I have no objection to others commenting on my contributions to social media, provided, of course, such commentary stems from sincere curiosity or a desire for constructive dialogue. I welcome inquiry, counterpoint, and even courteous dissent. In its ideal form, social media offers the potential for meaningful exchange, a place in which disparate ideas may collide in an effort to refine them. In rare instances, it even encourages critical thought.
However, it would be disingenuous to pretend this is the norm. Increasingly, I observe that the mere act of questioning prevailing dogma invites hostility rather than discussion. A certain archetype emerges, one who seeks domination instead of understanding. These individuals don’t engage with the ideas presented. Rather, they abandon all pretext of intellectual integrity and instead direct their hostility at the originator. That is to say: me.
They never ask, “What led you to this conclusion?” Nor do they off counterevidence. They resort, instead, to epithets, base insults, and crude attempts at psychological reduction. I have been called delusional, dangerous, or some similarly dismissive designation, all tokens of thoughtlessness masquerading as moral clarity. Their objective is only to silence, not to engage in conversation.
Let me be unambiguous here: I don’t share my reflections in the pursuit of validation. I do so because I value the capacity for thought. I believe questions, particularly the uncomfortable ones, are essential. When we cease to question, we cease to think. And when thinking ceases, obedience begins.
To interrogate a prevailing narrative is not an act of nihilism, nor is it a dereliction of civic responsibility. It is the essence of intellectual honesty. Narratives, after all, are not sacred relics, but often the by-products of human error, ambition, or consensus posing as the truth. History is strewn with examples where consensus led to catastrophe. Only through examination and dissent do we approach understanding.
Therefore, when I offer an idea that deviates from the cultural orthodoxy, I’m not demanding agreement. I’m inviting thought. Disagreement, when offered with coherence and evidence, is both welcome and necessary. But invective, disguised as rebuttal, contributes nothing. It reveals only the speaker’s fragility. Should a person feel threatened by the simple presence of an alternative viewpoint, I suggest the threat lies not in the dissenter, but in the precariousness of the person’s own convictions. It you must resort to insult, then you have already forfeited the argument. Such behaviour is evidence of fear.
Fear, when examined, is quite revealing. It signals an inability to tolerate scrutiny. It betrays a dependence on group validation. Most tellingly, it exposes a terror that a person’s beliefs may not withstand exposure to reason.
So, if you encounter a thought here or on my social media pages that challenges you, don’t recoil. Don’t react like a child stung by offence. Ask a question. Offer a logical counterpoint. Present your evidence. I assure you, I’m listening. I may even be persuaded.
But if your instinct is to hurl insults, impugn my character, or to suggest that I should not be allowed to speak, then you haven’t engaged in argument. Instead, you have fled from it. And I don’t reward cowardice with my attention.
The world does not suffer from an excess of independent thought. It suffers from its scarcity. We need people who question with discipline, who listen with discernment, who challenge with dignity, and who engage with reason. Social media could become a forum for such mind. But that is a choice and one most are still unwilling to make.
Until that choice is made, I will continue. I will continue to share that which I deem worth contemplating. I will continue to ask questions, even (especially) when they unsettle. And if that provokes discomfort, then so be it. Discomfort is often the first sign that a person has begun, at last, to think.
So, do comment if you possess something of substance. Ask if you truly seek understanding. Disagree if you have the courage to defend your position with logic rather than volume. But don’t confuse derision for intellection. And don’t presume that the absence of dissent equals truth. If your beliefs require the suppression of others to survive, then they are not beliefs at all. They are dogmas: unexamined, unearned, and unworthy of reverence.
And perhaps, if you find yourself so enraged by the presence of a question, it is you who most needs to ask one.