Today I was doing my morning stint of digging through many news sites. It is something I usually do every day of the week. I was hit by the quote that I have titled this post with from the Sky News host Sharri Markson. While I don't consider it completely accurate as I know some of the people demanding the censorship are quite intelligent they simply don't want the stupid/ignorant to stop being stupid/ignorant. They must counter anyone that might snap them out of the bandwagon they have the majority of the population involved in.
(Image Source: roundseventeen.blogspot.com)
If you don't like what someone says...
Try the following:
Ask yourself why you don't like it. What is it about it that you don't like?
Then ask if you are certain that is the truth. Have you verified this information yourself?
Was the way you verified it simply you trusting what someone else said? If so, have you verified beyond that source?
Did you make certain the sources were not circular referencing each other as proof? Meaning saying C is saying "A says X", then you check A and they say "B says X", and when you check B they are saying "C says X" which takes you right back to the start so technically there is no actual source at all. This happens more than you may realize. A story is made up and numerous agencies will cooperate and use each other to make that story seem true. Since most people will not bother digging that deeply they treat it as truth.
Assuming you have done all of these things and you still don't agree with something that is said. You should now have enough information to challenge what the person said with your own words. Give them some correct information. Give them a chance to learn what you have found out. Furthermore, if the discussion is public you also give the audience a chance to hear the information and see someone giving a reasonable response to someone else.
(Image Source: theodysseyonline.com)
If you are offended by something...
Why? Is it something that everyone would be offended by? How important in the scheme of life is it truly? Could it have been accidental and unintended? Are you sure? To know for sure would you have to be able to read minds?
If you can't know without reading minds or them outright telling you they intended it then it is important to realize you are making assumptions. Those assumptions can be incorrect. In many cases they likely are. In such a case you would be choosing to treat the assumption as fact and by extension choosing to be offended.
Do you realize that if being offended is a choice you can just as easily choose not to be offended?
Which do you think would produce a better society? A society where people look for things to be offended by no matter how trivial, or a society where people choose not to be offended by anything based upon assumptions?
For me the answer is simple. Ultimately the answer to that is up to you.
(Image Source: frictionless-commerce.com)
Implication...
I've debated enough times here, steemit, reddit, in person, and many other places where I will state something. People will then come back at me saying I said things that I didn't say. I'll say "I didn't say that". They will in one way or another come back to "you implied it".
If I didn't actually say it. Do you know where that thought actually occurred? ANSWER: Inside their head. They are the one that chose to take it there. Not me.
I've begun to sometimes tell people that unless I am saying there is a hidden message or telling you to "read between the lines" I tend to say exactly what I am thinking. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you are operating off of implication then you are assuming because you are thinking certain things that I am thinking them as well.
If you do that to me you'll be wrong. I say what I am thinking. I write in stream of consciousness form and write what I am thinking.
I am not creating word games for you that you need to guess and find the secret hidden meaning in what I said. If you are looking for hidden meaning all you'll find is YOU.
So if you think I implied something racist. It happened in your mind, not mine so perhaps you are the racist.
If you hear the wrong pronoun and you think I did it to offend you. That thought occurred in your head. If I am trying to offend you I will not be subtle. There will be no imagination and trying to read my mind required.
When you choose to silence someone and it could be because they are implying something start realizing that implications tend to happen in YOUR mind. That doesn't mean they occurred in the mind of the person you are choosing to silence.
(Image Source: ultimate-survival-training.com)
Weakness...
Is your understanding so weak that your only recourse is to silence, ban, censor, or cancel anyone that challenges your understanding?
Why not start using your words? Your mind needs exercise just like your muscles. You'll fail at times. You'll get stronger.
(Image Source: mythology.net)
Full circle
If what Sharri Markson stated is true about smart people being silenced so stupid people are not offended. Keep in mind that some of us (I am one of them) don't consider stupid to be a permanent state. It can be a choice. With effort and choosing anyone can be "smart", "wise", or "informed" about things. Sure some people have a natural advantage. Some people will have experience that gives them unique perspective. Yet all of us experience things that other people do not. We each live our own lives. This means there is unique information inside of each of us. You simply need to learn to tap into that, express it, and help it grow.
As to the "stupid" in her quote. Sure that word can fit. I personally think it is also corrupt people, mentally lazy people, and perhaps unstable people that benefit from censorship of views they do not like.
They often hide behind the label "misinformation" these days to justify their actions. They don't correct the information. They simply advocate or take action to censor/silence anything that goes against their own personal world view. They think by silencing the so-called "misinformation" people will not hear it and thus they will be FORCED into only hearing the "official" story, narrative, results, opinion, etc.
How does that sound?
In another time misinformation would not bother me as a label. These days it is the clarion call of the censors, the book burners, and the dehumanizers.
(Image Source: threadreaderapp.com)
Fellow Human Tip...
One of the first things to ditch if you want to actually be smart is the idea that when you are done with school then you are done learning. A smart person never stops learning. Every day and every encounter is another lesson and opportunity in life.
As to wrong pronouns. When I was the age of that child in pink above the offended section I looked a lot like SHE does. For this reason I am assuming she due to the pink shirt and hair. Yet my hair looked a lot like that and I looked quite similar to that at that age. Remove the pink shirt and it could have been me.
