In the modern age, I believe there are two types of politics: "Smart Politics" and "Dumb Politics" Smart politics is when politics are discussed using reason, logic, advanced language skills and critical thinking. Dumb Politics is political discussion that ignores facts, reason and other characteristics of academia that have been a cornerstone of politics for centuries.
Today, there has been a decline of smart politics and a surge of Dumb Politics, a prime example of which would be President Trump's activities on Twitter. Dumb Politics has been defended as being accessible to everyone, regardless of their education. However, Dumb Politics are damaging our political landscape. Dumb Politics encourage a decline in education, critical thinking and refusal of facts. This is because to understand Smart Politics you need to be decently educated and have a certain level of critical thinking skills. Dumb Politics don't need those. All Dumb Politics needs is a deceitful speaker and a gullible audience. Refusing facts and the rise of alternative facts is one of the most threatening aspects of modern politics. Just because your opponent says something you don't like, doesn't mean you can just deny it. If they have evidence and facts backing up their points, you can't refuse that. Alternative facts are just a way to deny real facts that will work against you. If the truth isn't convenient, you can just make up a new truth is the philosophy it runs on. Alternative facts are so damaging because they make it a lot harder for people to discern what the truth they need to make a informed decision is. To make sure that Smart Politics stay alive in this age where Dumb Politics is rising it is necessary to practice the methods of Smart Politics. That means learning about the world around us, engaging our critical thinking skills, using logic and reason and generally testing our brains to a higher level. To practice Smart Politics, you have to actually think about politics, cultures and societies around the world. So where do political memes fit in to this? Memes can be funny and quite effective in communicating a message to an audience. However, as a way of engaging in politics and spreading a message, I would suggest that political memes are hurting our political landscape. Political memes are little packages of simple, but highly politically charged jokes. They offer a message and no explanation, attempting to affect the viewer's opinion on an important matter without giving any valid argument. They don't engage the viewer's brain to a necessary level and don't engage critical thinking skills. If you are looking to make a joke, by all means, create a meme. However, if you are looking to influence people and show them a point, engage them. Ask questions that make them think about why they do what they do. This goes for anyone. If you think that you are right and someone is wrong, think about it. Challenge yourself and if you still hold your belief, engage your opponent in a intellectually stimulating discussion. In this we we will claim the civility and intelligence that should hold positions of power in the political landscape. In this way, we will grow as a society.
0 Comments
Recently, a story concerning a young baby found its way out of a British hospital and in to the world news, sparking a strong debate about the ethics of experimental medical treatment and life support. Charlie Gard was a baby born under normal circumstances to normal parents in a normal hospital. However, after several months of noticeably disturbed development, it was determined that Charlie had MDDS, a set of diseases caused by genetic mutation which hinders the function of mitochondria. With mitochondria being the powerhouse of the cell, you can imagine that having them function improperly is a major problem. It is such a serious condition that it was recommended by the hospital treating Charlie that he be removed from life support, a decision made after the careful review of his situation. Up until this point, this had been a relatively normal, yet tragic case. However, at this point, a hospital in the U.S. reviewed his case, spoke with the doctors at the hospital treating Gard as well as his parents and made the determination that with the use of an experimental treatment, it would be possible to save Charlie. At that point the British hospital claimed that due to the status of Charlie's case and the nature of the experimental treatment, it would be impossible for Charlie to be saved and that prolonging his life would only result in further pain. However, the Gard family wished that he be moved to the U.S. for the experimental treatment. In the extensive legal battles that ensued, various aspects of the case were debated in court and on social media. After roughly half a year of legal proceedings, it was ordered that Charlie Grad have his life support removed. He died on July 28, 2017 at the age of 11 months and 24 days.
