A simpler time
As a child, I often dined at the home of friends, who had different religious and political views than our family. If a sensitive topic arises, the other family members might laugh, joke, or just smile. As long as he was courteous, I was always welcome in his home. At no point did anger develop simply because of a difference of opinion or a life value.
How did this respect for our neighbors change? When did it become fashionable to cancel each one? Look around our country to see the status of our relationships. Families split up, long-standing friendships end, and people lose their jobs based on their thoughts and points of view. We are going down a dangerous path where people try to control what goes on inside people’s minds.
Thought control
As an American, I can say with certainty that no one has the right to control the way I think. The ability to form views and opinions from the absorption of information is one of our most precious rights as individuals and essential for any free-thinking person. Countries or groups of people that try to stifle free thought and expression are playing a dangerous game and will end up on the losing side.
Recently, I had a 36-year-old friendship that became unstable simply because I questioned the validity of the 2020 election. It acted as if I had committed a moral crime due to my statistical analysis of the election. With an MBA degree and a long career in marketing research, I understand the numbers and the inconsistency of the data. The statistical problems involved in the election are numerous.
Data diversity
For example, data diversity occurs naturally within a geographic area. Historically, voting patterns are capped at 90% for a party in a geographic location. It is human nature. If there are 10 people in a room, they will not unanimously agree on an issue. One person tends to think differently from others. Many areas are close to 50/50, and of course places like San Francisco are moving toward more uniformity.
However, when voting patterns approach 95% or more in areas where historical patterns showed much less agreement, there is a statistical red flag. These red flags prove nothing. They are a sign that more research is needed. So please explain to me why looking at data, observing inconsistencies based on professional skills, and advocating for a deeper look is any questionable type of crime or morality.
Ethics
I don’t expect my friend to agree with me, but I only ask that my opinion be respected without making personal attacks or questioning my character. I didn’t treat him badly and I was rude. Why can’t we respect individual differences without resorting to severe negative communication or withdrawing the cancellation card?
In my value system, it is morally questionable to cancel a friendship based on that person’s individual views. If we continually cancel relationships for the sole reason of disagreeing with our views, what kind of society will exist in the future? We will have a fractured world of war camps where a litmus test is required for admission to the club.
That is not a place where I want to live!