A Tolerable Measure of Inconvenient Free Expression

“When men exercise their reason coolly and freely on a variety of distinct questions, they inevitably fall into different opinions on some of them. When they are governed by a common passion, their opinions, if they are to be called, will be the same.”
-Alexander Hamilton

Anyone else tired of having to have an opinion about everyone and everything under the sun? An especially contradictory proposition for a (former) opinion columnist, it nonetheless is ridiculous if not exhausting - frankly, even more so during the last few years. Simply attempting to stay informed among the ever-changing landscape of the news cycle, let alone forming and then expressing one's opinion concerning it, can be enough of a multiverse of madness at times. Seemingly no topic is off limits or goes unscathed in this post-rationality era of perpetual hyperventilation and outrage.

Naturally, engagement and discourse are central elements to actively participating in modern society. Such activity only serves to cultivate and advance civilization, with any abandonment of it equally decimating and a hindrance to progress. Of course, one will more than likely opine anyway even when consciously attempting to avoid doing so. Human nature dictates casting our personal beliefs and thoughts into the void, listening either for the echo chamber of acceptance or the deafening chorus of repudiation. Therein lies the current problem with the system, and the consequential devolution of this dynamic - engagement has become enragement, while discourse has become disregard.

Furthermore, censorship and silencing are rampant given the ease with which to do so through the medium of social media. No longer must one produce a counter pamphlet tacked up in the town square or shout down another in the salon. Instead, an online complaint at the click of a button - whether buoyed by any worthy gravitas - with self-anointed arbitrators of “truth” dictates what is allowed in these modern digital squares and salons. Even the most foresighted dystopian prognosticators could not have predicted such a circumstance, nor the propagandists who could only dream of having such means at their disposal.

At the heart of the issue, trustworthiness is key. Without trust, legitimate engagement and discourse by those on opposite sides is futile; no matter how fervent the debate, bipartisanship is hollow if it is not based in honest understanding. Likewise, suppressive tactics allow for only a singular truth, rather than a melded composite agreed upon by such bipartisanship. Believing that all voices should be heard, no matter your own particular viewpoint, is recognized as a necessary component to a healthy and prosperous society. Those who believe otherwise see this as a hindrance to their clearly underhanded agenda, which undoubtedly cannot endure scrutiny.

This is only my opinion, though - you very well, and rightfully so, may have a different one.

©2022 Steve Sagarra