Lies & Hypocrisy: How adherence to political ideology destroys Truth

Truth requires that we don't lie.

So, don't say things you don't mean; don't go along with things you don't agree with; don’t give your opinion as though it’s fact when your only source is the TV or newspaper; don’t speak categorically about important issues unless you’ve made proper effort to look at the issue from multiple perspectives; and even then, do so cautiously and with humility.

Now imagine if everyone operated like this all the time, with no exceptions.

Of course, there are better ways of telling the truth; choice of language so as not to deliberately cause offence for example, but if EVERYONE behaved this way and society (including the law) expected it, I don't see what the downsides would be.
Many of the reasons we lie would dissolve over time if we always told the truth. 

Having said that preamble, let me give a current example for the main argument I want to put forward here.
Please note that it’s not about this specific topic, I could have picked a number of others, rather, this topic illustrates my wider point.

In the news at the moment (is it really news or tittle-tattle?) is a row about sexist remarks Lawrence Fox made. Simultaneously, we have allegations from many years ago about sexual harassment/abuse by Russell Brand.
There are regular examples of this sort of ‘news’ every year on various different topics but they have one thing in common; the premise of the discussion is set-up to deceive, either in whole or in part.

So let’s look at misogyny and then ask the correct questions.

The usual question is, why are so many men misogynists or, why don’t men speak out against misogyny?
But these are the wrong questions because they are attempting to frame the discussion in a way that makes assumptions that they don’t want to discuss; because to discuss their assumptions might lead to questioning them, and that might uncover an agenda less high-minded than they would claim.

The better questions are: What is misogyny; not in a dictionary definitional way, but in real life? Who decides where the line on what it’s acceptable for a man to say about women is to be drawn? Would the line be in the same place in all situations? Where women display the same behaviour, (i.e. misandry), is the line the same, if so why, if not, why not?
These sort of nitty-gritty truth-seeking questions acknowledge complexity (as opposed to pretending both the problem and solution are simple & obvious), introduce honesty, and then a consensus can be negotiated without resorting to emotional hyperbole, or have pre-formed opinions taking over and scuppering the discussion.

Now, I know why these questions aren’t asked in the mainstream media; too long-winded; too intellectually difficult; would make a hard & fast conclusion almost impossible; wouldn’t get viewers/sell newspapers.
All true, but all very bad reasons for choosing a simplistic narrative and pushing it as though it’s obviously and undeniably true.
Very bad for societal cohesiveness and harmony.

Let’s take another example. A few months ago, a prominent women’s rights campaigner, Kelly-Jay Keen, went to hold a rally and give a talk in New Zealand. She was physically attacked by biological males claiming to be women (trans-activists) and the police did, in effect, nothing to prevent it. Blatant misogyny and of a far more dangerous type than thoughtless words. Yet the authorities took the side of the aggressors and those who condemn Laurence Fox & Russell Brand were mostly silent; indeed many made excuses for the aggressive activists.

So why are some forms of misogyny not acceptable yet some others apparently are, even when they seem worse than the forms loudly condemned?

The answer is simple; it’s about political ideology, not misogyny.
Misogyny is just a vehicle used to push the wider ideology.

Similarly, it’s about political ideology not racism; political ideology not climate change; political ideology not Brexit; political ideology not pandemic responses; political ideology, not whether a person born as one sex can change to the other.
Again, these are vehicles used to disguise societal changes being made or called for on ideological grounds. Too often, they are vehicles we use to show which tribe we are closed-mindedly in allegiance with.

You often hear activists in these areas complaining about the general public not getting behind their cause sufficiently, usually accompanied by stereotyped name-calling (stupid, gammon, Karen, fascist etc).

Well, perhaps the general public simply see the activists exaggerating their case and ignoring competing facts.
Exaggerating the problem and exaggerating the benefits from their simplistic silver bullet ideological solutions.
It’s not always the ones frothing at the mouth and making the most noise who get it right.

What evidence have I for the assertion that ideology, not really the actual topic being discussed, is behind a lot of what we hear & read?
For political ideologues, who are the majority of those inhabiting our mainstream media, if someone in their tribe behaves badly, they make excuses for it, play the significance down or keep totally silent.
Only when someone is deemed an ideological opponent do they call out the very same bad behaviour, and often in hyperbolic terms.
What more evidence do you need of ideological capture than people’s tribal hypocritical behaviour?

Similarly, you'll hear people protest that they are NOT political ideologues.
Well, there's a simple test which holds true for the vast majority.
Take any one of the examples I've given: misogyny; climate catastrophe; racism; Brexit; changing sex, and ask their view.
You can then, pretty accurately, predict their view on all the others.
Yet they're NOT a political ideologue?
We lie hypocritically to ourselves All the time; whenever it suits; because it's easier than wrestling with our conscience; cognitive dissonance is such a bore isn't it?

This is why honesty, truth, is so vital, and its loss so catastrophic.
With so many seemingly happy to go through life exhibiting hypocritical double standards whenever it suits their socio-political preferences to do so, how can we expect to have a fair and cohesive society?

How has it come to pass that, in order to be hailed as a decent moral person, we are told that the speaking, or at least nodding along with, lies, half-truths and blatant exaggerations is not only acceptable but obligatory?

What are we doing when we put more emphasis on confirming our existing ideological biases, than traits and behaviours such as honesty, truth, fair play, good-faith discussions, reasonable compromise and other far more collegiate and genuinely caring attitudes?
Selfishness and foolishness is given prominence over openness and wisdom.

And unfortunately, many people are so busy leading their lives, that they simply accept this sort of media dishonesty and indeed, join in with that type of tribal thinking.
It’s easier to simply believe what you read in newspapers and hear on TV, and then parrot unnuanced soundbites and slogans of the politicians or celebrities or TV News or newspaper we like, than to think about the issue for ourselves, listen to alternative views, discuss it openly, and come to a reasoned and reasonable conclusion.

Many have this uneasy feeling about our country at the moment.
This feeling stems from the dissonance between what we see happening and what we’re told is happening.
Between what common sense seems to tell us and what we’re told we should think.

Until we stop allowing mainstream media, politicians, large corporations and celebrities to decide for us what we should think on vital societal topics, we will continue to have discord and a feeling that things are rotten in the state of Denmark (or in this case, Britain).
_________________________________________________________ 

PS I was going to call this piece, ‘It’s political ideology, stupid!’ but decided to try and persuade you to come to that conclusion for yourself with me.
How did I do?