For many millennia the art of disagreement was sophisticated and elegant. Two people would stand opposite each other and shout at the top of their voices, simultaneously,
I have two points. 1) you are a poopy head and 2) I am always right in what I think
Some might find this art lacking in class and sophistication but if we look carefully at it we can see that a) both make their points and feel heard and b) neither point was worth making therefore it is good that no one actually heard or listened.
In the last few years, this once noble art has been replaced by something too vulgar to even consider. Now the discourse has become, two people standing opposite each other, shouting simultaneously,
I have two points. 1) you are a poopy head (note: some things never change) and 2) yes, this person did something bad, but someone you like also did something, unrelated to what we are talking about, bad, so why aren’t you shouting at them?
In the last few years there has been a rise in the falling of standards of discourse (see what I did there? Rise and fall, very clever). With what is known as WHATABOUTISM dominating conversation, not only on social media, evidence if there was ever any doubt that we are not a social species in the way that Aristotle meant, but also in political discourse. Let us, for a moment consider a something I saw on social media the other day. Commenting on a news story about an actor not being cleared of being labelled by the courts ‘a woman beater’ (to avoid the being asinine I will not name Johnny Depp as the legally named woman beater), someone said that it was unfair as the women who the courts said he beat, (again I won’t use Amber Heard’s name, who also was charged with beating Johnny Depp), also beat him and yet she still finds the opportunities to cash in on the Hollywood film roles whereas he can’t. This, she said, was unfair and Depp should be able to have the same opportunities.
Let this sink in for a moment. Two people were found guilty by the Court of Law, yet one seems to be punished and the other not so the argument from the public is that, if she isn’t punished, he shouldn’t be punished either. Or, in other words, they are both guilty so instead of punishing both, neither should be punished.
This, unfortunately, is the level of ignorant, morally-bankrupt, discourse that takes place in society. Arguments such as, people can go to pubs and not follow social distancing so why can’t thousands of people go to sporting events? Is, as you can see, backwards. It is saying, other people can act badly, so why can’t I? It is the very argument that children use, which parents counter with, ‘if Jimmy jumps off a cliff, would you?’ aka, if they do bad, stupid things, would you also do bad stupid things? (Note: it seems the answer to that question for many is yes).
The psychological cause for this is threefold. 1) people think they are special, the exception (note: if everyone is the exception then no one is) and they alone can break the rules, 2) people are unable/unwilling to take personal responsibility, and 3) people are so thin skinned that they think a justifiable criticism of someone else doing something ‘bad’ is an attack on them personally.
Unfortunately, this, ignorant, self-serving psychology is inherent in society, probably always has been just think how settlers/conquers decimated native populations, and now this veneer has been removed and people are seen for what they are, wannabe Moses standing on the mountain holding tablets (pun intended), cowering, saying, this is the law as I have laid down but don’t look at me or question me as I am too afraid.
Whataboutism is simply the inability to take responsibility for one’s self or one’s actions. The defence of simply indefensible actions (think the assault on the US capital by the British in 1812, (bet you thought I was referring to a more recent event? Tee hee)) by saying that they are not bad actions because somewhere in the world other people are doing bad actions is so dumb that a word has not been created yet to show the depth of stupidity and insecurity which one must possess to take criticisms of objectively bad events as slights on one’s own self.
Makes me long for the halcyon days when people would just shout at each other, even if it is the second dumbest form of discourse.
‘till next time
thegreaterfool2016 