My take is that the internet giveth power but it may also taketh away.
Below is a collection of thoughts on this and how it plays into current challenges. I apologize if this is not the right place for it. If any reader can tell me a better place for this message, let me know as I write it with a hope that better writers than I am that perhaps know of other venues to share will do so. I write with hope to contribute to waking what I see as a passively silent center before it is too late.
It feels like the center of each party needs to consider the risk of standing idle and watching the extreme edges foment and stoke hate. Free speech needs to be protected no matter how ugly it is.
We should want ugly speech to be heard, even publicly aired, not suppressed so that we can respond with more free speech that, through a hopefully calm and constitutionally grounded response, builds a consensus policy that is good for America. When the center is silent and allows the loudest and most numerous responses to be myopically focused against some other party that, lacking logical substance, with obvious attempts to create power from fear, hate, and subhuman labels, we risk a tipping point in losing liberty, freedom, or even the stability our nation should cherish.
Suppressed speech ends up in internet echo chambers where like-minded extremists gather to normalize and amplify hatred of the other side. While the vast majority of the participants are non-violent in action, the dialogues contain unambiguous threats of violent action that are received and considered normalized by some segment of that echo chamber. I challenge anyone to refute the thesis that the growth of such environments does not strongly contribute to politically motivated violence. I am so tired of statements that talk about statistical percentage of violence stemming from left or right or which one it was responsible for a particular incident. If you believe your “side” is less of a problem than the other, fine, that just means your “side” has less work to do but, and this is crucial, you don’t fix or even contribute to a solution to the problem by blaming the other side. That talk only amplifies the problem. The only fix is for you to ignore the other “side” and fix your “side”. If you don’t really have a “side”, great, work on encouraging the center-left and the center-right to wake up and rescue their parties/sides. The center, almost by its definition, is risk averse but here’s the reward of such a plan—the side that best fixes their extremist problem offers the most productive path to a win that actually helps America. If you don’t like or buy that, ask yourself, is your party winning at the expense of core American freedoms actually a win?
America, especially the center, own the problem.
Silent center, drowned out by loud extremes + suppressed free speech that drives discussions out of public view were it can be discussed on its merits and into internet echo chambers = hatred that is stoked/amplified to a level that normalizes thoughts into actions of political violence.
True Christians abhor violence. True Marists do as well. Hatred is not an ideology, but it is the simplest way to lash out at other and seemingly score power for your “side”.
For those that are not silent, If your side's support statements are more focused on hate and labels of the other side than on identifying what is wrong on the issue, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Remember, very few people think they are extreme since their perception of self establishes the datum.
Ask yourself the hard question: have hate and labels of the other side helped or harmed the cause you are speaking out about? While we may feel locally affirmed in our own community, we have a fair amount of data that suggests hate and labels are more harm than help towards a solution.
Those claiming to lead a “side” should measure their gains by how well they can ground their actions and plans in the protection of the constitution and building a consensus for the path to improved opportunities for all persons. According to Google AI, 10 states now have non-partisan or unaffiliated voters with higher registration percentages than Democrat or Republican. Sowing hatred and division is nothing new but it is the ugliest path to political power and also is typically short lived as it is not sustainable, rather the pendulum always swings back and the exploitation of hate to get power is often documented. Silence equals support. We all have issues we are passionate about that might, based on our priorities, plant us firmly on one “side”. Are any of them worth losing the core of liberty and freedom for?
Short, not so sweet, but really raises interesting points.
Thank you, appreciate the read.
My take is that the internet giveth power but it may also taketh away.
Below is a collection of thoughts on this and how it plays into current challenges. I apologize if this is not the right place for it. If any reader can tell me a better place for this message, let me know as I write it with a hope that better writers than I am that perhaps know of other venues to share will do so. I write with hope to contribute to waking what I see as a passively silent center before it is too late.
It feels like the center of each party needs to consider the risk of standing idle and watching the extreme edges foment and stoke hate. Free speech needs to be protected no matter how ugly it is.
We should want ugly speech to be heard, even publicly aired, not suppressed so that we can respond with more free speech that, through a hopefully calm and constitutionally grounded response, builds a consensus policy that is good for America. When the center is silent and allows the loudest and most numerous responses to be myopically focused against some other party that, lacking logical substance, with obvious attempts to create power from fear, hate, and subhuman labels, we risk a tipping point in losing liberty, freedom, or even the stability our nation should cherish.
Suppressed speech ends up in internet echo chambers where like-minded extremists gather to normalize and amplify hatred of the other side. While the vast majority of the participants are non-violent in action, the dialogues contain unambiguous threats of violent action that are received and considered normalized by some segment of that echo chamber. I challenge anyone to refute the thesis that the growth of such environments does not strongly contribute to politically motivated violence. I am so tired of statements that talk about statistical percentage of violence stemming from left or right or which one it was responsible for a particular incident. If you believe your “side” is less of a problem than the other, fine, that just means your “side” has less work to do but, and this is crucial, you don’t fix or even contribute to a solution to the problem by blaming the other side. That talk only amplifies the problem. The only fix is for you to ignore the other “side” and fix your “side”. If you don’t really have a “side”, great, work on encouraging the center-left and the center-right to wake up and rescue their parties/sides. The center, almost by its definition, is risk averse but here’s the reward of such a plan—the side that best fixes their extremist problem offers the most productive path to a win that actually helps America. If you don’t like or buy that, ask yourself, is your party winning at the expense of core American freedoms actually a win?
America, especially the center, own the problem.
Silent center, drowned out by loud extremes + suppressed free speech that drives discussions out of public view were it can be discussed on its merits and into internet echo chambers = hatred that is stoked/amplified to a level that normalizes thoughts into actions of political violence.
True Christians abhor violence. True Marists do as well. Hatred is not an ideology, but it is the simplest way to lash out at other and seemingly score power for your “side”.
For those that are not silent, If your side's support statements are more focused on hate and labels of the other side than on identifying what is wrong on the issue, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Remember, very few people think they are extreme since their perception of self establishes the datum.
Ask yourself the hard question: have hate and labels of the other side helped or harmed the cause you are speaking out about? While we may feel locally affirmed in our own community, we have a fair amount of data that suggests hate and labels are more harm than help towards a solution.
Those claiming to lead a “side” should measure their gains by how well they can ground their actions and plans in the protection of the constitution and building a consensus for the path to improved opportunities for all persons. According to Google AI, 10 states now have non-partisan or unaffiliated voters with higher registration percentages than Democrat or Republican. Sowing hatred and division is nothing new but it is the ugliest path to political power and also is typically short lived as it is not sustainable, rather the pendulum always swings back and the exploitation of hate to get power is often documented. Silence equals support. We all have issues we are passionate about that might, based on our priorities, plant us firmly on one “side”. Are any of them worth losing the core of liberty and freedom for?
No!