For innumerable centuries, most of the Western world’s countries were controlled by authoritarian and totalitarian elites; encompassing multitudes of anti-liberty influences. Societies would often be maintained by rulers who proselytised the population with predetermined perspectives of how people should live. Fortuitously, the action of declaring liberty strengthened from the enlightenment era in much of the Western world and it surely succeeded. The 21st century, is indeed at the highest point – well, at least the western world – it has ever been with regard to liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and human rights. This of course brings me to the purpose of this essay: if we have so much freedom to speak aloud through means of protests, writing, the internet, television and music, why do the general public not embrace such liberty of which are forebears fought so deeply?
Common Opinion
There are various points that will be included in this essay on the matters of how and why the general public avoid imperative discussion. Firstly, we need to acknowledge the meaning of ‘general public’ and certain dictionaries have slightly altered definitions of such a term, so I will quickly define its meaning for my own means. The ‘general public’ are those who live an expected, ordinary lifestyle merely abiding by the rules of what society expects of that person (basically, perpetuating what most people think is ‘normal’ and typical) – such as 9 to 5 jobs, replication of trends, intentionally fitting in particular crowds, common gullibility, following the latest releases in entertainment, giving into common characterisations or subcultures, stereotypes, social classes and so forth. The majority of a country’s population manifestly match such a description. Increased Sensitivity As free speech and free expression has been more established over the past 300 years, we have seen an increase in sensitivity from the public. Prior to the Age of Enlightenment, sensitivity was already quite profound among the highest classes of society – such as those who practically ruled the country. If the working classes did not like particular actions carried out by religious authority, government or monarchy, and publicly denounced an action, then the consequences would have been fatal. Thus, because of the consequences of those who denounced wrongdoings were wicked and unnecessary, enlightenment thinkers fought for the human right to free speech and public denunciation without harmful prosecution and their goals were achieved in much of the Western world. But as the late 1900s arrived, there have been a major twist in who gets offended; instead, it is the general public who have increased their sensitivity rather than monarchy and governments. Now, a fear of offending certain cultures and religions are more prominent. Regardless of whether the critic of religion is exposing the fallacies, negative influence and oppression entailed within religious dogma, one still gets accused of offending a particular “way of life” even if such as lifestyle affects that of others (in the case of theocracy – lives are affected heavily). The general public tend to listen to established personalities who share agreement with their subjective thoughts, and tend to ‘beat around the bush’ by being too nice to those who need confrontation. The public reaction, whether positive or negative, to a statement mostly depends on the person saying the comment rather than the comment itself. Too Soft, Too Kind and Purely Dishonest In the social context, the general public avoid the discussion of ‘sensitive’ topics such as religion, science, history, politics or even economics. Instead, they rather discuss subjects that are socially soft such as celebrity news, a recent video gaming activity, social media disputes or local gossip – all of which discussions are valueless. The general public have little knowledge on topics such as science or politics, thus avoiding the subject is more beneficial to them as they don’t want to appear wrong. But, what I am addressing here is the utter lack of awareness and that most of the general public tend to deliberately dodge intellectual discussions to avoid brushing aside their subjectivity on the matter. A possible reason for this is the fear of being judged by others among the general public, or fear of being incorrect, or the fear of open-mindedness since peers of the general public desire to follow crowds, trends and indoctrinating media. To further my point on how they avoid discussions on topics such as philosophy, politics, popular science and – science’s mischievous enemy – religion, for fear of being judged, not only relates to the individual’s idea of public acceptance, but also relates to the popular idiocy of appearing ‘offensive’. The 2010s have witnessed a massive increase in social, religious and political sensitivity, especially those associated with Abrahamic religions (most notably, Islam). The general public – my guesstimate perhaps counts for 70% of the Western world – are evidently afraid to use the modern privileges of free speech; to openly speak out against the roots and ‘sacred’ influences of major issues relating to unseen war, mass violence and the like. Simply, it is clear that most people don’t like their feelings hurt. Therefore, the general public are forced to walk on eggshells – to be excessively cautious of the speech that exits their own mouth, as well as the psychological importance of learning, awareness and expression. However, there are limitations when the privilege of free speech is abused such as threatening hate speech that implies unnecessary physical or cyber harmfulness on the target. For example, if the statement indicates a potential assassination plot, or a terrorist attack, or racist prejudicial threats, then that individual should be subdued in committing any vicious acts. Consequently, the potential suppression of hate speech and threats can be abused also – if an individual becomes offended by a mere piece of critique, whether it is in a book or on social media, then their sensitivity forces them to accuse one of being threatening, malicious and hateful. Such a consequence exists in those who ludicrously assume Islamophobia is a genuine accusation, yet it works in Western society: for anyone who attempts to simply question Islam can then be accused of bigotry and harmfulness, and the accusers are thus backed up by the gullible general public and governmental representatives.
Concluding Thoughts
When we are young, we are often influenced by our family, friends and the media to merely fit in, follow and abide. Unquestionably, the influence one receives as a child has a major impact on one’s perspective of life when getting into the real world. Being told to live life typically and to not publicly question certain aspects of society is an example of a common influence. Instead, the general public continues to follow trends, follow societal expectations and gullibly believe everything that is articulated to them by corrupt establishment, media and unknowledgeable but persuasive personalities. Consequently, the general public assume knowledge is unimportant to fulfil the intellectual capacity of the mind, as long as you get a job and spend the money on booze, holidays and materialistic items whilst anticipating debt – there develops a lack of motivation to pursue knowledge. Information and awareness is truly powerful, but not everyone strives to obtain it which becomes a shame since it prevents people to seek truth, argue and revolutionise for reform. However, there are many who have uncommon knowledge on certain subjects but there is a major motive as to why people fear speaking out: to seek approval from others; to fit in; to desire acceptance; to be liked by everyone; to avoid people thinking badly about them. A persistent seeking of personal approval is a mind-set that many of our over-populated worlds subconsciously embrace, thus avoiding freedom of speech and expression. Centuries ago, we did not have the option to speak out without oppression. Governments have giving us the opportunity via human rights to declare facts and opinions, but now we do not – now that we have freedom of speech, let’s use it before it gets suppressed by over-sensitive public opinion! I will leave you with a thought to memorise: Don't stand for something merely because of its current bandwagon popularity, stand for something that is actually justifiable and worth standing for.
More Essays:
Do you have any thoughts or feedback to share? Use the comment section below, so I can respond to you! Also, feel free to share this post to your friends. |
Daniel C. MeesThe Blog of Sincerity, featuring contrarian, polemical and critical writings on politics, religion, social philosophy, left-right spectrum, books, sociopolitical concerns, secularism and such - by Daniel C. Mees.
Facebook FeedArchives
January 2017
Featured Posts |