Creating A Framework For Social Media Interactions

Scenario # 2

A group of radical extremists from the other political party (the one you don’t belong to) meet for a rally.  During this rally, some of them become violent and begin to riot, causing damage to local businesses, destroying property, and resulting in physical injuries to innocent people.

Six months later a group of radical extremist from your political party (the one you do belong to) meet for a rally.  During this rally, some of them become violent and begin to riot, causing damage to a local park, and to a stadium.  Two officers are killed in this interaction, and one of the rioters is severely injured.

Which of the following conclusions might an intellectually honest person draw, and why?

1. The first riots were horrible, and those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  The leaders of the other party are to blame for these riots.  Their incendiary language led directly to the actions taken by the crowd.  The second riots were not representative of the beliefs of the people on that side.  It was just a few individuals.  Those persons should be prosecuted, but everyone else in the party is innocent.

2.  The first set of riots were an unusual event, and not representative of the people of that side.  Those involved should be prosecuted, but everyone else should be let off the hook.  The second set of riots are inexcusable.  They make our side look bad!  Everyone who is in any way remotely connected to them should be prosecuted.

3.  Both riots are inexcusable and disgusting.  The leaders on both sides must be held responsible for their rhetoric, and all persons involved must be prosecuted.  

4.  Both riots are inexcusable and disgusting.  However the leaders of either party are not responsible for the actions that a few of their followers took.  

Once again, Intellectual honesty isn’t about making a particular judgement call.  It is about applying the same values to all situations, regardless of the circumstances.  Thus, both 3, and 4 can be intellectually honest positions to take.  You may disagree with the positions taken in number 3 or 4, but what matters is that the person making the judgement call applied the same values to both situations.

Either we blame the leaders of their respective parties, or we don’t.  Either we find the riots disturbing, or we don’t.  We can’t blame the side we disagree with, while excusing our own side.  Doing so, is not intellectually honest.

Our goal must be to judge all situations by the same standards, regardless of whether they affect our tribe, or the other tribe.