaction surrounding is horrible, and signifies the breakdown of civilization itself. I didnβt agree with him on many of his positions, but he was absolutely 100% right in his endeavor to champion the free exchange of ideas. This tragic outcome is so symbolic of the death of discourse itself
Reclaiming freedom of expression & Proper Discourse should be among our highest priorities.
We have lost the ability to have challenging conversations about complex topics with people we donβt already agree with. This spells the end.
Without communication we cannot solve any social or political problems
Why is it so broken?
To escape the complexity of problem solving, many people simply subscribe to a team. βOur Team Good. Our Team Right. Their Team Bad. Their Team Wrong.β
People attach their ideas about the world firmly to their identity and struggle to separate them when those ideas are challenged. They donβt react as if you disagree, but instead react as if they personally have been attacked
People donβt know where their own thoughts come from. Many never examine their ideas enough to understand the origins or if they are valid.
It is often like they just arrived, like one day someone handed you a jewel and said protect this with your life, and then ran off before explaining anything.
So people go through their life decorated in hodgepodge borrowed ideas like some car covered in gifted bumper stickers that they are willing to assault you for challenging
Anybody who has spent serious time reflecting knows that many of our own ideas have been borrowed, and if you donβt pick each of them up and examine the ideas and where they fit then they are never truly your own.
If you donβt understand where your positions come from, how can you possibly defend them when they are challenged. When someone lacks the intellectual defenses to defend their argument, the conversation devolves into Ad Hominem and other fallacies to weaken the arguments or delivery of an opponents message.
These devices βdevalueβ the arguments of others. If an opponent is labeled as βevilβ then you have no moral imperative to listen to their argument.
If one cannot invalidate their opponents argument through negative labels then they will seek to censor your words by making complaint to some authority figure. (Deplatform you, Get you fired) If that doesnβt work they escalate further by harassing you, doxxing you, threatening you with violence, or taking your life.
Iβve always hated the idea of words being a justification for violence. I feel the only time this is justified is if those words are a clear and present threat signifying physical harm to yourself or those you are obligated to protect.
The decay is incredibly apparent among the art crowd. No group on the planet should be bigger champions for free speech than artists. Sadly this is not the case. I see more artists begging for censorship and cancellation than nearly any other group.
The group that is so inclined toward self expression turning into vile gremlins when met with opposing ideas is so bewildering
How do we fix this horrible environment?
No matter how much you disagree with someone about what a problem is or what the proposed methodology is toward a solution, you must understand that each individual is coming at the issue from a point of genuine concern.
Everyone has different life experiences and associations with events and behaviors that color their views.
When both parties can identify each otherβs point of genuine concern and have the discussion pointed toward understanding and resolution we can make progress.
We have to make space to have conversations with the goal of understanding and resolution, and itβs often uncomfortable
Bad ideas should be combatted with better ideas, not bloodshed!