Are Demagogue Leaders Making All Of Us More Intolerant?

Understanding other’s views is not a game — we shouldn’t be constantly trying to win

We live in extremely worrying times. I very much believe that there are some dangerous beliefs that don’t deserve a public platform. We have heard enough hate speech and fought enough wars to know that dehumanising others has unthinkable consequences. We don’t owe anyone who promotes violence, or who wants to make entire groups of people second class citizens, the time of day.

There’s. Nothing. Left. To. Debate. Prejudice leads to tragedy. You don’t have the right to participate or instigate said tragedy.

But with the concerning rise of such aggression and hostility in politics around the world, has it not seemed to seep into discourse in general? Has intolerance become much more acceptable and normalised between the rest of us?

How can you — as an individual — tell if you’re right or wrong?

Subject irrelevant — what process do you go through to ensure that your opinions or even deeply held beliefs are as informed, inclusive, far-reaching, kind and understanding (amongst other things!) as they should be?

Do you:

a) Seek out as many other viewpoints as possible, either by reading outside of your own particular demographic circle or by debating directly with others with opposing viewpoints. Or even learn from people with greater experience than you?

b) Shout anybody who’s views you think you won’t like down, declare them bad people and start every sentence you type out with “Ermmm….” to try and make them look foolish?

I’m being a little facetious, obviously. But I’m sure you know what I mean. I’m talking about those instances when, for example, you say something like, “I’m uncomfortable with banning books or films…” and then baffingly find yourself painted as somehow pro-fascism because you’re apparently happy to see atrocious viewpoints spread without restriction. The point you wanted to make goes unmade and your entire argument goes unheard.

It can be quite shocking and actually, pretty distressing, especially given the rise of genuinely loathsome bigotry at present. You feel like all you wanted to do was explore some of the equally concerning risks in taking one particular approach over another. The next minute, you feel like you’ve been judged to be on the wrong side of history. To hold views that you find abhorrent. And dismissed when actually, you had the same goals and intentions as the other person.

But surely good-faith debate should include considering all the weaknesses as well as strengths of your argument? It stress-tests it for when it faces some realopposition.

Needless to say nobody likes to feel like a bad person who holds dangerous views — although certainly confronting any biases or prejudices we have wittingly or unwittingly held should be an ongoing process. But it does feel like self-righteousness too often wins the day. Particularly in the online world — maybe it’s easier for both sides to walk away feeling they’ve won when it’s not face to face!

I guess it can useful that new words and terms have developed to help us cope with the changing nature of debate in modern times. We have the woke, the virtue-signallers, we have whataboutery. Obviously, I don’t like to see these flung at anybody who’s just trying to fight the good fight and those who have carefully thought through where they stand politically. But we also have to be aware of what tricks can be used to divert our attention away from the subjects — and people — who we really need to be listening to. Left and right require equal scrutiny.

But, I wonder, can we develop a word for people who are really great at listening? Could that be encouragement? Make us want to be described in that way?

Maybe, maybe not.

It’s just that I feel that there are a lot of people effectively thrill-seeking rather than striving to make the world a better place. It makes them feel like they’ve scored points against their enemy which can, of course, be exhilarating. However, I don’t think angrily declaring people simply, unequivocally wrong all the time makes ignorant people — or their views — simply evaporate. Less so, when you didn’t even care to take the time to hear them out in the first place. Doesn’t that just make everyone look like hot-headed fools?

There is also a danger of misrepresenting those who desperately need to speak for themselves. In simplifying the argument, you simplify the people you are trying to defend. It does not achieve anything to not widen attitudes.

Most things in life are complex and variable. People carry a lot of pain around with them, often unseen by others. For example, you may think of them as living a privileged life but in some ways, they have been a victim.

It means that we can often have a lot of common ground, emotionally speaking. And that’s somewhere we can meet — whatever the differences in all the other ways we see the world. Not easy, no, but doable.

My fear is that we are becoming more like the demagogues in power than we realise. In denouncing others at the merest hint of disagreement and stating they’re not worth even listening to, are we not going more for the emotional high of appearing right than long term change?

I’m not really advocating for old fashioned manners, by the way. I find a lot of people hide behind them because it gives them an excuse not to speak up when they know they should. Good manners do not mean you can be a coward. If tackling an ignorant comment makes the situation uncomfortable, so be it. And anyway, with old fashioned manners comes old fashioned hierarchies — in that certain groups of people “deserve” more manners than others. So back to square one, in other words.

Neither am I saying that you should expect to debate anyone and everyone on demand. The privileged can often expect the less fortunate to justify their anger or tell their stories as a sort of duty. They don’t realise how tiring, and even demeaning, it can be to repeat it all time and time again.

I just feel we are in danger of silencing more than just the most dangerous amongst us. That we are — almost ironically — becoming more homogenised in what we consider are acceptable things to say. How can that possibly lead to a more diverse society? After all, isn’t that what most of us are hoping for?

The saying, in acting like my enemy, I become my enemy has relevance today. Because we have real enemies — people who threaten our rights, our safety. Outrage is a powerful motivator for change. Arrogance and an unwillingness to listen, less so.

Hard as it is to listen to someone you don’t agree with, as long as they’re not spouting hatred and bigotry, it’s a worthwhile endeavour. It makes for a more respectful society. And hopefully, a little more kind.

Related posts:

Questions of sexuality and desire have been an essential part of feminist discourse in the contemporary feminist movement. Feminists worldwide have grappled with questions of gender identity, desire…

Harbour Town has just announced the flagship food offering joining the new and exciting multi-million dollar dining precinct set to open in December. The new precinct will include an open-air plaza…

This is a sign to level up your note-taking method. Let me share with you my own experience with “mind mapping”, a cool and fancy expression to help you dive into your own thoughts, but instead of…