Spreading awareness about issues is important, but trying to educate individuals who don’t want to be is a fool’s errand
You know you’re right. They know you’re right. You know that they know you’re right. Yet, the argument continues, leaving you irritated, frustrated and in need of three more drinks than you did before.
We all know that social media is revolutionizing how we think about, relate to and engage in social justice and activism. This is a good thing, for the most part.
We all know that social media is revolutionizing how we think about, relate to and engage in social justice and activism. This is a good thing, for the most part.
Information is so easily accessible that ignorance is no longer considered a valid excuse for what society deems moral repugnancy.
If we’re starting to have this increase in social justice awareness, then surely there’s a parallel increase in arguments and debates surrounding these topics.
We live in a societal culture where our thoughts are very clearly segregated into popular and unpopular beliefs. The popular ones are likely those you see being promoted on social media and thanks to years of advocacy, are usually morally correct (in accordance to basic rights and freedoms).
This would mean that in regards to social justice, unpopular opinions are thoughts that contradict what is morally right. So what do we do? We condemn these individuals. After that, we consider playing the advocate.
Now you’ve entered dangerous territory. This could be a wonderful opportunity for an enlightening discussion or your one-way ticket into argumentative hell. Once again, you’re left angry, drained and defeated in your abilities as an activist. You had to have done something wrong, right?
Not necessarily.
When someone enters an argument with no intention of losing, every attempt to change their views only functions to further solidify their intolerance for new ideas.
When someone enters an argument with no intention of losing, every attempt to change their views only functions to further solidify their intolerance for new ideas.
You may have concrete facts and statistics to back up your point but that doesn’t matter. They seem to react to arguments in a way that continues to consolidate their own stance.
In other words, some people argue for the sake of arguing. You may have seen this through in-person interactions around campus or, more commonly, through comment sections on social media. Researchers have found that this is done quite often as a tool to provoke others into an angry response. People who do this may have a subconscious need for power, which is linked to high testosterone levels (shocker).
So why do we keep trying to fill the role as an advocate? Like I mentioned earlier, social media is a major catalyst for spreading information and raising awareness on issues, so it only seems fitting that we do the same through our everyday interactions.
It’s definitely the right idea, but perhaps the wrong execution.
Being careful about who you choose to share your insights with is just as important as putting in the effort to share them.
Let’s circle back to that one-way ticket. Despite your good-willed intentions to offer education, not everyone is willing to give up their seat. Some just enjoy watching the plane go down. Whether they even genuinely liked their seat in the first place is another question.
However, this doesn’t mean that you should give up in your intentions for social justice awareness and education. Sharing your thoughts with open-minded individuals can invoke meaningful and civil conversations where both parties can better understand the stance of the other.
If you find that it's not the case, simply direct the individual to resources they can look into if they’re interested. That’s it. Engaging in arguments with such individuals will not only fail to achieve what you’re after but give into their desire for entertainment through argumentation.
I’m open to discussions if you’d like to change my mind.
On Nov. 9, recipients of the Wilson Leadership Scholar Award, one of McMaster University’s largest scholarships, held a dinner meeting in partnership with the Socrates Project to discuss free speech and McMaster’s current guidelines in light of the larger province-wide focus on the issue.
The event was invite-only, consisting of nine Wilson Leaders and alumni and approximately ten additional guests.
The topic of free speech was chosen as a result of the Ontario government’s recent announcement that all Ontario universities must formulate a “free-speech policy” by January 2019.
McMaster currently has a “guidance document” outlining “acceptable” forms of protest for event organizers.
[spacer height="20px"]The Wilson event allowed participants to share a meal and exchange ideas on free speech and how McMaster should move forward. The focus, according to Wilson scholar Monish Ahluwalia, was simply to promote critical discussion in an open environment, not to come to any definitive conclusion or recommendation.
“We are all from very different backgrounds and programs and experiences,” Ahluwalia said.
“We are hoping we can end with a group of people who have had this discussion and who will open their minds up to some different views hopefully and come out with a more holistic understanding of what free speech is.”
The Wilson Leadership Scholar Award is an award given to three undergraduate students and three graduate students each year. It provides them with up to $50,000 in funding and unique mentorship and leadership opportunities.
This small dinner was the first of its kind that the Wilson scholarship had hosted. However, the event was also an extension of the Socrates Project, which has facilitated many events this year on social issues and art projects.
Wilson scholars Josh Young and Ahluwalia agree that the small size of the dinner helped promote dialogue and dissent.
[spacer height="20px"]“Smaller group-oriented discussions seem to foster more organic discussion. It is not forceful,” said Young.
“We’re curious to see if this is something that students find valuable,” Ahluwalia added. “Moving forward, we are not decided on whether we want it to be invite-only or public. We fear that with too many people, it might get hard to control. It might lose its value.”
The idea of more productive discussion in small groups of select students raises questions about inclusion and exclusion and how to best ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and respected when it comes to contentious issues.
In effort to include more voices, yesterday, the McMaster Students Union hosted a town hall open discussion at TwelvEighty. MSU President Ikram Farah, McMaster President Patrick Deane and McMaster associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) Arig al Shaibah were there to field questions from students.
Both the Wilson dinner and the MSU town hall are products of the university’s focus on the issue of free expression against the backdrop of the provincial government mandate.
Carleton University and the University of Western Ontario both released free speech policy drafts in Oct. 2018. Last month, both the MSU and the University of Toronto Students’ Union condemned the government’s free speech mandate.
As the January policy deadline nears, McMaster students can expect more dialogue and speech on the question of “free speech” on campus.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
