The Political Activist-Ideologue: A Profile

If the last General Election taught us anything about how most people make their voting decisions, it’s surely that extremism doesn’t pay. Particularly when that extremism is allied with the distinct whiff of lack of patriotism.

Now I for one am very pleased and mighty relieved about this but there are a small but vocal percentage of folk who are not pleased; not at all!

So, who are they, how do you spot them and how should you engage with them?


What is an Activist-Ideologue?


Political activists tend to be ideologues – it sort of goes with the territory, since you have to have really hard-line, even extreme & closed-minded views about something to become a fully-fledged activist.

Very simply an ideologue is someone who believes very strongly in a set of principles; and that’s fine, nothing wrong with that at first glance. 
Except that most ideologues (and certainly in socio-political areas) believe so strongly in their ideology that they have closed their minds entirely to any other way of looking at things.

In effect these activist-ideologues close their eyes, cover their ears and shout, “la, la, la, I’m not listening” continuously until the person putting an alternative viewpoint or asking difficult questions gives up and goes away. Either that or they organise a mob to shut them down, which is all too frequent.

These activist-ideologues would see objective open-minded, critical thinking as: ‘unnecessary’ (because I’m right); ‘weak’ (because I’m righteous & strong); ‘dangerous’ (giving the enemy a chance to make their case); ‘treacherous’ (I may have to leave my beloved tribe); ‘humiliating’ (how stupid am I if I’ve been wrong all these years?); ‘frightening’ (I’ll lose all my friends if I alter my views even slightly).

So they keep their minds firmly closed.


How to spot an Activist-Ideologue

When you read/hear what they say you will note that there is never any attempt to look at both sides of an issue, or at best they throw up an extreme straw-man of the opposing view, just so they can easily tear it down. 

We all acknowledge that there is always more than one way of looking at important issues - activist-ideologues don’t acknowledge that or at least, they believe there is only one ‘right’ way to look at important issues – their way.

So there is little, if any, nuance in their views. It’s usually just one tub-thumping assertion after another. There is little by way of reasoned argument.
If they give evidence at all, it’s usually from a like-minded opinion source. 

As Andrew Doyle said recently,

“Ideologues always quote other like-minded ideologues to support their existing prejudices. Nothing new here.” 

That your opinion being backed up by someone else of the same opinion is NOT compelling evidence doesn’t seem to occur to them.

When you analyse what they say/write you will get some of the following attitudes, and if you’re (un)lucky, all of them! 

Massively judgmental, morally superior, finger-wagging, self-righteous, aggressive, closed-minded, angry, bitter, resentful, condescending, patronising, supercilious, dismissive; coercive - and I could go on but I won’t as it’s too depressing.

Of course, the thing that binds all these traits together is a staggering lack of self -awareness. 

They all practice hypocrisy – defending (or ignoring) people in their own tribe for the same behaviour as they constantly attack those in other tribes for.

There’s absolutely no place in their thinking for forgiveness or giving someone a second-chance or the benefit of the doubt, unless they are of their own ideological tribe, at which point these merciful traits often miraculously appear; (though not always, as feminists of the 1960s and 1970s are finding out from trans-gender activist-ideologues).


What do these Activist-Ideologues hope to achieve from their judgemental, morally superior closed-minded rantings? 

Well, it depends what their purpose is. 
If they are simply preaching to the choir just to make sure everyone in their tribe knows they’re still onboard the ideological train, then I imagine it works very well.

However, surely the point of activism is not just to feel good about yourself & get applauded by those who already think the same way as you, but to persuade those who don’t agree with you. 

Yet aggressively asserting your views and saying that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or evil, obviously won’t achieve that. Or at least it’s obvious to all but Activist-Ideologues.

But in fact, they’ve moved away from attempts at reasoned argument and persuasion to the nastier and more blatantly authoritarian tactics of coercion (e.g. censorship); bullying (e.g. organised Twitter/Press mobs); harassment (e.g. anonymous threats & false complaints); propaganda (‘facts’ either made-up, distorted or ignored to suit); and moral blackmail (claiming victimisation/oppression) to get their way.


Activist-Ideologues then are partisan extremists. 
Dictators in the making is another way of perceiving them.

As Bo Winegard said recently, “As fun as it might be to anger your political foes, it generally accomplishes little more than transient satisfaction. Long term change requires broad consensus and compromise, two things that are anathema to extremists and partisans”.

