The Slow Death of Reason

Good day, my fellow humans.

I cannot any longer refrain from commenting on the inexcusable erosion of logic in social and political debate, and its gradual replacement with reactionism. I do not follow commentative blogs, as a rule; I have other matters to attend to. In research of one sort or another, however, it seems now difficult to avoid them, and when I find it impossible, I'm often dismayed by a seemingly progressive trend toward dogmatic, rhetorical banter, and away from lucid, rational consideration. A particularly infuriating example can be found here:

Right Wing News

Having read this far, some of you will already have labeled me a Leftie. Do not be so naive as to prove my point for me; I am a Libertarian. I simply tend to be harder on those with whom I share a greater base of beliefs. I expect more from them. The Right Wing News has done a lovely job of demonstrating that not all of us are so discerning.

That such a summary dismissal of a possibly valid issue can even exist amongst individuals who consider themselves to be enlightened should be enough to give us all pause. But what is more alarming to me is that this very breed of reactionary nonsense has in fact become a rather pervasive trend. The above example did not drive me to write on the subject; I have wished to do so for some time. When I felt the time was right for me to voice my concerns, I felt the need to exemplify them. I delved into the brave new world of online political commentary, and found my quintessential example. The search took me roughly forty seconds, and the article referred to above was the first one I read, the topmost post on the first blog I came to in a generic Google search. Have I made my point clearly enough? If anyone is not convinced, I'm quite confident I can provide myriad further examples at scant inconvenience to myself - no doubt a minute or two would be sufficient.

It seems that the primary problem is a shift of focus away from the issues of debate and toward the beliefs held in regard to them by members of a perceived polar opposition. We no longer need to refer to people as individuals or to discuss individual issues on their merits; we can now sit comfortably in fireside circles on our respective sides of the fence, passing time away with mockeries of what The Left or what The Right may have to say on a particular matter. And deciding our own opinions on these matters is no longer necessary either, as both membership cards come with a reference printed on the back that will tell us everything we need to know, about abortion, taxation, Islam, gun control, gay marriage, the war in Iraq, the righteousness of Israel, and the environment.

This polarization of opinion is destructive, irresponsible, and completely inexcusable. And sadly, whereas it has always been a danger due simply to human nature, the internet age has made it, as it has made most social problems, bigger, better, and stronger. There was a time, I seem to remember, many years ago, where the voice of the public on widespread issues was confined to a small area of a printed newspaper, and the only syndicated commentary was provided by experienced, educated journalists. That model has its own inherent problems, the most notable of which is an obvious influence of the bias of a particular publication over its own content. Blogging technology has deftly solved this problem, providing a voice and a chance to be heard worldwide to anyone who will take them. Such a powerful tool could be used to bring social coordination and discussion to new levels of excellence - as I'm sure the creators of blogging software anticipated it would be. Instead, a pervasive culture has emerged that values the opinion of a laic above all other opinions, rejects the authority of education wherever it is convenient to do so, and demands in return for its respect and admiration only that one fall neatly into a mould of Left or Right, and be as snide, as scathing, as sarcastic, as juvenile as possible in expressing which mould they chose. The success of a blogger, much like that of the politicians on which they comment, is measured in popularity. And so, predictably and again in parallel with politics, the ones that attain the most success will be the ones who tell their audience whatever their audience wants to hear.

At the left hand, we have a group with a noble concern for human rights, but who will make any excuse necessary to turn a blind eye when abuses of those rights are committed by left-wing governments, or in the name of Marxism, or some revision thereof. On the right, a group who will quickly cite human rights abuses in China as evidence of the evil of communism, but who will readily excuse, ignore or condone even the most savage mistreatment of innocent Iraqis at the hands of Western soldiers. On the left side, individuals who believe in both gender equality and cultural tolerance, and seem to have no trouble harassing employers in the West over the most petty issues of workplace sensitivity, while simultaneously being tolerant of Eastern societies that forcefully subjugate and strip their women of freedom. At the right hand, individuals who are so obsessed with the superiority of Western culture that they reject any suggestion of improvement, assuming any imperfection is either imagined or inevitable.

In the camp to my left, everyone is so obsessed with environmental change that they will rashly vote for whichever politician lends it the most lip service, or promises to ratify Kyoto. Had any of them been believers in due diligence they would have read the specification as I did, and concluded that it is a poorly designed and completely inadequate patch for a very large and complex hole, and that it was likely designed primarily for optical reasons, to quell dissent among those so nobly concerned. Plainly, it worked.

In the camp to my right, they refer to anyone who enjoys breathing as a "hippie" or a "tree-hugger" (I have never hugged a tree in my life, and bathe regularly, but I must be both, because I care more about my lungs than I do about whether or not oil companies will survive in the 21st century), or worse. They would rather surrender to, or ignore, the problem of environmental change than bother themselves with doing something about it, and justify their inaction with the misguided and erroneous notion that the natural resources that provide the basis for our entire economy, and the economy itself, are somehow inherently conflicted.

Both sides fancy themselves as economists, climatologists, engineers and military strategists, so it's never difficult for anyone to toss aside factual evidence of one thing or another if it does not incorporate well into their existing framework of dogma.

Frankly, I've had it with all of you. You seem to have abandoned reason almost entirely, and have let the most noble pursuit of social debate degenerate into a self-indulgent farce, content now to botch or ape your way through a process that was once treated with solemnity and respect. Perhaps it is the ease with which people can attain an audience these days that does it - popularity that is bought cheaply is not so well cherished as that which one actually needs to earn. Whatever the cause - and I can only speculate - there is clearly a serious problem of irresponsibility to be dealt with. We should not forget the importance that is intrinsically attached to the process of forming an opinion. It is our opinions, after all, that dictate, directly or indirectly, the course of our society. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the happiness and well being of millions of people are at stake, so please, a return to adulthood would be well appreciated. You may all be on your way out, but I'm still young, and I'd like to have a decent world in which to live for the rest of my life.