(Me in the early 1970s)
Now when I got into High School and let my hair grow long and was finding myself in my early metal head formation I was occasionally called she, girl, lady, etc. Yet I definitely was not. We didn't think we needed to call the cops, cancel people, silence them, cancel their banking, or imprison people for such trivial things back then.
(Me 1988-1989)
If it truly bothered me then all I needed to do was cut my hair. I chose not to.
(Me and my two youngest sons - estimate 1998-1999)
(Me and my middle daughter at the only Denver Broncos game I ever went to. Estimate 2009-2010)
(Me and my two youngest sons I believe around 2010-2011)
(Closer to how I look now... not sure when this was taken but is with my three sons - I think this was in Denver at Fiddler's Green for the Slayer retirement last concert... Napalm Death, Lamb of God, and Slayer)
Now there are different images you can look at to bash me for. How about that fanny pack? How about the fact I am wearing the same shirt in two of them though they are separated by quite a number of years?
How about I am overweight? How about I look like Karl Marx a bit in that last one and anyone that looks like that must be a commie.... :)
Well said, I agree on pretty much all counts. Fingers crossed the people who need articles like this most find it and apply the wisdom in it. 🙏
Starting at the bottom working up.
Choice, people do not want to make choices anymore or accept the reality of their choice. It never bothered me either when I was younger and people would call me she her it or what ever, I refused to set myself into a stereotypical look. I enjoyed being different.
Misinformation: When people use that or false or fake, they label it in hopes it goes away, but only in very rare occasions do they even attempt to show the people their truth of the misinformation/fake/false narrative.
Stupid, I have never liked how widespread that term has come. It is so over used in todays society that it is completely meaningless to me. Stupid I think is over used today because people do not like and have a much higher intolerance to the word ignorant or words willfully ignorant.
I had to take a breakfast break and forgot where I was going so I'll end here.
I truly only dislike one type of person... the willfully ignorant.
Everyone is ignorant about things so I don't mind ignorance. I only despise it when they discover the truth about something, acknowledge it is the truth, and yet they go on spreading what was false.
I agree with that, I know there is a lot I am ignorant of, have no knowledge of, but I am still capable of learning, it would seem that some are not and prefer to remain ignorant to the truth.
ONLY A MISOGYNISTIC RACIST WOULD WRITE SOMETHING KIKE THIS!
I'm kidding, but that is all too often the level of social media discourse.
Thank you for letting the transformation of your looks be visible. You've got some fine children as I see it :)
I am a little bothered by the fact that communication should be based on source information - It's not that you said it that way, I experience it in more than one realm, though.
I often don't have a remembered source for what I stand for or what my worldview is. In fact, I am less inclined to discuss my reasons for certain decisions or views than I used to. Those who know me know of me that I read a lot, that I delve deeper into issues than they might. Nevertheless, being well-read is also no guarantee that one will be believed or that one will have the better arguments just because one can refer to sources. Every source can be counteracted anyways.
In fact, it bothers me that in interpersonal encounters we make life difficult for ourselves by distrusting each other when we can't cite sources. Which suggests that without this, how shall I say, backup (?), one's word counts for less. ... But perhaps I am arguing from a point of view that already meets a certain standard, I am already more extensively and diversely informed than I am used to from my friends and acquaintances, and am therefore not inclined to extend my efforts any further.
I find that debate or disagreement stems from the fact that opinions are peddled at the very beginning of the encounter and people are too quick to focus on political, religious or economic issues without having been creative with each other beforehand. For example, by working together (which can be technical or gardening, cooking, etc.) or playing. In my opinion, hobbies are a good way to get away from directness and first discuss and solve with each other technical aspects, problems etc. that concern the matter. In the act of doing something together, a purely theoretical debate is often unnecessary, one understands and respects each other, because subliminally a difference of opinion is also recognised, just by gently touching on an explosive topic. The body language that people exchange with each other plays an essential role, I think. That's why I'm trying to get out of the habit of jumping right in.
But it is also a fact that you cannot always face things in this way, that you are forced to take a direct stand, to have to decide. In the crisis of last year and this year, by taking a clear position, I lost my job and my colleagues and relationships also came to an end as a result. I would do it again, but in the communication with those who witnessed my dismissal, it was clear how unpleasant my case was for my colleagues and that they wanted to quickly forget what it can mean to stand up for oneself. I reminded these people of their own willingness to go along with everything the current regime orders and that as a visible thorn in the flesh, it is better that I am no longer actively involved in the sphere. Having gotten rid of me, they no longer seem to have to think about the fact that deviating from the narrative can have unwelcome consequences. Nevertheless I am certain that it had some effect on them, and not only negative. It depends on how I see myself, being a victim or not. I choose not to see myself being a victim.
