Amid Ocsar’s Controversy, Rampant Dialogue Proves American’s Want A Better Future

First and foremost, this is meant more as a thought-provoking exercise that might start some discussions full of brainstorming potential for societal change. In this article, we’ll break down a couple options per topic, but they are, by no means, the only ones that could exist. The 5 topics of social change will cover in this article are as follows:

1. Is Speech JUST Speech?

2. Morality and Truth; Subjective or Objective?

3. Self-Defense, Private Ownership, and Personal Freedoms

4. Does Comedy Need New Rules?

5. Is there a Pandemic of Mental Health in 2022?

The 2022 Oscar’s will certainly be one of the most memorable. While it’s true that comedy, by nature, is a poke-at-the-bear, most people would agree that words can, indeed, cross a line. This is evidenced by many of the things we have seen in culture recently, such as “hate speech”, “misgendering”, and other “offensive” language being put in the same category as actual violence leading to very severe consequences.

Yet, with so many people racing to get their thoughts online, and most are making claims about who was right, who was wrong, was it justified, and what punishments are appropriate, I’ll leave that to those wanting to have those discussions. Therefore, the only input I’ll offer is a quote I heard recently, “If anything, it shows Chris can take a punch better than Will can take a joke.”

Instead, I wanted to focus on some practical changes we could make in society, some changes we could institute or adopt that could lead us on the path toward a better future. Therefore, let’s talk about some key topics, or areas in society that it may be beneficial to have a new precedent, and let’s explore a couple options of a potential new precedent for each topic.

The topics are as follows:

1. Is Speech JUST Speech?

2. Morality and Truth; Subjective or Objective?

3. Self-Defense, Private Ownership, and Personal Freedoms

4. Does Comedy Need New Rules?

5. Is there a Pandemic of Mental Health in 2022?

So let’s get started.

The first area of society that might benefit from a clear precedent is what should be considered “allowable” speech?

EITHER:

Speech is only speech, and not violence, and regardless of how offended you get, or how much you disagree, it does NOT warrant action taken against the other person.

OR

Speech is violence, and we outright abolish the “outdated” first amendment, because words can no longer be spoken without the risk of offending someone, and warranting an actionable attack against you. Whether that means criminal action or lawsuits, or being cancelled in the culture, there should be strict punishments for speech, up to, and including, counting as an act of violence.

Obviously this has heavy and significant everyday consequences regardless of which path is taken, but people are understanding how much the old mantra of “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” is not true. If anything, it means people need to pursue a confidence and grounding in themselves and their own actions/the justification or reasoning behind their actions.

For example, contextually, people are saying Will Smith is partly right because his actions were in defense of, or in an attempt to protect, his wife, and in the Hollywood/mainstream culture, words matter, and they can even be forms of violence. Therefore, maybe what people need is people need objective morality that is grounded and stable, that draws a clear line in things like this, for each individual. Because, if no clear objective line exists, then what is immoral? If someone can’t define morality, then subjectively, Smith MIGHT have been morally justified to do what he did, but who can say he is wrong?

Which brings up topic number two:

EITHER:

Objectivity vs Subjectivity; Morality, truth, context, it ALL matters. Regardless of what was done or said, we need an objective line set on what is allowed, what is not allowed, and what circumstances might come up that require special circumstances or to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, we need to pursue truth, so that we can most APPROPRIATELY identify context that matters that mightaffdct or alter the the outcome/verdict, and we need to maintain a standard of giving benefit of the doubt in any high profile case, especially, but more importantly, with the people we see and interact with on a daily basis, and this extends to online interactions. False assumptions, misunderstandings, etc. are all too common, and people need grace and patience while we resolve conflicts that arise.

OR

We do away with either intent or outcome based legislation, and we stick firm to either the intent matters, regardless of outcome OR the outcome matters regardless of intent. Subjectivity could come into play much more here, because who could tell you it was wrong, if the definitions, my truth vs your truth, and what is censored and allowed on social media changes from day to day, or month to month? If it was wrong, why was it prove, prove it’s wrong, what determines if it is right or wrong? The alternative precedent to the first in this context is that benefit of the doubt is NOT given, and that each person is entitled to their own judgment and their own facts, their own truth, and their own actions being justified based on the information they had at the time or justified based on their belief of reality in the present, the past, or the future. IF things like morality and truth cannot be actionably applicable or transferable from person to person, what is the new standard for holding people accountable, if at all?

