Social Decay As a Result of Political Tribalism
Living in the world of information where anyone can give their opinion on literally anything has become a double-edge sword. While it’s a liberating prospect to be able to type up your feelings onto a public, collective database of millions of other people — where you can be read by millions — it’s also induced a degradation of one-on-one discourse.
In 2017, Republican congressman Steve Scalise was shot while attending a baseball practice for the then-upcoming congressional baseball game. It was a moment that seemed to give pro-Trump Republicans some political high-ground on Twitter and Facebook for a day, uniting conservatives and liberals on the important American issue of gun violence. It seemed like an obvious universal agreement that while congressman Scalise has gained a reputation for voting on every piece of anti-LGBT legislation that has come his way, a left-wing radical attempting to gun him down is neither morally or politically acceptable.
It was the day after the shooting that I stumbled upon a self-published opinion piece by an author who goes by the moniker Son of Baldwin. His work is largely self-published, yet he reportedly has a book coming out in 2021 published through Putnam Books. His piece that I stumbled upon was titled “Let Them Fucking Die”. It was quick, to the point, and largely consisted of the philosophical idea that humans should face no moral judgement if they, as victims, decide the fate of their oppressors.
“If the ground is crumbling beneath them.
If they are in a park and they turn their weapons on each other:
Do nothing…
Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous.
Let. Them. Fucking. Die.“ — Son of Baldwin
He closes his essay with a small note, “Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous… Let. Them. Fucking. Die. ‘’ While arguing the philosophical validity of his statements in a post-modern American society would take much longer than this paper, his points raise a hostile narrative that is leaving the fringe and seeping into the norm — which brings me to my “thesis”, if you will. Taking a militant stance towards the physical well-being of those who rival in your political views is not, and has not been healthy for a functioning democratic society.
In the Trump era radical ideas have bolstered themselves on the main stages of the internet. While the internet provides some of the most useful tools for self-expression, it has also passed the reins to a growing fascist, anarchical-esque collective of both those who identify on far-left and far-right politics. Son of Baldwin merely does a fantastic job encapsulating their rhetoric in an albeit dramatic way. Antifa grows in numbers by the day, the amount of annual protests increase each year (both in number of attendance, quantity, and violence). Out of the 20 most attended protests and marches in US history, eight of them have happened in the last decade, five of the eight occurring from 2017–2019. The current White House has banned journalists from covering certain events with Pres. Trump over disputes that the President didn’t like the questions they were asking. Certain public figures such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Jordan Peterson, to name a few, have brilliantly highlighted the rejection they face when attempting to converse with protesters and general bystanders who simply think differently on political matters on viral YouTube videos. Representative Ocasio-Cortez famously rejected an invitation for a public debate over her policy ideas in which a $10,000 donation to her congressional campaign was offered as payment. Not only are citizens rejecting opportunities to stray from their ideological bubbles, but our congresspeople and the current President are too.
From an educational aspect, this is a horrible way to live life. Constraining yourself to sources and thoughts that already appeal to you and make you more confident in your repertoire of beliefs does nothing to challenge or stimulate your brain. Engaging in discourse over ideas with someone who differs from you can easily go downhill and become a taxing experience, which more often than eliminates any desires repeat the encounter in the future. It’s not always fun, if ever, but it isn’t about being fun.
Consider it a way of social survival of the fittest. Human betterment of the mind naturally occurs when the brain is pressed and flexed with new information that contradicts or opposes any pre-existing information. The most intelligent and respected scientists and philosophers spend their entire lives devoting themselves to education. Science is all about exploring all outcomes and methods until you find the appropriate conclusions (if possible) and admitting when truth can not be known. Those who work less-meaningful (in terms of their vocation’s benefit to the general welfare) jobs often are not on a path of finding how their views on Creationism might not be as reliable as carbon dating, or vice versa, or how belonging to a political group that violently opposes fascism may inherently be fascism itself. Those who do often seek answers to philosophical, scientific, or ideological questions are wired to thrive in competitive industries and communities, naturally filtering themselves above the rest.
This why graduates with doctorates and master’s degrees in biological science have higher salaries than those with visual arts degrees (World Education Services) and why a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering pays more than a drama or music degree. This isn’t a sign of a broken economy that arbitrarily values certain education studies over another. If we live and die on this planet without ever seriously inquiring about the existence of matter, or the way in which our societies run themselves, all the way down to the “atom” of each law and principle behind it, how are we expected to make a beneficial contribution to society? On what basis of intelligence can we persuade others, or be rightfully persuaded ourselves? In 2019 more and more Americans seem afraid to be persuaded. It’s as if ideological persuasion is spat in the eye of pride and self. Like some sort of mockery. How dare you be informed of something that battles your information. Propping up this kind of barrier will possibly leave people on the lower end of the social chain.
As 2019 draws to a close soon, and the Trump presidency possibly coming to an end in the next twelve months, this will be a time to reflect and evolve from the last four years. Whoever becomes the next leader of the United States, one can only hope that person doesn’t continue to propagate rhetoric that will make the sociopolitical divide between the right and the left larger. There aren’t a lot of clear choices in shrinking the divide, but hopefully future leaders learn from history and inspire creative thought and the exchange of new and opposing ideas not as propaganda or hate like Son of Baldwin, but of overall betterment for human society.
Source:
https://www.wes.org/advisor-blog/salary-difference-masters-phd/
