The name of this
blog is “Do we already have the solutions” for a reason. My earlier posts on Identity and their link
to values have shown that the solutions often lie in being able to removing
barriers to reveal what we already know. Culture, identity and personal ego and
indoctrination issues often lead do being emotionally aligned and motivated to draw a line in the sand and
choosing sides. Nowhere is this more
apparent than with getting behind a cause.
The vast majority
of causes are non-issues. The way
society deals with the issues is the real problem, often creating two opposing
sides defending their particular positions and my personal experience has shown
me that many of us are indiscriminately being PRO or ANTI a particular issue.
This makes little
sense of course, because the elements at play are never simple and broad decision
of personal PRO or ANTI policy should ever be applied without due consideration
of the context. As obvious as this
sounds, is very uncommon to encounter either side investigating the merits of
the opposing camp, or taking the time to understand the application of their
cause in each scenario. This has the
fascinating effect of producing loyalties and hostilities along with all sorts
of ridiculous barriers to solutions that are so often right in front of us.
For example:
Recently the
issue of trophy hunting has exposed how much emotion your average armchair
activist is prepared to invest to stop a particular trophy hunter, Melissa
Bachman, from plying her nasty trade.
Public opinion has likely achieved part of its goal, leaving
conservationists frustrated that another hollow victory based on sentiment has achieved
nothing for Lion Conservation. The
conservationist approach was for a long time perceived as PRO trophy hunting in
their efforts to highlight the real issues, the issues that would achieve real
success, were regarded with suspicion and prejudice. See here: http://www.toomuchtoomany.co.za/blog/2013/11/15/lions-in-the-cross-hairs
The issue of
fracking has become so sentimentally polarizing, that in some cases where
fracking is potentially the least environmentally impacting way to meet energy
demands, there is serious talk of shelving the idea, or not even getting data
on it, in favor of more harmful ways of producing power IN THOSE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES. It also fails to address
the issue that ever growing needs for power come from our failure to manage or
population, lifestyle or impact on the environment. See here: http://www.toomuchtoomany.co.za/blog/2013/12/5/we-cant-treasure-only-the-karoo
and here: http://www.toomuchtoomany.co.za/blog/2013/5/6/when-should-we-start-fracking-in-the-karoo
IT’s not clear what the facts on this issue are yet, but it quite clear that
there is a public desire to move forward without due consideration of the facts
due to sentimental attachment to a cause.
The vaccination
issue is a prime example where issues are again being confused. There is so much evidence for vaccinations
saving lives and doing much good for society, but because there have been
instances in the past where some bad vaccines were discovered, or where unscrupulous
pharmaceutical companies and their political lobbyists have been found pushing
legislation in cases where untested or unnecessary vaccines where to be made compulsory,
some have turned against ALL VACCINATIONS.
For the same reason many in the PRO camp have taken to defending all
instances of vaccination indiscriminately.
It’s completely unnecessary and avoidable, but until we learn to weed
out the separate issues we will never focus on the real problems. Here is a
potted and superficial look at the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies
The danger of all
of this sentimentality is that it affects political will to make real change, politicians
run for office based on these emotive issues often more than the real issues of
the day, and often their policy is shaped by taking stands on these issues
designed to resound with one group or the other in order to win over a voting
section of the population tied into the issue.
Politics is not so
much sick because of politicians, it is sick because politicians have to get
elected, and we demand they take a stand on these matters to get our allegiance
and satisfy our agendas over finding
solutions for the ails of society.
I call indiscriminate
activism “slactivism”, because of the poor fact checking as well as the lack of
interest shown in researching and understanding an issue one claims to feels so
passionately about. Sometimes it is harmless; other times when there are
consequences it is irresponsible and hypocritical.
www.snopes.com regularly cites cases where
sudden public reaction and hostility spreads misinformation and lies, often
harming innocent people, by outraged armchair activists who couldn’t be
bothered to check their facts, spreading vitriolic hate parading as an internet
meme.
It’s often been
cited to me that slactivism can achieve results because of the attention drawn
to the issue, but attention drawn to incorrect issues can often harm a cause or
provide only a sense of self satisfaction those seeking to exploit the issue in
order to demonstrate their righteous moral indignation to those listening. I cannot reconcile it with the work done by
those responsible activists spending their own time and resources campaigning
for real change, it just does not ring true.
I will concede
that if slactivism bring the issues out, and those who better understand the
issues challenge the material with intention to show better understanding, then
some progress can be made, but it cannot work unless the facts are corrected
sensibly and politely which places personal responsibility on all of use to
question and understand with open minds, and not to argue to defend our
position at all costs. The internet and
social media has given everyone a platform, I think it’s time to stop going
around high-fiving and siding with each other and instead learn the art of the
polite disagreement and healthy debate.
We learn more about each other in respectful disagreement that we do in
awkward comprise.