Did you ever have a very strong opinion about something, only to find that some people did not share that same opinion? Did you firmly believe in your mind that those other people, who did not share this same opinion, were objectively wrong?
When there are differences in opinion, it is common for people with a certain opinion to believe that their opinion is “the best one” and that the other opinions are “not as good”. When it comes to political opinion in particular, it is common for people with a certain political view to believe that their political view is “more informed” or “more rational” or “more based on the real world”. Conversely, people commonly believe that the opposing political view is “less informed” or more based on emotion rather than logic. They may also believe that while their view is rooted in the real world, the opposing view is more rooted in theory, or maybe even fantasy.
I would figure that the stronger someone’s opinion is about something, the more likely this individual will be to believe that his/her opinion is objectively right while the opposing opinion is objectively wrong. What people with strong opinions often forget is that what they believe is still just an opinion.
Note that not everything is just a matter of opinion. Morality, or the definition of right and wrong, is supposed to be objective. If we say that morality is just a matter of opinion, then we are creating an environment where evil can flourish, as is discussed in the Subjectivity article.
Politics and morality do not completely overlap, however. Some policies, we can say, are objectively wrong such as the policies implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust in an attempt to annihilate the entire Jewish population. However, when we consider the question of whether there should be a tax on soda pop, we are not dealing with morality anymore. We are dealing with something that is simply a matter of political opinion.
There are some types of policies and political ideologies that many people are firmly opposed to. One topic that generates many strong opinions is the topic of socialism. Many people are firmly against socialism and believe that it can ruin a country. They will, in turn, believe that any people actively supporting socialism are doing harm to society. What they keep forgetting is that their political opinion is still just an opinion.
Some government policies do turn out to be more harmful than helpful. Other government policies turn out to be helpful. Some government policies, such as universal healthcare coverage, can be good in some societies and bad in other societies. Because there is often uncertainty about the end effects of a government policy, variable opinions as to whether to enact a government policy are inevitable. In addition, many government policies are advantageous for one group of people and disadvantageous for another group of people. This is one reason that we see people from different demographics voting differently.
The Evil of Silencing the Opposing View
Some people become so firmly against opposing political views that they start to believe that the opposing views should be silenced. When we start believing that the opposing opinions and beliefs need to be silenced, we can start to walk down a path that leads to evil. While we act to silence the voices of others, and stifle their ability to express themselves, we believe that we are doing good. What we may really be doing is pushing our own ideology onto everyone else that probably has its pros and cons. We may have an arrogance we are not aware of, which tells us that we are right and they are wrong, and it is our job to stop them from spreading their nonsense.
A more appropriate way to deal with people who have opposing views is constructive communication. The two sides should meet and discuss why each one believes the way that it does. However, you may find that even if you explain to another person why you think you are right, the other person may still not agree with you.
People with evil in their hearts often do not acknowledge that other people have the right to disagree with them. In their arrogance, they may attach to the other person offensive labels such as “opinionated”, “stubborn” or “headstrong”. The person may not intend to come across as offensive, but he/she still is asserting his/her view as superior to the other view by attaching these labels to anybody who refuses to agree with him/her. By labeling the person who continues to disagree as “stubborn” or “headstrong”, the individual is essentially finding fault in the other person for refusing to agree. Here, the person is refusing to face the reality that he/she failed to provide a sufficiently convincing argument in favor of his/her view.
Cancel Culture
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, cancel culture is defined as the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure. Cancel culture generally occurs when the mainstream view in a culture attempts to silence the views of the minority. As far as the mainstream view is concerned, the minority view is offensive and/or potentially harmful. Cancel culture is much more noticed by the minority view than it is by the majority view. The majority view may even deny that any cancelling is taking place at all.
This article by Forbes discusses how mainstream values within a culture start to gradually dominate over the values of the minority. The article states that “it is about unaccountable groups successfully applying pressure to punish someone for perceived wrong opinions”. Victims could lose their jobs and/or become ostracized in their professions. For example, teachers in the United States have lost their jobs because they did not address transsexual students by their preferred pronouns. A professor lost his job because he attended a Back the Blue rally in support of police officers. In neither case was there an intent by the individuals to do harm. The individuals were only expressing their views, which did not match mainstream views.
In cultures where left-wing thinking dominates, the right-wing thinkers are the ones who notice cancel culture taking hold. In places such as Nigeria where right-wing thinking dominates, left-wing authors are the ones who notice cancel culture taking hold. Cancel culture does not affect the rich and powerful as much, which is why you may notice rich and powerful people speaking against mainstream views the most.
When cancel culture takes hold, the people are systematically placed into echo chambers where they are fed information that tells them what they already think. As long as a person holds the mainstream view, his/her viewpoint will never be challenged, even if it has its share of vices.