We can safely say that broad consensus and compromise is NOT how activist-ideologues think. 

You see, they don’t see themselves as extremists or closed-minded and of course, if you can’t see a problem, you ain’t gonna be able to fix it. 
We all know that to rectify any deficiency in ourselves we first need the self-awareness & humility to recognise it as such. 


Activist-Ideologues are lacking in either self-awareness or humility.

So, if people who constantly and consistently espouse very hard line, very judgemental & apparently simplistic black & white views don’t see themselves as extremists or closed-minded ideologues, how do they see themselves?

Well, clearly, they have a firm and unwavering view that they are ‘right’. Now his can lead to, shall we say, unfortunate behaviour but sadly it goes much deeper than this. 

The reality is that their political ideology has become like a fundamentalist religion. So, they believe not simply that they are ‘right’ but ‘righteous’

And of course, the ‘righteous’ can do no evil; they wouldn’t be righteous if they could, would they? 
And thus this circular reasoning brings them to the conclusion that whatever measures they need to take to make their particular ‘Righteous Kingdom’ come into being, is not just acceptable but necessary. 

Boy, do you give yourself plenty of rope to hang other people with when you rationalise your thinking like this!


How to spot Activist-Ideologues

Look for heavily politicised posts. Usually boldly or aggressively asserting things with no evidence or citing someone, or a press opinion, from their own tribe. 

Look for barely controlled anger and often rudeness, (e.g. calling those who disagree ‘stupid’, ‘evil’, 'fascist' or 'nazi' etc). Look for demands and extremely simplistic nuclear option solutions (e.g. sackings; law enforcement action on their opponents etc).

When responding to an Activist-Ideologue & politely disagreeing or asking reasonable questions, look for evasion, waffly ideological generalisations, dismissive/rude/aggressive language, ignoring any question or point they can’t answer etc.


To engage or ignore Activist-Ideologues?

Of course, we can ignore them but I think we must be braver than that because the activist-ideologue, with their lack of self-awareness and humility, simply sees no opposition as an acceptance by everyone that they are right; victory! 
It simply encourages them in their ‘egotistical righteousness’.

So, I try to ask questions, point out flaws, make suggestions and generally try to encourage them to think more deeply & openly about their position.

The key things are: ALWAYS be polite. ALWAYS keep your temper and NEVER stoop to aggression, dismissiveness or name calling.

Now, of course, this rarely gets them to change because if Activist-Ideologues were open-minded, reasonable and capable of altering their views, then there would be no such thing as Activist-Ideologues and I wouldn’t need to write this blog warning against them!

However, and very importantly, it does remind them that not everyone agrees with their narrow, simplistic and jaundiced view of the world, and even that small check on their ego is better than nothing.

Summary

Here is another quote from Bo Winegard which sums-up the Activist-Ideologue.


“It's quite easy to disguise our demons as avenging angels of righteousness and thus to celebrate our cruelty as a justified retaliation or a necessary pre-emptive strike against a sinister enemy.”

And finally, after I finished this piece (honest!), I read an article by Andrew Doyle which almost brought me to tears so in tune with my thinking is it.

The whole piece is so worth reading for anyone tired of the angry closed-minded mud-slinging. Andrew Doyle on the need for critical thinking

Should Johnson just be following the science?

Everyone wants to know if Johnson's government really has been 'following the science' on Covid-19.
To me, this is far too simplistic, bordering on unintelligent, way to look at it.
Surely it goes like this:
Early on when we don't know enough about it, you have to err on the side of caution. That means, in effect, assuming that it will be very medically bad and you don't want to have the NHS overwhelmed.

You have two choices then; go for herd immunity (no official lockdown, just advice), or proper lockdown.
The Government was leaning toward the former but got spooked at the level of criticsm for appearing cavalier &/or 'uncaring', so changed to a lockdown strategy.
At this stage it was essentially a uni-dimensional (medical/scientific risk) decision making process. They were getting conflicting advice as to which option was best medically, but had to make a choice.
They chose to play it ultra-safe and go for lockdown.
I don't blame them, even if with hindsight it may prove not have been the optimal way to go.
Then as time goes by and more data comes in, you start to know with some degree of certainty which groups are most affected by the virus and how it spreads and how to minimise the spread in the best ways. You're ramping up tests and PPE from a very low base and are very wary of changing the lockdwon policy too early in case the progress made reverses creatng even more howls of criticism.

