I
think the kid is very much like 17 year old me. Frustrated with the
system, with being unable to fit in, uncomfortable with society around
me. Somewhat attention-seeking too, and in all honesty I can't say I'm
not like that. In some ways I can commiserate with him.
Nevertheless, I think he's only at the beginning of his political
awakening. He's still reciting the basic ideas of political commentary
without accounting for cultural and situational differences, or thinking
about why democracy is important and under what conditions should it be
implemented. At this point, he's taking his ideas about governance from
mainstream media. He's not wrong; for example, suicide rates are high
here, but they seem to be closely related to mental illness and we can't
quite tell if they are related at all to economic or working
conditions(some studies say yes, some say the opposite, some
inconclusive). Essentially, he's the kid that said the wrong thing, at
the wrong time, in the wrong place, with the self-confidence that can
only be said to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I agree that what he says is offensive, but I don't think we should
have charged him for it, or overreacted in this manner. I don't even
think he should have been punished, we should have engaged him in
conversation, called him out on his weak arguments. Part of developing a
population that actively participates in politics and feels a sense of
belonging in their country is allowing the airing of contrary views,
even immature ones. How else are you allowed to make mistakes and learn
from them, and how are you supposed to be loyal to a country that simply
took you along for the ride without a care for your opinions.
But if you mean, can we afford to risk civil conflict in order to allow for freedom of expression, then I think the answer is no. I wish I lived in a society that allowed for that, but we live in a seige mentality where north and south of us are nations that put up with rather than enjoy our company, and the cultural composition in our country is not homogeneous enough to allow for true freedom of speech. And while I do think that part of it is fear-mongering, it's also one of the cases where the propaganda doesn't stretch the truth very much, and has been borne out in historical events.
Nevertheless, I think he's only at the beginning of his political
awakening. He's still reciting the basic ideas of political commentary
without accounting for cultural and situational differences, or thinking
about why democracy is important and under what conditions should it be
implemented. At this point, he's taking his ideas about governance from
mainstream media. He's not wrong; for example, suicide rates are high
here, but they seem to be closely related to mental illness and we can't
quite tell if they are related at all to economic or working
conditions(some studies say yes, some say the opposite, some
inconclusive). Essentially, he's the kid that said the wrong thing, at
the wrong time, in the wrong place, with the self-confidence that can
only be said to be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I agree that what he says is offensive, but I don't think we should
have charged him for it, or overreacted in this manner. I don't even
think he should have been punished, we should have engaged him in
conversation, called him out on his weak arguments. Part of developing a
population that actively participates in politics and feels a sense of
belonging in their country is allowing the airing of contrary views,
even immature ones. How else are you allowed to make mistakes and learn
from them, and how are you supposed to be loyal to a country that simply
took you along for the ride without a care for your opinions.But if you mean, can we afford to risk civil conflict in order to allow for freedom of expression, then I think the answer is no. I wish I lived in a society that allowed for that, but we live in a seige mentality where north and south of us are nations that put up with rather than enjoy our company, and the cultural composition in our country is not homogeneous enough to allow for true freedom of speech. And while I do think that part of it is fear-mongering, it's also one of the cases where the propaganda doesn't stretch the truth very much, and has been borne out in historical events.
No comments:
Post a Comment