Some People Need to Shut Up
Graphic by Alyssa Beaumont
We need to let go of the notion that everybody needs to preserve space for everyone’s short-sighted and bigoted rhetoric to be heard. Some people truly have nothing valuable to say; they exist in echo chambers that convince them that they are right, or even that they are righteous, for always expressing their thoughts in their purest form — no filter for the most basic, widely held moral standards. And because humans need community, the average person is not willing to isolate those around them for beliefs that they feel are comparatively “safer” than their personal dealbreakers — societal standards be damned.
Whatever arbitrary lines people draw on a whim are crossed in the simple act of “hearing someone out”. You don’t want to be the one to make the hangout uncomfortable when a white person says nigga because that’s, like, not the point of what they’re saying, don’t be like that, just hear them out. Even the most self-aware people are susceptible to blindly accommodating the standards that others set, even if they wholeheartedly disagree, just for the sake of not being too radical or killing the vibe.
People’s tolerance for intolerance has taken an interesting shift in recent years, placing the burden of tolerance now in the hands of communities on the receiving end of discriminatory language. Without most peddlers of this mindset realizing it, the main benefit of such blind acceptance is simply comfort for the willfully ignorant.
Robert Jones Jr., an American author, once said, “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” When put in such plain terms, it seems like an obvious sentiment that most people would likely agree with. Then why is it that the murder of Charlie Kirk, an infamous right-wing political activist, and the subsequent debates about the legacy he left behind, was treated as proof of the moral corruption of modern society? People refusing to pay their respects to a selfish and hateful man was unforgivable, not the way that that man’s undeniably derogatory and oppressive arguments were platformed online for “debates” that stray so far from the basic point of debating: the presentation of opposing arguments to have a logical discussion and hopefully reach a mutual understanding.
The YouTube channel Jubilee, which is infamous for these types of debates, currently has 11 million subscribers and is not known to showcase any good-faith, nuanced conversations. Just 50+ minutes of rage bait over, and over, and over again meant to infuriate people who wish they could make the “other side” look stupid, too. Kirk was pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-America to the bone with no plans to say anything to the contrary on camera for millions to see. Those online appearances were meant to portray a character, a confident conservative man that was firm in his views and “owning the liberals,”that was made abundantly clear every time he spoke.
Kirk, and many other internet personalities like him, undeniably know the power of that type of confidence. That power allowed Kirk to regularly insinuate or plainly say that Black Americans are inherently less intelligent, capable, and humane than their fellow citizens, and then receive incredible defense after his death because it was just his opinion.
When these kinds of opinions are normalized, anyone that doesn’t dress up their responses and criticisms in kind, patient, considerate words is treated like a tyrant trying to limit great American freedoms. Propaganda and hate speech are constantly pushed under the guise of protected free speech and this is treated as an impenetrable defense; any critiques must cease as soon as a boy cries first amendment. Kirk was bold enough to say the things so many are afraid to say, and how could we possibly condemn him for that? Well, because there is a good reason other people are so afraid to say it.
When we get caught up in debating if children deserve free, healthy lunches or access to a good education in a safe school, who benefits? When we listen to arguments about whether people deserve basic human rights because they made the fatal mistake of being born in another country, who benefits? When we give half-baked discourse about anything and everything under the sun our attention, just for the sake of proving them wrong, who benefits?
The United States is not the center of the world, but it is undeniable that there is an incomparable spotlight placed on this country and the media it produces that, for many, shows the boundaries for what is and isn’t acceptable. The founding fathers might have sounded conceited to their opponents in saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, but that is not always a bad thing. Too many take that phrase for granted. Some things are true because they just are. People deserve to have uncontested human rights and dignity, and we do not have to listen to every naysayer looking for attention. When we do, we risk them thinking that their nonsense has merit.
Alyssa Beaumont is a sophomore at The City College of New York, majoring in Communications with a concentration in Journalism. She joined The Paper to hone her writing skills and gain experience in the world of journalism. She is a novice movie buff who loves expressing herself creatively.
Comments