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.
By: Elliot Fung
On Oct. 14, the McMaster Students Union Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion to formally oppose the provincial government’s mandate that all publicly-assisted colleges and universities in Ontario draft and submit a free speech policy by January 2019. In addition, the SRA asks that the government withdraw the mandate immediately.
The eight-part motion responds to the requirements outlined in the provincial government’s free speech policy mandate. The main consequence for non-compliance takes the form of cuts in operating grant funding, which is vital for many programs and services on campus.
According to MSU president Ikram Farah, the decision to oppose the government mandate is being driven primarily by concerns made by students to the SRA that a free speech policy will limit open discussion and silence the opinions of marginalized communities and dissenters.
The SRA believes that the government mandate is being implemented under the guise of free speech but, in reality, is being used to censor dissent towards hate and bigotry.
“Given the feedback and comments made from a majority of students, the SRA took a stance to protect free speech because this policy dictate form is a sham by which free speech will be limited, not protected,” said Farah.
Ikram’s characterization of the mandate as a “sham” is also substantiated by the apparent lack of consultation from the provincial government with universities, students and student advocacy groups.
One part of the SRA motion addresses a clause in the government mandate that states that compliance with the free speech policy will be a requirement for the recognition and funding of student groups. The SRA opposes the clause as they interpret it as an attempt to limit the ability of students to protest or express dissent lawfully.
The SRA motion contends that there is no need for the free speech policy as barriers to free speech and expression do not exist on campus. They believe that the long-standing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is sufficient in protecting freedom of speech and expression. In addition, the motion argues that reasonable limits to free speech already exist in the form of federal and provincial laws and the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities.
In addition to making an official stance against the government mandate, the SRA is also acting on ways to get the mandate withdrawn. In particular, the MSU is working with its provincial lobby partner the Ontario University Student Alliance.
During the OUSA General Assembly, which took place from Nov. 2 to 4, one of the decisions made was to formally oppose the mandate and communicate this stance to the government. Whether or not this will end up being effective in getting the mandate withdrawn, however, remains uncertain.
It is not yet clear whether McMaster University’s existing free expression guidelines, which were developed last year, will be sufficient for compliance with the policy.
Students were given the chance to voice their concerns about the government mandate directly with university officials, particularly McMaster President Patrick Deane and Arig al Shaibah, the associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) during the MSU’s Town Hall held on Nov. 14.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
