Are you free to “do what you want to do - but as long as you hurt nobody”? Probably not. The world of the Internet and social media has shown us that we are not really
free to say or do whatever we want, even if it hurts nobody.
Political correctness is overriding logical sense and factual argument. Social media and its self-declared influencers dictate what one can say, and even when nothing is said, one is not off the hook yet. But if everyone must talk about what is current, and considered urgent or important, where is the freedom of choice for those who simply don’t want to engage or lack enough information to engage meaningfully?
I once posted on Twitter about a particular road construction in Dar es Salaam that I thought was being done at a very good quality. Someone commented that I seemed to be out of touch and didn’t care. It happened at the time when the Chadema party leader Freeman Mbowe had just been arrested, and some protests were conducted seeking his release. Basically, this was a case of “say something about this or say nothing at all”. Interestingly, this is not an isolated, rare event. We see social media posts being deleted every day following backlash from audiences. Some posts of course violate established rules and must be taken down, but others are simply cases of ‘you are not saying what we want to hear’.
Underneath this kind of intolerance however, are assumptions like the African proverb, “if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem”. But is it true? That if you cannot give a solution, or join those working to address a particular problem, that you are part of the problem? This expectation is prevalent especially in emotionally charged incidents where bringing a perspective that is contrary to the majority is considered almost as an abomination. Consider this example. The Tanzanian artiste Diamond Platnumz was nominated for the prestigious BET awards in 2021, which is by all means, a good thing for Tanzania’s music industry.
However, his nomination was met with opposition from some Tanzanians, claiming that because he allegedly did not take any action to condemn acts of oppression in the country, then he did not qualify to get the award. But again, is it true? This tendency relates to the psychological term: ‘omission bias’, which is a cognitive bias where people give more weight to actions than inactions. As humans, we are all prone to this bias, we will assign more value to actions taken, even when they would achieve the same results as inactions, or achieve nothing at all. Besides, where is the individual freedom to choose between taking action or taking no action? As a society, we must ask ourselves, what kind of life are we dictating for others if we expect them to say only what we want to hear? What good does it do to us? Them? But above all, who are we to dictate what others must do or not do?
Within the precincts of the law, ethics and morality of course, it should remain that one can do or not do what they wish. And before we step on self-declared high moral grounds and claim to know what others must do or not do, it is important to conduct self-interrogation to clarify whether we are imposing personal preferences on others, infringing their individual freedoms, or are we really working towards a good course?
Finally, the bottom line is that, even if one is not part of the solution, one may not necessarily be part of the problem.
As the economist Amartya Sen put it, “the identity of an individual is essentially a function of her choices, rather than the discovery of an immutable attribute. We must not all be the same. We can only coexist within our freedoms, similarities and differences”.
Are you free to “do what you want to do - but as long as you hurt nobody”? Probably not. The world of the Internet and social media has shown us that we are not really
free to say or do whatever we want, even if it hurts nobody.Political correctness is overriding logical sense and factual argument. Social media and its self-declared influencers dictate what one can say, and even when nothing is said, one is not off the hook yet. But if everyone must talk about what is current, and considered urgent or important, where is the freedom of choice for those who simply don’t want to engage or lack enough information to engage meaningfully?
I once posted on Twitter about a particular road construction in Dar es Salaam that I thought was being done at a very good quality. Someone commented that I seemed to be out of touch and didn’t care. It happened at the time when the Chadema party leader Freeman Mbowe had just been arrested, and some protests were conducted seeking his release. Basically, this was a case of “say something about this or say nothing at all”. Interestingly, this is not an isolated, rare event. We see social media posts being deleted every day following backlash from audiences. Some posts of course violate established rules and must be taken down, but others are simply cases of ‘you are not saying what we want to hear’.
Underneath this kind of intolerance however, are assumptions like the African proverb, “if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem”. But is it true? That if you cannot give a solution, or join those working to address a particular problem, that you are part of the problem? This expectation is prevalent especially in emotionally charged incidents where bringing a perspective that is contrary to the majority is considered almost as an abomination. Consider this example. The Tanzanian artiste Diamond Platnumz was nominated for the prestigious BET awards in 2021, which is by all means, a good thing for Tanzania’s music industry.
However, his nomination was met with opposition from some Tanzanians, claiming that because he allegedly did not take any action to condemn acts of oppression in the country, then he did not qualify to get the award. But again, is it true? This tendency relates to the psychological term: ‘omission bias’, which is a cognitive bias where people give more weight to actions than inactions. As humans, we are all prone to this bias, we will assign more value to actions taken, even when they would achieve the same results as inactions, or achieve nothing at all. Besides, where is the individual freedom to choose between taking action or taking no action? As a society, we must ask ourselves, what kind of life are we dictating for others if we expect them to say only what we want to hear? What good does it do to us? Them? But above all, who are we to dictate what others must do or not do?
Within the precincts of the law, ethics and morality of course, it should remain that one can do or not do what they wish. And before we step on self-declared high moral grounds and claim to know what others must do or not do, it is important to conduct self-interrogation to clarify whether we are imposing personal preferences on others, infringing their individual freedoms, or are we really working towards a good course?
Finally, the bottom line is that, even if one is not part of the solution, one may not necessarily be part of the problem.
As the economist Amartya Sen put it, “the identity of an individual is essentially a function of her choices, rather than the discovery of an immutable attribute. We must not all be the same. We can only coexist within our freedoms, similarities and differences”.
No comments :
Post a Comment