Bigot! No, YOU'RE a bigot!

Is the world becoming increasingly intolerant? In fact, quite ironically it seems that the more we talk about tolerance, the more we seem to notice intolerance everywhere. There may certainly be some truth to the fact there was a lot of intolerance always, but with increasing social awareness on these issues, we are identifying them only now, and that gives the impression that intolerance is increasing. However I am of the opinion that intolerance is in fact increasing, though I do not have any research or evidence to quote here.

The Indian liberal calls the conservative a 'bhakt', while getting called a 'libtard' by the conservative in return. On the global internet stage (which is basically the social media) we have the 'social justice warrior snowflakes' fighting the regressive forces of 'fundamentalists,' 'extremists,' and 'bigots.' A popular youtube essayist, CGP Grey explains this internet phenomenon in the form of thought germs travelling through the internet and affecting people in this video. Now, the phenomenon itself is quite interesting and harmless in itself. But activities on the internet often find ways to materialize even in the offline world. So, once again we ask the question, "is the world becoming increasingly intolerant, and if yes, why?"

One of the possible reasons is the nature of internet itself. Internet offers a level of anonymity and detachment that allows people to say things that cannot be said in the offline world. Anonymity can be seen in sites like reddit and youtube, while facebook though not necessarily anonymous still offers a level of detachment, which means that who you are on facebook need not necessarily be who you are in the offline world. And this allows you to get away with saying things. One example for this is the popular manga/anime series Deathnote, where approval of Kira begins in the internet. People want to maintain a level of decency in the offline everyday society, but online they are hailing Kira as the god of the new age under the guise of anonymity.

Another possible reason is the connectivity of the internet as explained by CGP Grey in the above mentioned video. Because of the connectivity, thought germs are not limited by geography, and can spread far and wide. And like his example of the plant and butterfly shows, when thought germs affect individuals, they will inevitably end up joining one or two sides of the existing debate, and the debate itself keeps growing in that manner.

Most communities have their own taboos, not just in terms of topics of conversation but also in terms of behaviour. Accordingly, there is a constant censoring of behaviour and speech by every member of the community. On the internet, however, due to its cosmopolitan nature as well as due to the lack of gatekeeping, there are no clearly defined taboos and subsequently no clearly defined uniform censorship. So, people feel free to speak and behave in manners otherwise unacceptable in their offline communities.

This means, if a particular (offline) community is against the curtailing of the freedom of thought and expression, on the internet, people of the same community will find it easier to express intolerant views, and may find people from across the world who may agree to their intolerant views. This will further validate their own opinions and strengthen their own resolution to their opinion. Moreover, these individuals form their intolerant communities online and may decide to meet offline as well. In this case, we can see how internet in a direct way contributes to increasing intolerance.

However, is this something that can be blamed on the internet? If a person's behaviour is different from due to lack of an anonymity, isn't that behaviour just a performance, akin to wearing a mask? Similarly, isn't who a person is in the lack of censoring and gatekeeping, the person's most honest self? If the answer to these questions is yes, then what does it say about the nature of human beings? Do humanism's ideas of man being inherently good still hold good? These questions need to be discussed.

Do feel free to disagree with me, or even agree with me. In any case, if you wish to discuss these issues, leave a comment. I'd like to know what you guys think. Alright, peace!

Why recent events have got me troubled.

Deathnote is probably one of the most well known manga/anime out there that deals with questions of morality. For those of you who have not read/watched the said comic/show, the story deals with a genius protagonist who is given a book of the shinigami (god of death) by which he can kill people by writing their name on it. Light Yagami, the said protagonist proceeds to cleanse the world, beginning with criminals.

Eventually, the world takes notice that someone is killing criminals and though in public they say he is a criminal (since the Governments have declared him one), on the internet under anonymity many hail him as a god, and call him Kira (Killer). Kira catches the interest of famous investigator L, and what follows is one of the best wars of intellect in modern storytelling.

What is interesting throughout the story, is the many questions of morality and justice that the story raises. Crime rate drastically reduces as a result of Kira and eventually even Governments develop a neutral attitude towards Kira. But L, and later on Mello and Near continue to fight him, and the audience is left to wonder who is truly justice in the story. The whole philosophy is well captured by Light Yagami, "If we catch Kira, he is evil. If he wins and rules the world, then he is justice." And L himself states, "it's not a sense of justice. Figuring out difficult cases is my hobby."

It is good to ponder on these questions raised by Deathnote. We are so used to the existing ethical and moral values surrounding us that we may not be aware that our society may not always have held the same values. For example, the Western world derives a lot of its thought from the Greek tradition. And ancient Greek thought did not always value pity. E A Judge observes of the ancient time, “Pity was a defect of character unworthy of the wise and excusable only in those who have not yet grown up. It was an impulsive response based on ignorance. Plato had removed the problem of beggars from his ideal state by dumping them over its borders” [“The Quest for Mercy in Late Antiquity,” 107]. However, we today celebrate celebrities who give for charities and consider empathy to be a very important trait to have to be even considered human.

But if our ethical and moral values are not so constant and universal and must be seen as arising from within a spatial and temporal space, then that puts us in a tricky spot when violations of our values take place. Recently, a community that I have been associated with for a while was shocked at the behaviour of one its most prominent faces. The said prominent face violated one of the most sacred values on which the community was built - that of being against violence against women - by himself having engaged in predatory behaviour against women. The community itself was enraged, and quite rightly so. But without a fixed point of view for our viewing of moral values, we are going to be in a problem like that of Deathnote. On what basis can I blame a person for the transgression of a moral value, which I cannot defend objectively? On what basis do I say, "till here and no more?" On what basis can I draw my lines?

I myself am deeply troubled by the incident, and that is because the worldview I hold on to considers human life to be very valuable and of high worth. My worldview moreover considers love as the highest virtue, and this value has been perverted by the incident. And my worldview has an objective stand because it proceeds from an objective ultimate reality - that of God.

P.S. I don't want people thinking I've actually read EA Judge (though I'd like to be that well read someday). I got the quote from another blog post. And I've borrowed some ideas from him as well. And here's the link:
https://varughesejohnblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/a-haunting-ethic-that-refuses-to-go-away/