husawis

The saying goes something like this, “Opinions are like poop-vents, everybody has one.” Opinions are good, however, often they are not even remotely based on fact and they sometimes play flirtatious games with the truth. Since all are entitled, so we say, to have opinions we allow many opinions to go unchallenged long enough that suddenly we find that they have become accepted as fact. There is also the old expression, “A lie becomes truth, when only one person believes it.” If that is true, and given that opinions may not represent the truth but become truth by escaping rigorous challenge then one needs to rethink the idea that opinions are not really dangerous until they are accepted as factual.

Of course this seems to set the stage for a debate stretching from Free Speech to Truth Squads and ultimately Censorship. These three considerations are difficult to even put forth as discussion points, yet alone contemplate dispassionate debate. So, what are we to make of opinion, when is it our natural obligation to challenge them and when must challenge be deferred because of our membership in a specific group? Basically, what is our obligation to set the issue straight?

The social media exposes the public to more opinions and controversy than could have ever been imagined. Whereas legitimate news organizations have long recognized an obligation to verify stories, they too fall short in critically evaluating published opinion. Freedom of the press can live quite comfortably within responsible boundaries. And, although requiring some effort at times, the slant or bias of the press can be easily discerned. Thus, making it possible for challenging positions to be brought to the fore.  A systematic way of approaching this same result is almost impossible with social media, the result is that there is a plethora of misleading and inaccurate information being put forward that eludes critical evaluation and comment.

Making the matter even more difficult is that much of this material is the result of passionate attempts of otherwise good intentioned people to address issues they feel have been ignored. Once passion is inserted into logical discourse, logic is put at extreme risk and truthful positions fall prey to undisciplined and sloppy discourse. One of the most egregious examples of this kind of situation is what is seen when loose and sometimes absolutely false opinions are promoted in the penning of a sensitive social issue where the issue by its very nature invites extreme polarization of opinion. Unwittingly, each position decays into the same mud and what is believed or discounted is determined by audiences with already well established positions who search for opinions they already endorse. No debate is had and opinions accepted by the like-minded contribute to a game of numbers which produce a false evaluation of the popularity of any position