Caring is a great thing, in and of itself. It is seldom ever good for one to become apathetic about what is going on around them. However, the thing about interesting ourselves with issues in our surroundings is that it births ideas in our minds about how to respond to or resolve them. And since a society is made of many diverse groupings, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that these ideas differ from one another, hence the presence of passionate disagreements around public discourse. It’s worthwhile to note that this is hardly more evident in any other field than in the area of social justice online.
When you have different people believing themselves to amplify the cause for justice through spreading their convictions, you’re almost always assured of having those same individuals or their followers opposing, out of conviction, the spread of whatever is deemed contrary to their cause. Some resort to attacking the ideas, but in other cases some aim for the person of their “opponent”, especially in cases where the idea is fortified but its conveyer is an easy target of sorts. It could be due to a natural mannerism, a socially undesirable bodily feature, or even neurodivergence.
Mocking and making a negative spectacle of something that someone cannot change about themselves is a big part of the very definition of prejudice. It is even functionally worse if done to shut down an idea. That is because in that case, not only is one transgressing against the person of their opponent, but they are impeding a more meaningful flow of discourse.
What if the victim of said prejudice is irredeemably bad or is too good at conveying their idea, but their opponent is certain that it is detrimentally wrong? Is it then justifiable grounds to attack their person, as a last resort? Well, the problem is, such a question assumes perfection of judgment on the part of the practitioner of said prejudice. Of course, any non-delusional well adjusted human knows their judgment is not flawless.
Besides, prejudice is not some static thing that you can confine to a rare situational exception. It grows within the mind of its practitioner, and spreads easily due to the preferential nature of the very concept of convictions. The point is, it is best not to give it a chance to thrive.
There is a possibility that you, passionate reader, have chanced upon this piece, and realized that you may have resorted to prejudice in your past online interactions about social justice. For one, this recognition is a good place to start. To your credit too, the silver lining is, you care enough about what is around you to be passionately engaged about it. What is left is to deal with the inclination to resort to prejudice in discourse.
It could help to start with doing away with the notion of any morally excusable prejudice. The very temptation to consider it gives way to its thriving. You would also benefit from directing your passion to finding logical, evidential, or morally sound means of defending your convictions during your online forays. Of course, there is no chance you will always be right or “win” every engagement you find yourself in; whatever that means. However, better to be wrong or “lose” than to wield prejudice that is not only detrimental to the person it is directed to, but also to you.
That said, nowhere has it been mentioned in this piece that it is wrong to passionately contend with ideas. Have at it! Tear down misconceptions and rectify what you deem to be wrong. Ideas, that is. Not people. Once again, ideas, not people. Good luck with your ideological jostlings online!
Comments