This one is (again) on speaking up and making choices.
In today's political climate and ethical crises, there are going to be people who you disagree with vehemently. Most disagreements are subjective in nature. That is, they are a matter of personal taste or predisposition. So there are bound to be a lot of them (opinions are like noses, everybody has one). But there are situations when an opinion is incorrect at its very core, when it causes damage to others, and/or when it denies the proof that is evident in reality. As the old saying goes; "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".
When you are faced with a situation on Facebook, in other social media or perhaps in personal contact where a friend or family member deviates from what you would consider to be a sensible opinion, you are given a choice; If the subject of the opinion is frivolous and causes no harm (like who their favourite band is or how to properly cook a burger or whether there should be a stop sign down on the corner) then i'd suppose the best thing is to have a lighthearted discussion and, if necessary, agree to disagree.
But what if that opinion will affect peoples' lives? What if it would cause death or injury to someone....or some group of people? Suppose the opinion denies what we observe of the world around us? Suppose it's based upon lies or ignorance? Is it then not important to dispute it? What if it were to go unchallenged and became the general consensus? Wouldn't injustice and dangerous delusion be the result? So, aren't some opinions so inherently wrong that the argument cannot end with "we agree to disagree"?
What then?
Well, i suppose one could just walk away from the confrontation and hope it will resolve itself....or occupy oneself with other distractions so as to ignore it. That certainly is the path of least resistance. It causes less stress initially. But wouldn't we be just kicking the snowball down the road? Sooner or later these ideas will gain mass and momentum as a result of that lack of resistance. As they do they become more difficult to displace until the lies and ignorance are so entrenched that they cannot be disputed effectively. If these misconceptions are sufficiently harmful they will cause loss and destruction and set humanity back to the days when ignorance ruled the world.....when science and the demand for human rights were punished as crimes and abominations.
So lets assume you become a party in one of these discussions. Let's pick white supremacy as an example: Your buddy Joe is a white nationalist. He's constantly posting stuff in social media and commenting about the supremacy of white Europeans and openly denounces all nonwhites and Jews. You may have confronted him about this and it makes no difference...he persists in his delusions no matter....maybe even becomes abusive in his argument. What now? You could just ignore it as if it's not happening. You could hope he sees the light and reforms over time. You could continue to confront him about it......Or you could just call it quits and cut him off from contact as a friend.
Since these people tend to fall in with others who believe as they do, reformation is not likely. There is constant reinforcement within the group. Joe will most likely be a racist 'til he dies. So you can either accept him and the racism along with him or decide to take a stand and hope your dissatisfaction will leave an impression. This last option, if done often enough, sends the message that society will not tolerate lies, hatred and willful ignorance. If a person wants to be generally accepted, they will need to be sensible and ethical.....or they will lose the people they care about as friends and associates. This is a tough thing to do, i know. It often ends up in hard feelings and you may lose a person who has been important to you in your life. But the only other option is to give positive reinforcement to bad behaviour and, in so doing, ensure its persistence.
Have you noticed all of the fruitcakes who have come out since Trump was elected? The climate change denialists, religious fanatics, racists, homophobes, misogynists, antisemites....the people intolerant of the poor, the gun nuts with their armory of death? Why do you suppose this is? It's because it appears to them that society has vindicated their erroneous and harmful beliefs and opinions. It has become socially acceptable to be anti-social, anti-science and anti-reality. Is this really something we wish to encourage and perpetuate? I'd say the logical options are to openly oppose and, if necessary, make the ultimate statement by cutting off emotional support for those who continue in their harmful ways. It's not a matter of intentionally hurting them. It's saying "no" to behaviour that will ultimately do harm to them and others.
The latter is a big step and won't be suitable in all cases. It's a judgement call. Sometimes debate is really the best recourse. It's hard to influence someone you don't interact with and there are times when the association is something you don't want to (or are unable to) terminate for good reasons. But occasionally, when all else fails, drastic measures are all that's left.
Hopefully, one won't find this necessary in most situations.