You may start to think that some of your earlier decisons were, with hindsight, not the best, but you have to continue from where you are; you can't put the clock back overnight with everyone worried sick and in lockdown.
But 8 weeks on, we are at (if not past) the point where the decisions have to be genuinely multi-dimensional.
Not just looking at the medical/scientific risk but at the economic, social, educational and psychological risks as well.
These multi-dimensional decisions are the toughest to make because some risks will conflict with each other and there will always be groups of people who don't like what you decide to do.

Putting aside those who are just out to criticize this Government come what may, (and sadly there are quite a lot of those), this will be because they want their particular risk prioritised above all the others.
The obvious example at the moment is the Teachers Unions.
I'm feeling charitable so I'll say that they are simply wanting it to be a uni-dimensional (medical/scientific risk) decision and there's no attempt to take advantage of this situation to make life hard for a Tory government - (aren't I kind?!)

But we have to move passed the uni-dimensional way of thinking now, and think longer term.
Let's remember that Johnson was pressed repeatedly for a road-map and criticised for not providing one. When he provides one, all the people who feel their group or their particular main risk hasn't been duly prioritised loudly complain. Who would have guessed?

So, bearing in mind there will be a vociferous set of people who disagree whatever he does, I hope Johnson just does what his instincts tell him in a multi-dimensional risk scenario, and we'll see what happens.

One thing's for sure, it's long past only being a medical/scientific risk that has to inform Government decisions now!

We are between a rock and a hard place!

This is an unprecedented situation in this country in my lifetime and it caught almost every European country off-guard. 
If that were not so, why was the EU so slow to come to the aid of Italy & Spain? Why did each country feel it had to do its own thing? 
And of course, if all countries do their own thing, some will do better than others, but it’s largely luck, not some special insight. 
And certainly, the cosying-up of the World Health Organisation to China both delayed the disclosure and down-played the seriousness of this situation until it was too late.


We also need to be honest and say that our ‘experts’, for example Neil Ferguson, upon whose modelling much early advice & policy was determined, are not quite as expert as we might have supposed or wished.

This is NOT to accuse anyone in the ‘expert community’ advising the Government of bad faith; rather, sometimes you only realise that there are deficiencies in your thinking, knowledge and planning when a real crisis arises.

You can do as much modelling as you like; as many table-top simulations as you like; only when a critical issue arises that needs drastic action in the real world do you see where the gaps in your knowledge, models and plans really are.

The idea that anyone, scientists, modellers or politicians should, or even can, have the all-encompassing wisdom and foresight to predict and then prepare perfectly for any and every eventuality is, to put it mildly, unreasonable.


Until now, the Government has prioritised the medical side over the economic side. But because the infection fatality rate is looking like being 1% or less, we are now at, or fast approaching, the cross-over point where problems caused by a poor economy are being seen as likely to outweigh the immediate issue of deaths from the virus itself.  


This is a Godsend for unreasonable ideologues who are automatically opposed to this Government, for two reasons.

Firstly, with the aid of hindsight, all kinds of things should have been done better, sooner, later, faster, to a greater extent, to a lesser extent etc etc.

Secondly, and quite literally, whatever the Government does from here, it will be possible to criticise it, and with some degree of validity.

Why? 

Because our individual, family, financial & employment circumstances vary so widely that a fair proportion of the population will not like the impact that any Government decision now has on their lives.

Some want the full lockdown to be extended; some want it fully removed now; some want it eased for one particular part of the economy; some for another; some are enjoying working from home; others very much not; some are happy being paid 80% of their wage without actually working; others have or are likely to lose their jobs with all the worry that brings; some have plenty of income/savings; others have very little; some have elderly relatives who have died or they are worried about; others have or have relatives with underlying medical conditions making them vulnerable; some literally know no-one who has died from this and don’t see what the fuss is all about etc etc.

In a situation like this, wherein you have no really good options; where the best you can do is to try and choose the least bad option, keeping everyone or even 75% of people content is quite literally impossible.

As time goes on, rather than looking at the big picture with all its complexity, and taking a ‘we’re all in this together’ attitude, quite naturally, we start looking mainly at our own individual circumstances; and anything but perfection for us personally causes us to feel neglected or let down, and so we start carping and criticising.

It’s human nature I’m afraid.

