I’m sure you’ve all experienced something like this. You’re having a discussion with someone who’s a bit left-leaning, and they blurt out things like:
The media is riddled with commercialism; there’s advertising and product placement everywhere. Something ought to be done about it.
Yes, the simplest thing to do is to change media channels or switch off. The individual decides on their own media consumption, and we are, of course, expected to take ultimate responsibility for how we spend our time.
But now there are algorithms that map our weaknesses and trigger endorphin rushes, and we end up just sitting there scrolling or binge-watching series.
Most people realise they’re being tricked, and they let themselves be tricked. Perhaps they have nothing better to do; not everyone wants to be a world-changer, a nuclear physicist or an artist – many just want to find a simple pastime?
The activists, however, are not giving up. They are not content with us simply being able to switch off the feed, for after all, no one is forcing us to watch. No, they want to ensure that no one is exposed to what they see as dangerous commercialism. Through this attitude, they are breaching some fundamental human boundaries.
The activists believe they know better than others; they consider their judgement to be worth more than that of the average person.
The activists believe they have the right to impose their views on others. The coercion is for everyone’s own good; it may feel like coercion at first, but after a while people realise the activists were right.
Activists also believe they have the right to silence those who disagree. Dissenters may be denied a voice in the debate, excluded or even censored.
Activists may sometimes even consider committing crimes to get their message across; they may block traffic, vandalise streets, squares and art, and disturb and annoy the public in various ways. They may also lie and distort the truth through incomplete statistics or heavily biased texts masquerading as journalism.
Our tolerance of these individuals is problematic. We often see them as left-wing eccentrics, foolish, misguided, but somehow harmless. We often let them get on with it. And perhaps we are lenient with them because, deep down, they mean well; their efforts may be misguided and faulty, but fundamentally good.
These activists may be involved in all sorts of issues, from climate change, the environment, feminism, migration, anti-racism, anti-capitalism and so on. What unites them is that, in some way, they want to save the vast majority from some form of evil. Whether we want to be saved or not, they may resort to all manner of legal or illegal methods. And they are forgiven. Their big hearts forgive them for their even greater folly. There is something religious about this social theatre; it is reminiscent of the words of the Bible: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