A Real-Life Example Among Individuals
This video presents a discussion about politics and the link between the breakdown of the home and the increased prevalence of the homosexual lifestyle. While I agree with many of the messages presented in this video, I find some evidence of strong bias in favor of right wing conservative political views, and a disrespect for left wing liberal political views. According to Candace and Brandon, the two speakers on this podcast, voting Republican is the “correct” way to vote, and voting Democrat is the “wrong” way to vote. Though this is not stated explicitly, it is implied based on the dialogue going back and forth. Note that the political discussion begins shortly before the 10-minute mark and ends at around the 20-minute mark.
The political discussion begins with a discussion about women’s empathy, which Candace initially describes as a superpower, but ultimately cites this “superpower” as the reason that women should not vote. Candace and Brandon discuss how women’s empathy has been hijacked for evil. Candace describes women as being “wildly emotional”. When Democrats present emotional arguments (rather than rational arguments) in their political campaigns, women are the first to fall for these emotional arguments.
The white male Christian, on the other hand, is described as the backbone/savior of the voting population. This group is statistically the most likely to vote for Republican and conservative politicians. According to Candace and Brandon, black men used to vote the way that white men voted…that is until their families were broken up and they started being raised by single mothers. At that point, according to Candace, “black men became a part of that emotional silly putty that were really voting for policies based on emotion rather than rationality and education”, to which Brandon added “…because they started being raised by women”.
As you can see here, Candace and Brandon—like many people of a certain political view—believe that their political view is the “rational” view while the opposing political view is the “irrational” and “more emotional” view. Note how they attach defects to the groups that are the most statistically likely to vote differently from them—these two groups being women and racial minorities. To women they attach the weakness of being “wildly emotional” while racial minorities are labeled with the defect of being from broken families that are raised by single mothers. According to them, if the black men were not from broken homes, and had male role models, they would no longer be broken emotional silly putty, and would then vote the correct way, which is Republican, or at least vote against any pro-socialism and pro-LGBTQ policies.
Not only do Candace and Brandon believe that women should not vote, they also believe that it is bad for women to influence their husbands’ voting behaviors. In other words, Candace and Brandon believe that women should neither have a voice in government, nor have a voice in their own homes. They say that even if women are allowed to have a voice in their own homes, they will inundate their husbands with emotional arguments, and disrupt their husbands’ more rational thought processes. This reasoning presented here rationalizes the silencing of half of the adult population!
Candace points out that nothing has improved since women have gotten the right to vote. This begs the question: was something supposed to improve? Were we expecting more qualified individuals to enter public office? Were we expecting reductions in poverty, hunger and homelessness and improved economy? Certainly the state of the country is dependent on many other factors besides who is in public office, let alone who is voting.
We must understand the purpose of giving people the right to vote. People are not given the right to vote so that the most qualified individuals enter into public office. People are given the right to vote so that the people decide who is most qualified to enter into public office. If we say that we want the objectively most qualified individual to enter into public office, then we would need to answer the question: who decides who is the most qualified to be in public office? The next question would be: who is qualified to define the group of people that is most qualified to answer the first question?
Furthermore, even if women were truly more emotional than men (which is only one of multiple cultural female stereotypes discussed here), does that really mean that they should not vote? The fact is that some people are more emotional thinkers, and some people are more logical thinkers. This, to me, is simply a personality trait. To say that emotional thinkers should not vote would be highly questionable from an ethical standpoint. Certainly, there are some men who are emotional thinkers, and there must be some woman somewhere who is a logical thinker (maybe it’s Candace). If, indeed, we decide that the world is better when the emotional thinkers don’t vote, then what about the drug addicts and the people with psychiatric disorders? What about the convicted criminals? Would it be better if they did not vote, either?
If we follow the line of logic that disqualifies whole groups of people from voting, then popular sovereignty goes bye bye.
So, should podcasts such as this one be cancelled? Certainly not! Candace says at some point in the podcast that she had been cancelled 16 times, and that should not have happened. If we say that a particular viewpoint should be cancelled simply because it is controversial, offensive, or even perceived as harmful, we are opening up a can of worms that could diminish freedom of expression altogether. Even when a view is perceived as harmful, let’s face it, mainstream thinking has some views that are harmful, too; and only minority views can bring out the follies of mainstream thinking.
Summary
It is in human nature to believe that the other opinion is always wrong. If we did not believe that our opinion was the most sensible one, then it would not be our opinion anymore. There are some exceptions, however. Not everyone is in the honest search for what is true or what is right. Some people’s beliefs are based on wishful thinking or superstition.
Nonetheless, when people are on the honest search for truth or what is right, there will still be some differences in opinion. Even well-intentioned people can fall into the mindset that the other view is not only wrong, but also harmful. This mindset can become evil when these people, who were originally well-intentioned, start to believe that the opposing view needs to be silenced. This can happen when someone has strong political views, and becomes strongly opposed to certain policies. The individual can fall into the frame of mind that the world would be a better place if the opposing view were to be silenced. What would a Republican think that the world would be like if all the Democrats were silenced and held no political office anymore? What would a Democrat expect the world to be like if all Republicans were silenced and no longer held public office? Do they believe that the world would be a better place? Or perhaps the world is best off if both political parties have a voice.