Why unscientific falsehoods gain traction

Bret Weinstein (Evolutionary Biologist) spoke on the Rebel Wisdom you tube channel – talking about why radical leftist social justice and intersectional ideas that seem utterly ludicrous to the vast majority gain traction. Here is the link. How ludicrous ideas gain traction in society


The whole discussion is very worthwhile listening to but here is a portion of what he said.

"You have to realise that it’s a power grab hiding behind a mask of fairness and compassion. There is no real science behind the idea for example, that gender is a social construct and not an inherent biological one but this is what more and more universities and governments and companies are going along with.


The problem is the balance between the collective interest and the individual interest.


Because the weapon being wielded is stigma, (you’re just a hateful bigot), the individual has to ask a question. 
An individual who might ideally want to steer their tech company to some sort of middle ground where it deals compassionately with minorities but holds fast to the enlightenment values and scientific perspective, that person has to ask a question.

‘Am I personally ready to suffer the costs of stepping out of line when this power grab (by radical intersectional leftists) is in motion?’


And most people will buckle. 
They will say nothing and allow the power grab to take place. 
And then, even worse than that, not only does their cowardice cause them to be quiet, but they can’t live with cowardice as an explanation. 
So, they will then rationalize that the explanation that they have allowed to take hold is actually right.


People are too afraid of the backlash, the twitter mob, being doxed etc, to speak up. And being ashamed that they didn't speak up, they start lying to themselves in order to make themselves feel better. 
And this is causing non-science & non-fact based fictions to spread across the whole landscape of society."

Let's not be cowards, eh? Let's have the courage calmly & politely to push back.

In politics, simplicity is dishonest and dangerous!

We hear all the time don’t we, ‘just keep it simple!’ As though simplicity of solution to a problem is always best. The truth of course is that it depends on how complex the problem is. But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Here’s the problem. Infants move through a developmental stage that Melanie Klein referred to as ‘Good Mother, Bad Mother’. At this stage, the child’s reactions are polarized. Very simple, black and white thinking.

If mother satisfies all desires in a timely manner, mother is deemed ‘good’.

If mother’s performance is compromised; say, she is delayed in the shower or has to take a phone call, then the infant thinks mother is ‘bad’!

We hope, in time, the child will outgrow a tendency for this black-and-white simplistic thinking. After all, mother – and everyone else – is good . . . and bad. Helpful . . . and flawed. Sometimes she gives you what you want; other times she will disappoint. Life is more complicated than the Queen lyric, ‘I want it all and I want it now’ – and I would also add it’s more complicated than – ‘and I deserve to get what I want and when I want it’.

The ability to understand the normality, indeed inevitability and humanity, of life’s complexity is one of the building blocks of maturity.

We live in a very complex society. Yet, in far too many adults, this maturity to understand and accept that important socio-political issues are not simple, not black & white, but rather have real and important  complexity to them, seems to be missing. 

Complexity both in defining the problem accurately (not just simplistically) and then deciding on the best mix of solutions to get the optimal, not perfect, outcome.

Why not insist on perfection? We’ve all heard the phrase, ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good’. So, by insisting on perfection, you either end up doing nothing because you can see that perfection can’t be achieved, OR, in striving for perfection, you take such drastic actions that untold problems are caused elsewhere; this is the law of unintended consequences.

Oh, and if you don’t think it’s true that many adults have decided that important societal issues can be defined simplistically and can be dealt with by simplistic solutions, just look at the number of one-sided, simplistic and utterly biased interviews on the TV or social media posts on important socio-political issues. 

So, people who only ever quote from The Guardian or The Telegraph or some other ideologically biased source of opinion, for example, with no acknowledgment of the bias or that any other viewpoint has any validity whatsoever. 

We see multiple times a day people who would find a way of criticising Johnson if he said 2+2 = 4 or would find a way of agreeing with him if he said 2+2 =7.

So many posts with no attempt at discussion; no attempt at seeing the other point of view or exploring to see if there is any common ground; just bald simplistic statements of tribal opinion almost daring you to disagree. 

Closed-minded virtue signalling to your ‘tribe’; a warning shot to any other.

So, what may be the reasons for this child-like over-simplification of societal problems and suggested solutions? This refusal to engage in any meaningful or useful way with differing viewpoints?

Well, as you would expect me to say, it’s complicated; or at least, it can be complicated. For some, it will be just one reason, but for most perhaps, a mix.

