by Stephen A. Wait ~ 23rd of January, 2023
Whereas those who participate are slaves to a lie, the truth… has no master. And opinions… they are the possession of all.
From these, in varying degrees, arrive our public discourse. And while our protections in such regard are limited to the threshold of government intervention, the free expression of ideas has existed as a societal cornerstone since our founding.
Of late, it seems the impunity to perpetuate one’s narrative is the greatest spoil of conflict. As such, an ill-advised quashing of speech now persists. And thus, at the altar of the ends justifying the means, the sacrosanct is now sacrificed. Tolerance is forsaken for the requisite intolerance of ideological conformity.
Here, the sharing of opinion with open minds is drowned out through a denial of service. An effective tactic in the suppression of independent thought, as when the adversary is muted, their vantage is expunged.
~
Is the drama of offense at another’s words simply the misguided fervor of inexperience? Is there naiveté to the abandonment of principle? Objectively, it would seem no, as those arguments are invalidated by prejudicial demands for compliance. Exposed then is a contempt for the people to discern where truth lies.
And yet, for the egregious decorum of some, absolution is sought under the pretense of offense… offense, at the absence of being protected from offense. While original in its strategic deflection, a more plausible explanation of this behavior seems the angst suffered in anticipation of a convincing argument.
~
And so it is, with immeasurable societal value, that the very nature of free speech ensures our exposure to the offensive. A safe space from the freedom of expression simply becomes an incubator of cowardice. One should not fear ideas, the offensive need be challenged on merit… not shouted down in tantrum.
…
Regarding Comments in reply to postings and the Submissions of Opinion: 1) With deliberative appraisal, you are invited to expand on, offer anew, or debate the merits of an argument. 2) In the spirit of Mr. Hancock, as expressed in today’s vernacular, you must own it! As public discourse is weakened by the masquerade of internet anonymity, an attribution of true identity (both given and surname) is required ~ i.e., pseudonyms may not be used. 3) Disingenuous commentary will be rejected.