This is a prime example of a debate that has occupied the medical world recently, which is the ethics of extending life support in favor of trying a new type of treatment. The way I see it, there are two scenarios that can occur in a situation with this: 1. The patient does not receive the experimental treatment and dies sooner, cutting short a potentially painful, short life. 2. The patient receives the experimental treatment and either dies anyways, maybe living an extended, but painful life, or lives potentially in pain. I can understand the argument that says people shouldn't suffer unnecessarily, but I argue that the suffering that comes with the experimentation is necessary. Growth rarely comes without sacrifice and pain. To make those sacrifices and undergo that pain is to help save future lives and cause that pain to never be felt again. Even if that experimentation fails, lots can still be learned. There is a saying within the scientific community that "negative results are still results." That is absolutely true. Those doctors and scientists will be able to say "Alright, this line of investigation is a dead-end. Let's try another." (Sidetone: I have never been in this position and it is possible that I am completely missing something in a very insensitive fashion, but this is how I see the situation.) Returning to the Charlie Gard case, one major issue with my view is that he was a baby and couldn't make that decision. However, his parents, who had been informed by two sets of very well trained and educated doctors who happened to disagree, were in a position to make that decision. These were the two people who brought him in to this world and loved him more than anyone. Is it possible that their love for him blinded them to his pain? Yes, but I like to think that they were trying to save him and perhaps another little Charlie, who has yet to be born. Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40644896 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/charlie-gard-mitochondrial-disease-suffers-legal-battle/ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/25/michio-hirano-us-doctor-intervention-charlie-gard-case-raises-ethical-questions Killing another human being. It is an act that is remarkably controversial and with a good reason. To kill someone else is the most permanent and real thing you can do. That life that you took belonged to someone. We are hunks of flesh that carry incredible amounts of meaning. When you kill, you are taking a bundle of hopes, dreams, experiences and feelings away from the world. There is someone who loved that person. That someone will never have the person you killed back and that is because death is final. There is no coming back from being killed. Once you kill someone, you can't undo it. There are no do-overs, no taking it back. That is why the debate over killing is so intense, and that is good. If there wan't a debate over such a hefty topic, then either we would be living a society that is truly perfect, or truly horrible.
So, is it ok to kill? The two most debatable perspectives I have heard are that either it is never ok to kill someone or that it is alright, so long as it is in self defense. First let's go over the "never kill" point of view. I think it is a very understandable and even admirable. However, I think it is somewhat an unrealistic state of mind. In an ideal world, as humans, we wouldn't kill each other. As humans we should not kill each other. In that ideal world there would be reigning peace, tolerance, understanding, and love, but sadly, that is not the world we live in. We live in a world where most people are never in a situation where they need to decide whether they should kill someone, but I believe that it would be naive to never have some level of this debate in your head. If you never do, you could be in that situation and make a decision that could haunt you for the rest of your life. If you never are faced with that situation, well done, you have avoided a decision with no clear "right answer." Let's now review the self defense killing theory. The most common variation of this theory is that killing someone else is ok as long as that person is trying to severely hurt or kill you or your loved ones, and killing them is the last resort defense. I believe that this is somewhat true, but that this statement is too general. This works fine in the case of a mother defending her baby from a murderer, but it also works in the mind frame of an armed and desperate murderer who has been surrounded by police intent on capturing or killing him. So what separates the mom from the murderer? The moral high ground. Now the moral high ground is very complex and a topic that I potentially could look at in later posts, but for the sake of this context, I will say that there is a simple test you can conduct to see if you have the moral high ground. Review the intentions behind your potential use of lethal force, and the intentions behind the person you are considering killing. If your intentions are those of greed, jealousy, hate, or anger, you probably do not hold the moral high ground. If you are fighting to protect someone weaker, more innocent, more loving, than the attacker, than you probably have the moral high ground. However, this is very complex and there are those who argue that thinking about killing someone means in and of itself that you don't hold the moral high ground. I don't agree with that at all, as I don't believe that simply sitting back and letting someone with hatred in their heart murder you for having the fleeting moment of knowing that you hold the murky moral high ground. No, I believe it is better to fight back, live, and hold what could be a more or less murky (as opposed to the alternative of rolling over) high ground. What it all comes down to are the situations and intentions leading up to the moment where you have to decide whether to take a life. You have to weigh those in an incredibly short amount of time and make the decision to potentially take the most permanent action of not just your life, but theirs. |
|
Photo used under Creative Commons from Lorie Shaull