 

Here are some possibilities:

1. Lack of self-awareness

There are those who, almost literally, never think about their views or reactions to things. They have an auto-pilot point of view and an auto-pilot emotional response whenever a certain topic comes up or a certain person is being talked about … and that’s it!

Attempts to see the other point of view – 0; attempts to look at each new situation on its individual merits – 0; Likelihood of modifying, let alone completely changing their view – 0; number of times they wonder if they should find out a bit more before deciding what they think – and I see you’re ahead of me here – yes, 0

     2. Wishful thinking/ Self-delusion

This is my idea of Utopia; how things ‘ought’ to be. So I’ll ignore, shout-down or rubbish anything that doesn’t fit with that idea, irrespective of facts or the merit of the argument. Saves the bother of thinking doesn’t it?

   

     3. Analysis overload

This is akin to wishful thinking. ‘I can’t compute or decide between all these differing and competing views/facts/possibilities, so I’ll just plump for what I would like to be the case and go with that. In essence, I’ll rely on my emotional/gut instinct and then ignore or filter-out any contrary data or olpinions. Again, it’s just easier that way

     4. Simple laziness

This is akin to analysis overload. Engaging with complex subjects is just too much effort; OR it makes me feel stupid that I can’t analyse or prioritise the information; OR, it all takes too much time. I decided when I was in my teens what I thought about this or what my general political ideology was and, frankly, I can’t be arsed to give it any further thought.

     5. Bad-faith actors

Ideological zealots whose pride is so great that they can’t ever contemplate, let alone actually admit to, being wrong. Their self-worth is inextricably linked to their ideology; it’s a symbiotic relationship; there’s no escape!

They know society is complex but are willing to ignore that because they know for certain what the ‘greater good’ is; they know for certain the ‘right’ answer. So a form of ‘the ends justify the means’ thinking takes over.

The further you move into extreme or radicalised ways of thinking, the less you engage in reconciling any contradictions, either between you and others, or within yourself. i.e. you give yourself a pass to be dishonest, contradictory and hypocritical in the pursuance of your ‘righteous’ goals. 

You also give yourself a pass to ignore or shout-down people who disagree because they are, simply by dint of disagreeing, either stupid and/or evil. 

All identity politics activists are a heady & dangerous mix of all of these categories. Some aren’t bad-faith actors; they really are totally lacking in self-awareness etc but almost all ARE bad-faith actors & quite happy to be so, sadly.

     6. Sound bite news and social media

Sound-bite or short-form formats (like TV news interviews) are the enemy of reasonable & nuanced thinking. You are forced into over-simplification because you only have 20 seconds to get your point across OR you only have so many characters of type OR any post more than 8 sentences long gets ignored because our attention span now rivals that of a goldfish.

Thankfully, there are a lot of longer form podcasts and you tube videos on serious topics exploring important issues with good-faith and an open-mind but you have to go outside the mainstream self-regarding media to find it. I’ll put some examples for you at the end.

So in summary, simplistically defined problems (often ideological) with simplistic solutions (almost always ideological) are put forward by those who are either unaware of the unintended consequences inherent in what they propose to the point of being dangerous OR those who know full well that it’s far more complex than they are making out, but have an agenda that they think will be easier to achieve by the form of dishonesty inherent in deliberate silver-bullet-style over-simplification.

We can’t improve as a society until far more people engage with the complexities of society AND do so with an open-mind and in good faith.

Here are a selection of you tubers/podcasters that seem to want to discuss complex matters in the right way. I’m sure there are far more. You can find them via any search engine or on you tube.

Bret Weinstein – Dark Horse podcast and you tube

Joe Rogan – podcast and you tube. Wide-ranging topics for discussion. Non-partisan.

Triggernometry – podcast and you tube. Hosted by two left of centre comedians but non-partisan

Noel Plumb – you tube. NB he is an anti-theist but talks sensibly on non-religious topics also

Rebel Wisdom – podcast and you tube. Attempting non-partisan discussions & ways forward

Maajid Nawaz – LBC Radio – facebook & twitter. As objective a journalist as I can find.

Douglas Murray – author. No channel of his own but is interviewed widely and is a calm, intelligent and considerate Conservative

Bloggingheads TV – specifically Glenn Loury Show - you tube

Paul Vanderklay – Reformed Church Pastor  - a really good guy – not ‘preachy’

Tim Pool – non-partisan take on US politics

NO! Covid-19 does NOT show UK is racist!

