The phrase 'open-minded' is one that, I believe, has lost it's original meaning. In the past, one who was open-minded challenged their own preconceived notions and looked at the world objectively. Today, it has become more of a phrase used to shut up someone with opposing views.
Anytime someone dares to speak out against something nontraditional, they are usually insulted as being closed-minded bigots who need to open their minds! But, isn't it closed minded to insult someone with a different point of view than you have? Is this 'open-minded' individual any better than the so-called 'closed-minded' one?
It is my opinion that the new 'open-minded' crowd are in fact as closed minded as those they rally against.
I think the new definitions should be:
Closed-minded: A person who opposes a view and refuses to listen to any facts that might contradict their predetermined decision.
Open-minded: A person who is in favor of a view and refuses to listen to any fact that might contradict their predetermined decision.
If two individuals, each having one of the above traits, get lost in the woods, you could conclude that the closed-minded individual would starve to death, having refused to eat any berries out of fear they could be poisonous, and the open-minded individual would probably die from eating poisonous berries.
By remaining closed-minded, you starve yourself intellectually by refusing to gain any new knowledge. By remaining open-minded (by today's standards), you open your self up to many dangers that could have been avoided had you used any discretion.
So, how are we to approach new information? Should we seal ourselves away and be content with the knowledge we have? Or should we freely welcome any and all new information without question, lest we offend someone?
Like so many problems in this world, the answer can usually be found in the middle. We need to be capable of rational thought and view any new ideas or information through a lens of skepticism. We must be able to trust our own experiences and previous knowledge while being willing to accept any new knowledge that might show us where we are may be mistaken.
Instead of getting your ideas off of bumper stickers or Facebook pictures, you should study up on pressing issues of the day. This does require effort, and it runs the risk of consuming your time, but the rewards are tremendous. You'll at least be able to come to an honest conclusion without just repeating what the talking heads tell you.
Take, for example, the protests going on throughout the nation these past few weeks as a result of the grand jury decisions in both the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO and Eric Garner in New York City.
Those in the closed-minded camp love to say "if they hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't have been killed!" while in the 'open-minded' camp they act as if only black people are ever killed by the police and almost always without cause.
Neither of these statements are remotely true! These are two very different cases. Michael Brown had a physical altercation with a cop, who upon feeling his life was in danger, fatally shot Brown. Eric Garner, on the other hand was just selling loose cigarettes on the street and was upset when the cops stopped him. He did not act aggressively toward the cops, yet five of them jumped on him, wrestled him to the ground while one employed a choke hold on him which resulted in him dying from cardiac arrest. I feel that there is legitimate concern for the handling of the Garner case that wasn't properly addressed, but by the rabble-rousers focusing so much on the controversial Brown case, the seriousness of the issue was lost.
The two sides go to the extremes while presenting their cases, often at the expense of the truth and the real problem. When you defend violence and try to play it off as just another innocent man being judged by the color of his skin, you are doing more damage to your cause, such as contributing to the assassination of the two NYPD officers who had nothing to do with either of these deaths. On the other hand, if you act as if cops can do no wrong and by following the law, you'll never have to worry about abuse, you are sadly mistaken. Austin Petersen, editor of The Liberterian Republic, did a great job on Facebook last week exposing the hypocrisy that many conservatives have shown on this issue by several memes including this one:
This caused mass outrage on his page and many fiery debates sprang up in the comments. The conservatives, who are blindly following along with the latest talking points, contradict themselves when talking about the Bundy Ranch Standoff and reports of police brutality. On one issue, they are challenging the law of the land because they feel it is unjust, but at the same time they call for everyone to just follow the law? This makes no sense.
In reality, cops are individuals like the rest of us; there are good cops, bad cops, and average cops. We should not give anyone a pass when a situation is handled poorly, especially when a life has been lost. Those in law enforcement should be held accountable by the same law that they are sworn to protect. In their line of work, the odds of getting in a dangerous situation are high and if a suspect is dumb enough to engage a police officer with a weapon or begin a fight, then the actions of the police shouldn't surprise anyone. Alternatively, if a cop uses unwarranted force, like I believe they did in Garner's case, then they should be held accountable.
By following various libertarian pages on Facebook, I have seen the results of power hungry cops well before the deaths of Brown and Garner and it wasn't just targeted at blacks. People of all races have suffered under bad cops. This is why so many liberty minded folks have started to record any incident with police. They want to ensure that they are being treated fairly and no cop takes advantage of their power.
If a police officer is doing his job correctly, he should have nothing to worry about from these amateur videographers, but if they are the type to abuse their power, they should watch out. Social media has become a powerful tool in exposing many dirty secrets and technology today makes it easier than ever to spread these videos and pictures to millions of people.
This is why it is important to discard any talking point you've picked up on TV, radio, or the internet and look at the facts objectively and form your own opinions. Quit looking at important issues as if there are only two options and quit cherry-picking facts to suit your argument. Facts should be what helps you determine an outcome rather than a means by proving your pre-decided outcome.
This is what being open-minded used to mean before the so-called intellectuals hijacked it and it is a definition that I hope we can return to in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment