On advocating violence
|
♥Aug. 26th, 2019 // 04:33 pm♥
|
I don’t really hang around in the less-pleasant corners of the internet, like Facebook and Twitter. (Yes, I’m on Reddit, but r/quilting and r/UKGardening aren’t exactly political.) From what I gather, though, large parts of them are increasingly descending into terribly angry echo chambers, where to dissent is to be, at best, ignored or, at worst, threatened. Below are some thoughts about that. They were brought on by a good friend recently, and entirely casually, chiming in approvingly when someone else, out of the blue, threatened to shoot a particular group of people.
I was vaguely distressed by the whole ‘punch a nazi’ meme that appeared a few years ago. No matter how distasteful someone is, that is not the answer. The solution to crime is not violence, it is the criminal justice system. The solution to a political or philosophical opinion that you find distasteful is not violence, it is reasoned argument.
Lately, though, in a fit of Goodwin’s law gone mad, everyone is a nazi. Everyone whose opinion you disagree with, anyway.
Here are some things that many people have opinions on:
- anti-abortion or pro-choice
- left-wing or right-wing
- leave or remain
- low tax or high tax
- whether the death penalty is a good or bad idea
- religion x or religion y
- gun control or the right to self-defence
- whether cats should be kept indoors or outdoors
- large state or small state
- tea or coffee
I bet you have opinions about most of those things, right? Some of them you might care passionately about, others you might just have a light leaning towards.
If I wanted to change your mind about one of those light leanings—say, you’re slightly of the view that cats should be kept indoors to stop them killing wildlife—then I’d maybe send you a link to the More Or Less episode debunking the 27 million birds killed a year figure, talk about how it is definitely an issue in places like New Zealand but less of one in the UK where the small animals co-evolved with predators similar to domestic cats. Or, you know, I could threaten to punch you, and get all my friends to cheer me on in doing so. Which is more likely to change your mind and which is more likely to leave you with a vague distaste for people who think cats should be allowed outside?
I’ve not yet seen people advocating death for cat owners, whether indoor or out, but I bet they’re out there: PETA hate the concept of domestic animals, after all. I have—and I emphasis again that I do not spend time on the particularly angry parts of the internet—seen people advocating shooting, punching, raping and just plain killing people who disagree with abortion; who have more money than is average; who believe that a person’s sex is defined by his or her genes; who support gun control; who do or don’t want to have sex with a particular person or class of people; or who are of the ‘wrong’ religion. I’ve seen even more people applauding them for doing it.
Maybe all the people posting all those things have read, extensively, about the views and opinions of the people that they’re advocating violent physical assaults on. Maybe they have had long, reasoned debates with them, in which each side accepted that they other had some points of validity, some points of difference, and some points where neither actually really understood what the other was talking about. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
You, who are outside my echo chamber, are bad.
You, who my superiors have told me is wrong, are wrong.
You, who look or act in a way that is different to the way that I look and act, are other.
So it has been for most of human history, ever since we got rid of those pesky neanderthals. We really seemed to be getting over it, though: the printing press really started it, and—I know: crazy talk, these days—the broadcast and print media and the early days of the internet carried it on. We achieved near-universal education (in the more affluent nations at least, and that’s where this is happening), women’s lib, the lessening of importance of racial and religious divisions, lesbian and gay rights. And then, all of a sudden, social media came along, boxed us into little, distinctly anti-social spaces, and we’re back to throwing rocks.
Over the last few years, we’ve gone from "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to “any disagreement with my views will be met with intimidation and threats”.
If you hold a belief that you think is correct, and true, and good, your goal and duty, surely, is to cause that belief to spread and prosper. How will you do that if you threaten anyone who questions it, however mildly, with physical injury or death?
Listen to the Queen: “Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding.”
Surely it’s better to write articles, hold debates (actual, two-sided, ones; none of this no-platforming business), and just straight out talk to people about what you believe? You know, behave like a civilised person, so that people are inclined to listen to you and maybe even change their minds, rather than either scaring them into an uneasy silence where they dare not speak out for fear of violence or, worse, take just as hard, unwavering and decisive stance as you do but in the opposite direction.
There is a difference between changing people’s views and forcing them to pretend to believe the same things that you do.
Maybe you’ve done this but not really thought it through. Maybe you thought you were making a joke, ‘edgy’ or otherwise. If so, maybe you need to think again.
If you, having considered it, actually think that it’s ok to make threats of violence against people whom you have never met, about whom the only thing that you know is that you think that they hold an opinion that you find disagreeable, then that’s fine: you do you. Just don’t do it near me, and don’t expect me to make you welcome in my life or my home. |
|
|