At almost every daily Covid-19 briefing now there is a question about the effect of Covid-19 on the BAME community. And it’s true that there is a disproportionate effect on certain, but not all, ethnic minorities. Here are some thoughts.

There is no such thing as the BAME community. There are many different non-caucasian people living in the UK. The idea that they are all a single group who all think the same, want the same things or are all equally susceptible to Covid-19 is an example of how you can badly muddy the waters by over-simplifying.

What worries me is the underlying tone of these questions. I think we can all hear the attempt to insinuate that we are a racist country.

I came to an age where I could understand about racism in the mid-1970s. You either have no grasp of our history since then or simply be speaking in bad faith to suggest that we are a racist country in 2020.

An analogy: a man drinks 40 pints of beer every week and is called a drunkard. 40 years later he only drinks 1 pint of beer a week. Ah yes, but he still drinks beer, so he’s still a drunkard. No, he bloody isn’t!

When you are dealing with a population of approx. 70 million people you are always going to have a small percentage who behave badly. 

For example, there is a very small percentage who commit major crime; likewise there is a very small percentage who continue to be racist, i.e. judge people not on the content of their character and their actions but on the colour of their skin.

Sadly, a single figure percentage of 70 million is still a large number but as with the drunkard analogy, it’s simply unfair and unreasonable to say that we are a racist country now.

It is simply disingenuous & unrealistic to suggest that until it can be proven that there is not a single racist person left, it’s acceptable to continue saying we are a racist country. Any reasonable person can see why that is not a rational or fair argument. 

We can never get to the point, let alone prove, that there are literally no racists and anyway, the definition of racism is likely to be changed to suit those who want to continue to peddle the ‘UK is racist’ line. Why?  Because playing with words and definitions is what people do who want an excuse to continue with the ideological tropes they have burned into their hearts. 

They just can’t let them go however much things change– it’s become who they are!

It is also just as possible for an ethnic minority person to be racist as an ethnic majority person. You only need to hear some of the things said by David Lammy MP hiding behind parliamentary privilege to see that. 

There are also various ethnic minority groups who are racist/ethnicist or show religious hatred to other ethnic minority groups; something rarely spoken about.

Now for the virus. Viruses spread more easily and faster the more dense the population. Where is the population most dense? Large city conurbations. And where do the vast majority of ethnic minority people live? – yep, that’s right!

Culturally, compared to the ethnic majority population, ethnic minority groups tend to live in households with more people and multiple generations in them – this is also a population density issue but on an individual household level.

Also, there are certain diseases/conditions that certain ethnic groups are more susceptible to than others.

As Shabnam Nasimi notes in her article for the online magazine Quillette on 1^st May, “…black people are more likely than white people to die of many diseases—not just this one. In other cases, the reverse is true…..white people are more likely than black people to die of chronic lower respiratory disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, liver disease, and eight different types of cancer.”

I would encourage you to read the whole article before being tempted by the bad-faith trope of racism as the cause for the covid-19 ethnic fatality disparities. 

There are a number of non-racist reasons why some ethnic minority groups are hit harder than others, cultural as well as medical.

Quillette article 1st May, 2020

The AGE fatality disparity is far worse, and what about the MALE/FEMALE fatality disparity?

Ah, but no ideological point-scoring available there, so they are barely mentioned.

Anyway, I’ve tried to explain that we are NOT a racist country in any fair-minded sense & why certain ethnic groups are being hit harder than others. You’re of course free to agree or not.

I am immensely proud of where we’ve moved to and the distance we have travelled since the 1970s.

I just won’t sit back and allow people with motives rooted in bitter, out-of date, divisive & hateful identity politics to lump me or the vast majority in with the ‘racist’ slur without speaking out!

Shall we step back from the brink and THINK?

Looking on various social media platforms, the number of people who don’t appear to actually THINK, in any meaningful sense, but merely regurgitate views & information from politically biased sources that confirm their existing views, is staggering. 

Remember, we're supposed to be a highly literate, highly educated, intelligent society!

For example, I’ve seen a comment on a post I was following which said that to get accurate news you need to watch Channel 4 News.

Now, however we vote, anyone with even a fraction of neutrality and objectivity knows that of all the broadcast media in the UK, the most blatantly biased in favour of Left-wing Progressive views, is Channel 4!

This begs the question, ‘do we ever think about our socio-political views, where they come from and why we hold them?’ 

