Over the first cup of coffee, while reading a variety of news sources and opinion pieces, I was struck by what appears to be the developing theme across the country - neo-appeasement.
Simply put, this developing theme of neo-appeasement occurs when someone complains about something they don't like and someone else subsequently changes their behavior, belief, action, stance, vote, or whatever.
In this great country of ours, one generous view of the phenomena is that it embodies the essence of free speech. Another, less generous view is that the phenomena illustrates an unreasonable, oft times unwarranted impact on the rights of others, aided by the relatively new explosion of social media.
I'm left wondering.
Now on the second cup of coffee, I accept wholeheartedly the essence and imperative of free speech. But I also wholeheartedly accept the essence and imperative of the rights of the individual. Combining these two rights, I am free to think and believe as I may and express those thoughts and beliefs. I am equally free to hold my thoughts and beliefs to myself, by not expressing them. Just as I am equally free to disagree with the thoughts and beliefs of others. I am also free from being required to accept, embrace, and live by the thoughts and beliefs of others.
Continuing, I am free in our great nation, unlike in many other countries, to publicly protest, based on my thoughts and beliefs. My protests may upset or anger others, just as theirs may upset or anger me. Such is a cost for maintaining these rights.
In the face of protests or expressed opposition, I am free to maintain my thoughts and beliefs, or change them. But I am not mandated to change. I can not be compelled to either change my thoughts and beliefs, or to accept those of others. And that is where I am seeing this new phenomena.
In times before social media, expressing one's thoughts and beliefs was limited by the audience one could reach. Perhaps the news media would engage, supposedly as a disinterested third party and publicize or broadcast the thoughts or beliefs. Implicitly, then, some fact checking or the like would occur. Not always, not uniformly, but sometimes, in some small way adhering to the responsibility for accuracy. Further, the media sources were somewhat limited in their reach, by both mechanical and financial means. Today, however, social media is hampered by neither a responsibility for accuracy nor limited reach.
Consequently, complaints launched into the social media swirl are passed along to a potentially limitless audience. And at a speed previously unseen.
In days past, the individual or small group complaining about something probably didn't have much of an influence. And in a nation of our size, it is reasonable to accept that differing views abound, meaning equally limitless complainers. We saw that only the compelling complaints and matters gained traction and thus broader distribution.
Thus, we find ourselves today with the unique ability of complainers to launch their complaints to countless individuals at virtually the speed of light. With a broad, unlimited audience, it is possible to build a message unfettered by fact in very short order. Those against whom the message is targeted can be inundated across the electronic spectrum, as this form of free speech grows exponentially.
Up to this point, I see absolutely no problem. If ignorance is launched into the social media swirl and people accept it, so be it. If misinformation is shared time and time again, that is one of the costs of free speech.
But when individuals, companies, or institutions yield to social media driven ignorance, misinformation, or merely opposing views, simply because there is an opposing view, this neo-appeasement is disturbing. When free speech convinces someone to change their position, based on reasoned debate, we all win. But when simply a firestorm social media, measured by numeric posts, tweets, or the like, rather than fact causes change, we all lose.
Individuals, companies, and institutions yielding in a manner of neo-appeasement only serve to embolden unreasonable complaints. Yet, I do not criticize the unreasonable complaints, because it is, again, a cost of free speech.
I criticize those who so timidly hold their thoughts and beliefs, that they can be swayed and changed so easily. Ironically, when those with stiffer backbones stand by their positions and beliefs, we also see litigation ensue
Neo-appeasement is then bad for the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment