Why can’t we just stay in the gray zone?
There is black, there is white, and in between, there are a million shades of gray.
So why is it that most of us tend to take an all white or all black position on every single issue known to man? I do it, you do it, we all do it. But political issues, by their very nature, are complex and multifaceted, often involving a wide array of factors and ideologies. So why do we, time and again, fall prey to our limitation to perceive political issues beyond a simplistic black-and-white dichotomy? Most importantly, why can’t we acknowledge that most of the time, the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
And why can’t we look at all issues individually, without pouring false relevance about other issues in our arguments? For example: recently, a facebook post from a young lady was asking for help as she was facing being on the streets, homeless. This post was quickly turned into a political argument about how some refugees are currently housed at the Devcore Hotel. The commentator used a false relevance to make the point that “Trudeau let all these immigrants in so Canadians can be homeless.” Quickly, the Prime Minister was rescued by another commentator, clearly Liberal, stating “Ask Ford where all the money the federal government gave him for housing went.”
Like, by God! What is wrong with people?
Why does it matter? One crisis has absolutely nothing to do with the other! Both are equally devastating. Both need solutions. This diversion from the topic at hand does absolutely nothing to contribute to finding shelter for the young woman. It’s all whataboutism.
I think part of the problem is our lack of basic human compassion. And this contributes to the polarization and divisiveness we’ve witnessed over the last few years.
Which brings me to the movie “Sound of Freedom.”
It is rare that a movie divides people as much as “Sound of Freedom” does.
We recently posted a review of the film. Our movie critic always tries to objectively look at a production and judges said production on several criteria, including but not limited to, story, cinematography, acting, structure and score. As such, when he reviewed the film, it was from that perspective, not as the left-leaning political activist that he is.
Despite the fact that he didn’t condone the movie, the mere act of reviewing it angered the left.
Despite the fact that he fully acknowledged, and even commended the movie’s lack of right-wing messaging, he still was called a “libtard”. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
We must break free from this mentality and recognize that we can appreciate or criticize a movie, song, or any creative work for its intrinsic qualities, rather than condemning it solely based on the affiliations of its creators. Boycotting artists or businesses simply because they endorse a different political ideology only fuels the fire of intolerance and limits our own growth. Tolerance means accepting that others have the right to their opinions, even if we disagree, and engaging in respectful dialogue.
It is time to challenge ourselves to stay in the gray zone. Let us embrace complexity, seek understanding, and approach each issue with empathy and compassion. By recognizing that truth often resides in the middle, addressing issues individually, and respecting diverse perspectives, we can foster a more inclusive and tolerant society. Only then can we move forward together, finding common ground and working towards meaningful solutions.
Because, as Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Compassion is the basis of morality.”
