I am not the only one who’s noticed just how difficult it is to have certain kinds of conversations in this new day and age.
I don’t, unlike many, believe this is the result of some kind of conspiracy or ‘plot’ to neuter, spay, censor, or otherwise silence anyone who opposes the so-called New World Order.
There’s no such thing, and I’ll tell you why: No human group in history has ever organized well enough to keep such a massive secret while attempting world domination. We’ve seen some really amazing organizational feats, like the moon landings, a mind-blowing 66 years after the first flight, and current extraplanetary efforts including space stations, the James Webb Space Telescope, and more, to say nothing of political achievements like stable democracies and state neutrality on religious beliefs.
These accomplishments took decades, hand-in-hand with extraordinary strides in multiculturalism and scientific co-operation. There are entire fields of applied psychology now, dedicated to techniques in communications, studies of perception and interpretation, and brain scans of what happens when we converse.
And yet, outside of very specific industries and individual projects, SNAFUs in communication are still the norm. So is flying into a rage, and/or attacking the person (ad hominem), and/or appeals to authority, and/or stubbornly defending what ‘feels good’ over reliable evidence, and/or falling back to vague notions of tradition, custom, and culture for ephemeral support - the kind of support that can’t be attacked on its own merits, only explained by its inheritors.
So, I don’t think there is anyone out there, no matter how sinister or ill-intentioned, who has the power to unilaterally decide that internet discussions of gender ideologies, fringe politics, and gun-worship should be banned. It isn’t nearly that simple. Our society moves in waves, starting with small voices and growing over time, often transforming into something the first individuals don’t recognize, and the final individuals believe was original to them. The quick condemnations and retreat from uncertainty are a manifestation of the gestalt, a cultural meme rather than shadowy direction.
I blame humanism. This human-centered philosophy, placing our species as the anchor around which everything must revolve, is as foolish as was the helio-centric theory of the solar system.
It’s all shades of grey, but from where I currently stand, the humanistic philosophy distorts interpersonal progress by imagining that our feelings are real - really real, as in there’s something inside of us that has an inherent knowledge, some sort of physical connection to meaning, identity, even destiny. For god’s sake.
You hear it all the time. “Inherent human rights,” they say, “you’re born with them, and no one can take your inherent dignity away.” As if it didn’t take centuries of sacrifice and work and martyrdom to come as far as we have. I think they imagine that those were problems of a past culture, rather than human problems - which they are.
They imagine that children, of all things, can self-create. That an eight-year-old can ponder inward, and decide what and how they are and will be. As if people are inclined to do that, instead of adamantly reflecting the beliefs, mores, rituals, and other various practices of the places and people they come from.
No one can self-create. Identity isn’t a choice any more than skin colour, sociocultural background, the straightness of your teeth, your height, or your taste in food. How many activities these days are about “finding yourself,” “connecting with the inner you,” or “overcoming identity barriers”? Why would we need these if the power was with us all along? And why the hell are all these people, after obtaining such insight, apparently then choosing to remain insecure?
It doesn’t make sense, and yet many love the idea so much that they won’t hear otherwise, and they shut down discussion. These groups, on both left and right, gather together to recite their tautologies endlessly, while vilifying any question of the concept of identity in the first place. Whether its the far left’s current obsession with self-discovered gender fluidity, extended by some as far as DNA, or the far right’s uncompromising insistence that, in fact, social constructs like gender and Christianity are not only real, they are extremely limited. Only they get to make the definitions. And you have to have guns. Jesus loved guns, and was white and spoke with a Bible belt accent, by the way.
So, I will add my own small voice, in favour of Polite Disputes. In favour of staying calm even in the face of imagined annihilation (GOD IS NOT REAL), of discussing the actual what-ifs and implications of racism vs culturalism in a logical flow eschewing emotional trigger words and hyperbolic accusations, of seeing gender for the social construct it is without tying it to some sort of spiritualistic craving, of debating the merits of violence without resorting to blanket statements and strawman examples.
I don’t live in a vacuum. Everyone I’ve had these conversations with (and it’s been hundreds, at least), is glad for the chance to chat about seeming taboos without getting their heads ripped off. I’ve spoken with the queer community and the religious, the extreme on both sides of the political bird, with psychologists and lawyers, politicians and ‘alternative health practitioners’, police and addicts, on and on.
It starts with apprehension and a knee-jerk instinct to deflect to something like the weather, or what we had for breakfast, or something else that doesn’t generate cortisol. From there, real curiousity emerges, buried questions bubble up from under metaphorical heaps of shame, and both parties start to have fun. Because these issues are confusing and we want to ask questions, but we’re afraid of being judged or misinterpreted.
First, we learn politeness and calm. We avoid logical fallacies, to the point of stopping any discussion on the spot to clarify definitions and intentions. We understand the difference between reality and social constructs - the concept of currency and money, for example, vs barter and exchange, or of a community with a shared interpersonal history vs a country with a shared national identity.
No name-calling, no contempt, no raised voices. Just a quest for mutual understanding through double- and triple-checked communication.
If that sounds fun to you, please join me.