I mean think about them critically, with some genuine honesty & self-awareness? Really, challenge ourselves on WHY we think what we do? Not merely rationalising our views but forensically challenging them to see if they need any adjustment.

How did we come to the conclusions we did all those years ago? Most people have closed-mindedly held their views for so long, they can’t even remember. Was it their parents? Was it a school teacher or University lecturer? Was it a close-friend who they admired and looked-up to? Was it something they read? It doesn’t matter – they just KNOW – end of discussion, no self-awareness, no critical thought. Just closed-minded, often smug, but frankly, societally unhelpful, certainty.

The people to be most afraid of are those who have absolute certainty about how society should be organised. They deem themselves not only 'right' but 'righteous' and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

Our society & culture is too complex and too precious for closed-minded zealots and their shallow simplistic ideological answers to be allowed to hold sway.

This is how we get to the situation where so many, often well-educated people who think of themselves as ‘nice’ (whatever that means), are happy to describe people of differing views as ‘stupid’, or worse, ‘evil’. 

Hey, why not ‘stupid AND evil’, just to cover all your bases? 

Do you know, I was actually part of a conversation at a Christian Church meal, where someone said, in all seriousness, that they regarded people who voted for Brexit as ‘sub-human’. 

This is a Christian (apparently in name only) calling people who disagreed with them about the best way forward for our country, ‘sub-human’. 

I’m not a close friend, so I kept my counsel. But I DO know this person well-enough to know that they would have absolute confidence in describing themselves as ‘good’, ‘honest’ ‘decent’, ‘reasonable’, ‘kind’, 'tolerant', ‘considerate’ etc etc. 

So you see how a closed-mind and lack of self-awareness can allow us to fool ourselves into seeing people who disagree with us not only as stupid & evil, which is bad enough, but sometimes as barely part of the human race!

With these ways of thinking, you have given yourself permission to ignore them, shut them up or openly disregard & disrespect them – you know, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews - and we know where that ended up!

The point is that, outside their coterie of like-minded friends, for anyone to expect to be taken seriously as a decent reasonable person, you have to stop yourself being merely dismissive of alternative viewpoints, and be prepared to re-examine your thoughts & beliefs on a fairly regular basis. 

This means reading, listening to & discussing important issues calmly and in good faith with those of a differing view; not merely contriving to be patted on the back by your ideological soul-mates.

Refusal to engage with any idea or argument that casts doubt on socio-political beliefs often formed 30, 40 or more years ago is NOT the sign of a self-aware person; it’s not the sign of someone acting in good faith; and it’s not the sign of someone seeking truth, because a closed-mind isn’t seeking anything but confirmation of its unassailable biases.

Now you surely have to acknowledge that unthinking closed-mindedness & the attitudes and behaviours to which it leads is not ‘good’, not ‘decent’, not ‘reasonable’, not 'tolerant' and certainly not ‘nice’. 

And it’s so liberating when you free yourself from feeling that you have to regurgitate or defend a certain belief or position at all costs. It makes you a much calmer and, frankly, better person to look at issues from all angles and see where areas of agreement can be found before deciding what you think is a reasonable way forward.

So, we all need less hubris & more humility; less partisan anger & more open-minded good-faith dialogue; to stop ourselves reacting on emotional triggers rather than taking time to consider our words & their consequences. 

It’s a weakness of character, not a strength, to refuse to re-think your positions, or to refuse to say, ‘you know what? I’ve changed my mind’. 

To quote from Quentin Tarantino’s film, Pulp Fiction, “that’s your pride f***ing with you”. 

We should relish the idea that we can have our mind changed by new information or by someone explaining a differing viewpoint in a way that resonates with us; not be fearful of it. 

Other than pride, what is it you think you have to lose by being more open-minded & receptive to other views in this way? The approval of your closed-minded friends? Pfft!!

Instead, too often, we fall back on our pre-disposed world views and aggressively defend them and anyone in our ideological tribe at all costs.

This has to change or our society is doomed and we will eventually become a dystopian dictatorship because, after all – if we insist on a socio-political ideological war without compromise, then one side has to win it - and of course, one side has to lose it.

The winners become tyrants and the losers become slaves - until the slaves are erased (as in the USSR and China) or rebel as in many countries that were once European colonies.

We can and we MUST do better than that but it starts with us as individuals being brave enough to step outside our closed-minded certainties and engage with alternative views with openness, honesty and good faith