A Consequence of Policing Thought

I was having a conversation this week about health care.  A co-worker that I respect greatly essentially said I was wrong that health care costs can often be higher for the insured.  This conversation isn't important, but what is important is why I was disagreed with.  It was wholly because of my politics.  That's right.  Because I question long-term sustainability of the ACA, the unrelated issue of my high deductible health savings account "insurance" being a crock of shit stew is something I can't possibly know about.  Even if I do the research, document it, and get a hospital to admit it, according to this person I must be wrong because of my 'bias.'

I guess since he was bias, he couldn't have found Neo.

It should be noted, I'm not mad.  It was my last day working that job and I intentionally tried to get a political conversation going.  We all had a good laugh!

The world's full of people who believe they are correct about one issue or another.  I'm sure depending on what we talk about, I'm one of them.  I don't know if the ACA will pan out in the end, which is why I was discussing it in the first place and asking questions.  What I do know is costs of medical care as compared to spending on health care (what some people call 'health costs' erroneously) isn't being affected in a big positive way that would bode well for the future.  I worry doctors vanish as we put the pressure on them to cut their own operating costs when it may have little or nothing to do their salaries.  This was happening before the ACA, but the ACA added restrictions and put more pressure on providers to accept lower compensation.

Deep down, you feel things, don't you?

Again, what this really gets to is that if you have a political viewpoint, some folks believe that must be a political agenda.  The problem with secretly taping meetings, phone calls, or other personal exchanges that could be embarrassing in public and then excoriating them for it is that it has a chilling effect on thought.  No one is going to stop me from saying (at least not yet) that I am for these things, but more and more, I find people visibly shying away from conversation if I admit it.  Worse, some seem to act like they've finally figured out what's wrong with me.  It all makes sense now.  You've admitted your abhorrent thoughts.  Now the healing can begin.

I hear a lot about this concept of societal attribution.  If I say something I have every right to say, that isn't hateful (and oh, by the way, hate isn't an opposing view on something, it's fucking hate, like the kind of hate we all share for Justin Bieber.), but you fundamentally disagree with, you can dismantle my way of life and try to destroy my pursuit of happiness.  It's all OK, because you're just a passive response from society on my protected speech.  Stand up and take responsibility for yourselves.  You can't stand that opposing THOUGHT exists.  You must eliminate it where possible and ridicule it where it doesn't.  You are cowards.  Stop it.  The argument of hate is a lot like the argument of awesome.  We use it too much.  It's lost its meaning.  Hundreds of years ago, if I said something was awesome, people would have come running (they didn't have cars you know) to see what it was.  It was literally something of awe.  The same, unfortunately, has happened to hate.

The problem when you discourage dissent in any form and claim you can ruin lives is that you essentially make opposing thought unacceptable.  You get lawsuits like this.  Thankfully the Supreme Court of these United States did right by the Constitution here.

THE HATER IS BEHIND ME!!!!!!!

An open request to all human beings:

Before you suddenly pop smoke and call in the thermite plasma missiles next time someone disagrees with you, question whether or not their opinion is just that, or whether they're attempting to hurt people with their words, or if they are advocating hurting other people.  Just, for one minute, think of a world where everyone agreed because we were too scared not too because of 'spontaneous societal feedback' or you know, a police state. The paradigm doesn't need to go much further before we just label unpopular thought and speech, public or private, if proven to have happened, a crime.  Take a step back.  Enjoy debate, seek the truth, understand that two opposing arguments can both be valid, and both be truthful, and perspective is important.