The third area of society that stands to benefit from a new precedent, Self-Defense, Personal Freedoms, and Private Ownership.

EITHER:

People have a right to self-defense. If they are attacked, aggressed, offended, assaulted, do they have the legal right to fight back to defend their life, their reputation, their honor, their property, their business, their brand, their family? Do they have the right to fight to protect their values, their freedoms, their rights, their religion, their morals? Will people be afforded the right to protect that which they hold dear, or MUST they concede ground?

OR

Is it appropriate for people to own anything at all? Imagine a world with no personal ownership, no homes, just renting, no personal data, no transportation, no profit, no intellectual property, no digital property. Any hardware such as a phone or a car that has software which can be remotely updated, does the “purchaser” not then gain ownership of the object they purchased? This precedent would need to set clear lines of transparency on what, precisely, the buyers would or would not own, or gain full rights to changing or altering. If the entire definition of “ownership” changes, will the people cease to “own” the government? Will people cease to own their freedom, or their choices, or their access to care, or even their freedom of association to choose with whom they must conclude business or social media transactions? If people fail to own anything, what do they have the right to protect or defend? What is truly being attacked, and is it something that warrants a response, and what would be legal in response, and how would that affect that people could own? Firearm legislation? Legislatiok around Cars, as they are serious deadly weapons that can kill dozens of people in only a few seconds, or other seriously dangerous weapons or technologically advanced machines?

The fourth area from which society might benefit from a precedent is the realm of comedy; is a joke just that, a joke?

EITHER:

Comedy is sacred, and important, and necessary for many purposes, included challenging authority, the status quo, as well as giving people an outlet for stress, and turning very controversial issues into topics allowing for light-hearted humor to diffuse tension, tip-toeing the line between what is appropriate, acceptable, and “in-play” to be joked about.

OR

Is comedy just another way of attacking and offending people, including minorities, from an area of privilege and status, that needs to be regulated to protect those with less power, or perhaps those who have too much to lose? Is comedy going to find itself being taboo as it often pokes-the-bear in regard to social issues and controversial topics, and often sensitive highly nuanced topics, and therefore, it needs to be controlled, to prevent people from radicalizing and forming circles of confirmation bias, leading to further social dissonance and lack of accepting social changes to the culture?

The last area of society in which a benefit might be good is the realm of Mental Health. Is this the new Pandemic? Are we experiencing another crisis?

EITHER:

We need to prioritize mental health, not only in terms of education but in the healthcare industry as a whole. We need to protect those most vulnerable, and offer individuals access to information, practices/traditions, belief systems, and other behaviors that can help keep mental health under control. We need tk be teaching disciplines such as mindfulness, meditation, prayer, or confessions. We need to practice patience, grace and forgiveness for past injustices and move forward into a future of healing, restoration, reconciliation, and rehabilitation. We need to normalize the struggles that people face on a daily basis, and have support groups, charities, churches, and social services available to ALL who need it, and available immediately when they need it.

OR

We need radical societal change: such as change to social media platforms and practices, including more censorship. We need to protect students and young children, and protect impressionable persons from “unsafe” ideologies. We need to ensure safe spaces for individuals who are struggling, and even give equitable services to those disproportionately affected. We need to monitor conversations and the lives of people who do not have a voice and speak up for them if something is unsafe or unfair, so that we avoid these things from occurring before they happen. We need systems in place to protect us from ourselves, our neighbors, and those who might be motivated by extreme ideology to limit freedoms and encourage free expression, and ensure that culture changes to accept these new forms of expression.

The bottom line is simple. We need to learn to take life’s hits like Chris Rock, and fiercely defend what we value like Will Smith, but look at our past, take responsibility, learn from our mistakes, accept our role in making the future better, and stay humble, and forgive others, because we all have our own struggles that weigh heavily on us.

While that does not, necessarily, nor on its own, justify or warrant us taking dangerous or unlawful action, it does mean this is something we MUST get right, not only to prevent further destruction and violence, but more importantly create a better future, one where we can save as many lives as possible.