Get Thee to a Nunnery!

Why do so many resolute “defenders” of democracy and freedom seem convinced that freedom is a one-way street? Three examples from my own small community in recent years:

• People should be able to say or display “whatever” in public places without restraint or complaint and if some don’t want to see or hear such expressions of freedom then they are free to go elsewhere or free to practice virtual blindness/deafness or perhaps free to not even go out in public, if their values are so sensitive.
• People should be free to shop on Sunday if they wish and if others would like to be free from having to work on Sunday, the brief and simple answer is “Feel free to get a different job.”
• Freedom of speech is sacred until the freedom lover has heard enough of the other-side’s opinion. Then the cry is, “ENOUGH, ALREADY!!!” (Forgetting their own advice, that they are free to stop reading, seeing, or hearing at any time.)

Whenever there is the least hint of “values-based” constraint, these emotional, local defenders decry the death or denial of their rights and freedoms. They rage against the tyranny of imposed standards and against the sanctimonious supporters of such standards. Or as one man extrapolated, mothers complaining about lewd magazines at the grocery store checkout were dishonoring the sacrifice of soldiers fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. And almost always, the advice of these freedom enthusiasts to their opponents seems to devolve into a version of “Get thee to a nunnery!” As in, “If you don’t like what’s in public, then don’t go there!”

Accommodating democracy and differing views is not easy, but why are we so prone to extremes; so prone to discounting others’ views and opinions; so dogmatic; so emotional; so often irrational? Perhaps science has the answer. In Sharon Begley’s Newsweek column of August 16, 2010, p. 24, entitled “The Limits of Reason: Why evolution may favor irrationality,” she outlines some findings that help explain our propensity to emotional irrationality. In short, we like to win arguments—and so “effective argumentation” becomes the goal, not truth or justice. We abandon “reason” for persuasion and self-validation. The tools/ploys we cultivate in this endeavor are:

1) confirmation bias: that is “seeing and recalling only evidence that supports [our] beliefs …”;
2) “not [testing] our beliefs against empirical data” (that is, being “blind to counterexamples”);
3) “not [subjecting] beliefs to the plausibility test”; and
4) “[being guided] by emotion.”

Thus we “mislead [ourselves] about what’s true and real, by letting examples that support our view monopolize our memory and perception ... .” We ignore flaws in our position, but actively seek flaws in evidence that “undermines our point of view.”

Perhaps this helps explain the dismal state of politics and the proliferation of endlessly reiterated, fallacious talking points! Is anyone looking for truth anymore or is it all about persuasion (rhetoric), winning arguments, and pursuing hegemony?

Woe is us. We seem to have forsaken reason, rationality, fairness, balance, justice, and truth for the mere sake of appearing “right”! And for all those who are wrong? Well, if you ask the winners, these losers should just go cloister themselves so the “right ones” can be free of irritating counterexamples, parallels, and plausibilities!

----------------------/
See also related post: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2010/08/contraries-of-freedom.html

The contraries of freedom

In a nearby rural community, there has been a vigourous, ongoing discussion in the local paper about the headlines and pictures that "grace" the "Magazines at the Checkout Counter." The initial complainant (a young mother with several young children frequently in tow) has been immensely relieved and gratified that the grocery store chose to heed her concerns and to initiate a cover-up of the worst offenders at the checkout. Others soon become outraged, claiming that their fundamental freedoms and rights have been infringed; that mothers and other supporters of the cover-up were mis-educating children to be ashamed of semi-nudity and of sex; and how dared these complainants impose their rigid values on others!

This same "freedom" controversy has raged in more towns and cities than we can count. (“Déjà vu all over again!”as Yogi Berra would say.)

These are my thoughts, entered into the fray.

Letter to the Editor:

The contraries of freedom: Some people want the freedom to say and display in public anything they wish. Others want the freedom to use and enjoy public spaces without being subjected to anything they view as offensive. Most take a position somewhere between these opposites.

Some say “If you don’t like (… … …), then don’t read, watch, go there,” etc. Others say “I should be free to navigate in public without my values being affronted.”

Some object to any constraints, seemingly unaware that such a position imposes its own form of constraint on others who do not see as they do.

In light of these contraries, has not Extra Foods taken (like other stores in various locales) the most reasonable and respectful course to accommodate opposing views?

Isn’t EVERY customer STILL FREE to examine or purchase ANY magazine offered for sale? STILL FREE to walk to the magazine aisle (where most magazines cover each other—without anyone’s complaint!)? And now, additionally FREE to proceed through checkout without the blizzard of sensational displays?

If everyone is STILL FREE to look at any magazine they wish, perhaps the present controversy is NOT really about freedom, but about inconvenience and misunderstanding. Perhaps we should consider the contrary of Mr. Hendericks’ view (TCS, 5 August 2010, p. 8)—and regard the “cover-up of covers” as an extension of freedom, not a restriction—a type of community ClearPlay where MORE people are free to avoid things they find distasteful—without altering IN ANY WAY magazine content or the purchasing choice of others.

For those who lament the slippery slope of censorship, there are others who equally lament the slippery slope where private (as well as profane) matters have become so public and so universal that many are forced by this “freedom” to see and hear things they would prefer to “see not” and “hear not.” Do their preferences and values not merit respectful consideration on the continuum of freedom?

Extra Foods’ action seems the fairest win-win possible in this controversy. Magazines are freely available with only minor inconvenience to overt/covert scrutiny at checkout (easily remedied with a little wrist action)—thus leaving ALL customers FREE to exit with fewer visual intrusions (and who doesn’t wish for a little more calm in the midst of our troubled world!?)

SMSmith

PS: In the spirit of opposites and equity—If the cover-up of “checkout” magazines is so offensive, would those offended consider taking their own advice recently given to others, namely: “to shop in places where they do not feel offended or inconvenienced”? Surely we can see! there is no cause or need for the exclusion of anyone. Thank you Extra Foods for fairly considering the freedoms of all complainants.