Expressing your ideas can be dangerous

We live in turbulent times where hatred, whether explicit or camouflaged, runs rampant in defense of or adherence to ideologies, as shown in several episodes throughout the world. It seems that having ideas, no matter what they are: political -right or left, extreme or not-, religious, social,... or whatever; are above respect for the dignity of the person and justify everything: violence, insults, humiliation,... When, having a well-founded opinion should not be a reason to argue with friends, family or colleagues, but on the contrary, a reason to engage in a conversation where the exercise of better understanding the ideas of others is carried out in a respectful manner. 

On the other hand, this other aggressive attitude is at the surface and is an eloquent sign that it is happening all over the West, because we are in a moment of great world polarization, fed by a few people of opposing ideologies, which has led to tension and has become the great vehicle that fosters hatred among moderate people, who until recently understood each other. In the top countries most affected are Spain, Argentina, Colombia, the United States, South Africa and Sweden. This atomization is driven by sounding boards in RRSS that promote and justify the ideas of each one, which lead to cancel those of others and not to seek a dialogue. 

The Charlie Kirk Case

On the part of some, the death of Charlie Kirk is "justified" by saying that he deserved it because of the "ultras" ideas he defended. That is why the displays of "joy", "humor" or celebration for his death (something reprehensible, regardless of one's way of thinking), are "allowed", because some of the things he said are "unacceptable". This leads to cloud or hide in the public debate his exemplary attitude of dialogue, as if he had not said that. When it is, perhaps, his main contribution to the West: to remember that freedom of expression is to be used, seeking to unite positions through an exchange of ideas, dialoguing peacefully.

However, it is clear that it is too early for this message to have penetrated among those who do not think like him, because a murder has no justification whatsoever. Nor among those who share many of his ideas, because many have cancelled, when before they were cancelled, for expressing their ideas. For example, ABC has suspended "indefinitely" the broadcasting of Jimmy Kimmel's program because of his comments on Kirk's murder.

This has happened with more people who have been fired from their jobs, for expressing their hatred in social networks. Until recently it was the "wokism" who canceled for not having their same ideas, now it is a "tool" of universal use. This way of reacting in both cases is not the desirable one, because expressing hate shows who that person is, but it does not imply that they cannot express themselves freely. Kirk himself gave us an example of how to act in this situation. In his search for what is moral or right, he might have more or less accurate thoughts under your way of seeing, reader, or mine. But his eagerness was to learn, to think and to dialogue in order to build a common culture that establishes a basis to unite and not to separate or polarize. 

Dialogue as a tool

In this line of searching for common points, agreements and pooling of ideas, we are grateful for the dialogue organized by the University of Comillas last September 17, between Salvador Illa, president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, and Monsignor Luis Argüello, president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, which dealt with the value of dialogue as a tool for coexistence. Illa said: "Dialoguing implies recognizing the other person, listening actively and seeking a common space, even if agreements are not always reached", something necessary in the times we live in. Argüello defended "polarity" as a legitimizing way of showing diversity, against "Polarization as an electoral strategy grows because difference is not valued".

Therefore, having authentic ideas means living them, and this consistency is shown in our actions. Depending on how we behave, we will show our ethical consistency, the usefulness of our ideas and respect for others. Our incoherence is an impediment to dialogue, but living it is the "best ambassador" to show what we think is best for us and our society. Then, together with listening and dialogue, we will facilitate a culture that facilitates the encounter.