If you visit the websites for such UK tabloid newspapers as the Daily Express or the Daily Mail you will no doubt encounter prominent stories about Megan Markle, Nigel Farage and “immigrants”. If these two august institutions are short of column inches, they’ll run a piece about how some former celebrity has had the unmitigated gall and temerity to get old. I mean WTF? How dare they do what human beings are genetically disposed to do. It’s outrageous. Similarly, head over to the Unherd website and you’ll find foam flecked tirades regarding spurious points of contention over dubious subjects. Often the topic being harangued is incredibly niche and I’ve never heard of it before or even considered it being a thing. These sort of talking points are not about informing, debating and most certainly aren’t about thinking. They exist to provoke reactions. Much of today’s press driven public discourse is contrived and designed to yield specific results. It’s about clicks, tribalism and inviting people to get scared, angry or whatever. It’s also about showboating performative moral probity. All of which is highly addictive and commercially viable. It seems to have become a national pastime in many countries, irrespective its negative consequence, of which there are many. However, I want to focus on one particular key aspect of this culture. Something that you can choose not to do and if you make such a decision, this entire ecosystems of fear and hate fails. That is the need to have an opinion on absolutely fucking everything these days. It is an utterly exhausting proposition and a fundamentally pointless endeavour. I have opinions about things that directly affect me, my family and my local community as well as things that impact upon the country I live in and the nation's well being. Things that I feel that a reasonable and measured citizen should have views on. These range from such things as the economy, jobs, law and order, the NHS and schools. Then there’s foreign policy and the defense of the realm. All of which are things I would label “bread and butter politics”. Beyond these it all becomes far more vague, abstract or even unnecessary. Hence I think there is a need for me to research and hold informed opinions about those aforementioned subjects, as they tangibly impact upon my life. Beyond that, it is not required for me to have an opinion on everything else. I am not equipped to do so anyway. Furthermore, I don’t want to either. The immediate needs of my life are concern enough and occupy me continuously. Now here is an important point of clarification. Not having an opinion does not mean indifference. Nor does it mean that by not openly holding a view, I am tacitly endorsing the worst one available for that issue. That is a classic false dichotomy and bullshit. It is a puerile attempt to eliminate the middle ground by assertion rather than argument. This is a lazy and contrived rhetorical device, rather than a well considered, logical argument. If your stance requires everyone who disagrees with you to be classified as an enemy, that tells me more about the framing of the argument than about the people who disagree with you. It also provides me with a good insight into the person who is trying to debate or brow beat me. Now my opening paragraph was clearly aimed at the UK right-wing press. However, this belligerent binary approach to social issues, politics and public discourse is not unique just to them. The left similarly seeks to “debate” within parameters that they wish to set and control. They often fallback in to moral absolutism and seek to neuter any contrary view by labelling it immoral or unethical. Naturally they occupy the moral high-ground and can deflect any argument made by simply deeming it evil. The need for performative moral purity often leaves them floundering in a pool of hypocrisy of their own making but who doesn’t like being shrill and hectoring just for the fun of it? Constructing a solid argument is hard. Emotive, hyperbolic self-serving rhetoric is so much easier. Plus you get to wag your finger. Therefore I would argue that by default it is logical to have no opinion on a large swathe of complex subjects and matters. When confronted with a social or political issue that you are not immediately familiar with, a positions of sober agnosticism is by far the most sensible stance. Matters of lifestyle choice are in my opinion often bound within concepts of privacy. Hence many contentious talking points are simply “none of my business”. Also if something doesn’t directly impact upon me, why should I belligerently shout about it and potentially oppress someone else with my uniformed and redundant view? I don’t know or fully understand many subjects that are used as fuel for the culture wars, so again, why express an opinion that is born of ignorance. Then there are things I cannot control which are many. So why worry about them? Too much of what we’re invited to argue over these days are unmitigated bullshit. Confected outrages of no real value. Celebrity tittle tattle, pointless value judgments and again, performative outrage to try and paint those who participate as morally superior. The sad reality is that it is all just a ploy designed to divide and distract the public from the real issues that are happening. That is not a conspiracy theory but a long established fact. Bad news days are a great opportunity to bury problematic information. Why wait for bad news when you can create it yourself? However, we all have a choice as to whether we wish to take part in this process. Sadly, too many people find it highly addictive. Life feels better and easier to understand when it’s all Colin’s fault. Not having and opinion and not being coerced into having one has major health benefits. There is no pressure to pick a side, no obligation to defend it and no anger addiction to feed. There is peace in acknowledging your own ignorance on a subject and comfort in a policy of default agnosticism. If anyone accuses you of sitting on fence sitting. Laugh at them and tell them to fuck off. You don’t have to choose, you don’t have to play by their rules. I will express an opinion when there is a cogent need for me to do so and not before. I don’t owe anyone an explanation and I am not contractually obliged to partake in anyone’s contrived and loaded debate. Once you break free of the need to have a view on everything, then life becomes far more tolerable. It’s a shame that so many people only realize this later in life. Permalink