I could call my colleagues stupid or ignorant, even deliberately ignorant, because they have seen that refusing to accept the measures led to discrimination, which they themselves supported and even partly forced. I suspect this has more to do with the fact that two fears are being weighed up here: The fear of making oneself unpopular, of exposing oneself to the danger of exclusion, and the fear of the further political steps. I think the fear of the former prevails and because people do not want to admit to themselves that the hierarchy is not a benevolent one, they decide (probably rather unconsciously) to rather obey. How easy it then becomes to feel offended, because people are actually not stupid but have fine antennae for their own unfairness, being offended is something that comes on rapidly as soon as someone touches the sore spot.
My experience of touching sore spots, either actively through what I say or indirectly through my refusal to let certain things be done to me, has in this case led to a complete break-off of contact.
At the moment, however, I experience that skirting around the issue is positive for me, because since one doesn't ask directly about it anymore or dares to address you about whether you are for or against the measures, but you just pretend to be on the same page, I am experiencing social contact in a positive way for the first time in a long time. I think people are tired of dealing with it all the time and want to put it behind them. A certain stubbornness, also a kind of unconscious resistance to what we experience as pressure from above, can be observed.
People "don't see" other people going into buildings where a test is actually required and let them pass unhindered, they don't insist on wearing masks when someone shows up without them and so on. I assume also, that many just "forget" to report cases or making other little steps to be resistant. While, if you would ask them, they would say that they are for the measurements and pro vaccine etc. etc. But it can also be assumed, that they just think of you as someone who already is vaccinated or freshly tested - having the confidence to move around without being neither, maybe doesn't come up in the minds of people.
I would use the same suggestions and arguments you offer here in your text, means, I agree with them.
The only point I am having trouble with is citing sources, I somehow find it silly to do that with friends, if you know what I mean.
You will encounter people that this is their go to tactic. Often for very simple things to search for. I tell them I am not writing a dissertation or book report. It is easy to search for IF they are truly interested. Yet I have other things to do with my time than to do a SEARCH for them that they themselves can do.
Furthermore, if they don't want to be a hypocrite then they need to busily be providing all of their citations as well rather than requiring others to search for them.
HINT: They don't do that. The demand for a citation can be genuine depending upon how it is phrased, but it can also be a "GOTCHA" technique they use to try to say "Look at me, I won, they couldn't prove it!" while they forget that the purpose isn't win/lose. It is communication. Shutting down communication is always a LOSS.
Yes, cutting off communication is not a solution, I agree. Wherever I have been in dispute, I was immediately classified as rebellious or belonging to some group or other, and my sources were not accepted. The media have done a thorough job of presenting the current narrative as the only alternative. I was surprised by the speed and the abundance with which this came over us. I have experienced something like this for the first time in my life. People, even sometimes people I met on the street, immediately waved off when you brought up the pharmaceutical profiteers aspect, as if this argument, because it was discussed and criticised in many places, was worthless just because of that. Yes, it is not about winning, I agree.
Unfortunately they are LOSING when it comes to communication. Yet we are also shackled to them to some degree. No matter how difficult it may be and hopeless it may seem we can still occasionally reach people. It may take awhile for the things we tell them to make sense to them. We often will not be around to witness that awakening. Yet it is something we must do. If we do not then we are all going down with the proverbial ship.
Some people obviously some within third world area of the country have a notion of viewing the obviously negative outcome of the stupid leader and following through even when know that this will not be a smart move for solutions towards a peaceful visible economy.....therefore just for what they will gain silence the people making the plight of the people gain sound
Smart people aren't being silenced... there's no need to silence smart people because nobody listens to them anyway. What we see right now, with everyone getting offended by everything, is just stupid people fighting to be the loudest voice.
Not necessarily true. People are removed from platforms, from banking, from jobs, etc. Often simply for challenging the "official" narrative.
I'm not saying that didn't happen, just that it didn't happen to any 'smart' people.
Each to their own. I disagree with you.
Then the question also begs to be asked "who defines smart?" Are you so sure you qualify? Am I sure I qualify?
The only reason it didn't happen to me is I don't stick around on platforms I see it happening to people. As soon as I see it happening I decide... nope, not going to support this place.
If I stuck around I have very little doubt it'd happen to me.
Yet I didn't stick around. Does that mean I am smart?
I've seen it happen to doctors, collections of doctors, attorneys, scientists, priests, musicians, programmers, etc.
By your estimation they probably were not "smart".
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for the moment and I did read "consciously biased" in your description. Basking within your bias may feel smart... yet is it?
I am told I am smart frequently. I never refer to myself as such. I leave that up to other people to decide.
I also try really hard not to call people stupid. For while I think people do STUPID things, say stupid things, etc. I have this inner monologue that tells me every person has some unique knowledge, and potential based upon their life experience. Whether they ever tap into that and express it is another matter.
I don't consider people that censor others for speaking against the beliefs/knowledge they prefer as "smart". That is just me. By your comments I am leaning towards you are likely fine with that.
Martin Niemoller is worth reading and you may already have heard his poem "First they came..." It might apply to you as well. I am damn sure trying to make certain it doesn't apply to me.
The people getting offended by everything are not being censored. They are being platformed by universities, legacy media, politicians, and celebrities.
They are teaching people to look for things to be offended by.
That is essentially what classes about micro aggressions are doing.
They are not getting censored so they must be "smart" by your estimation because they are not the ones being silenced/banned.