Arbiters of Truth
The Paradox of Censorship
A wise individual once stated: "True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals."
We are living in a time when, thanks to the internet and its social media platforms, we have the option to ignore voices we don’t like, including those of our friends and family members. Facebook allows us to “block” others, which makes them essentially disappear from our consciousness, unless we encounter them in person. Sometimes this may be warranted if the individual is intrusive or aggressive, but far too often we block people because we don’t want to hear their opinions or ideas.
On a larger scale, this extends to the practice of fact-checking, shadow banning, silencing, even de-platforming those who disagree with us or bring forth an alternate opinion. Many would argue that the danger lies not in negating the opposing views, but rather in allowing them to be expressed. The censorship is justified in the name of preventing the dissemination of supposedly perilous mis- or disinformation. But when has information ever actually presented a danger to others on any meaningful scale? I assert that this is only the case when other voices are disallowed. It appears that some individuals believe that the rest of us are not capable of discerning truth versus error—that unless they tell us what is true, we will be misguided and make bad choices for ourselves, which will presumably result in negative repercussions for others. But are we really so ignorant or gullible as the censors and fact checkers would have us believe?
More importantly, would the censors consent to being silenced themselves? The more we condone the elimination of contrarian viewpoints, even if extreme, the more this becomes an accepted norm, and where do we draw the line? “Neither angels nor any other order of universe personality have power or authority to curtail or abridge the prerogatives of human choosing.” Why, then, do some of us feel entitled to disrespect the free will of others and their right to express themselves? When we silence an individual, we impact not only the speaker, but also their audience, depriving them of potentially valuable information.
I maintain that when we restrict others from speaking out, it is because our viewpoint or position is flawed in some way. At its worst, we know that our assertions are false and we don’t want to be exposed. To add insult to injury, we often accuse the dissenters of the very crime we are guilty of—spreading disinformation, and we use that to justify shutting them down. Perhaps more commonly, we silence others because on some level we are uncertain of the merit of our own argument, and we suspect that if we engage in debate we will lose. In this case, it’s just easier to save face and silence the challenging voices.
If our goal is to arrive at the truth, we must encourage respectful discussions with a robust exchange of ideas. I address this in my next blog, A Basic Guide to Dynamic Discourse. We should present as broad a range of perspectives as possible to allow the readers/listeners to draw their own conclusions. I have come to value tremendously a common practice of Robert Malone’s: He simply presents information or data (in some cases information that he might not necessarily agree with), and then he encourages the listener to form his or her own interpretations—he never tells us what to believe!
After all, who dares to presume to be the arbiter of truth? I certainly would not want the responsibility of researching any given topic exhaustively such that I can unerringly state what is or is not true about it. What many don’t consider is that truth is almost never static; it is dynamic, evolving, and multi-faceted: Ten years ago you might have been self-centered and narcissistic but today, with acquired experience and wisdom, you are kind, considerate, and respectful of others. This is why we shouldn’t rush to judge others based on their past behaviors or on incomplete information, just as we shouldn’t condemn our predecessors, who lived under different mores, by today’s standards. Truth is something we need to discover for ourselves, and there can be no arbiter thereof other than its very source—God.