There's nothing particularly challenging about finding people – average, ordinary people hiding behind the cloak of anonymity provided by a phone screen – who have become so radicalized and tribalized by their own online echo chamber that they feel almost a cosmic compulsion to offer excessively ignorant assessments of what they deem the world's biggest events.
But what has to be concerning to anyone attempting to keep at least one foot out of the cesspool of online mayhem and grounded in reality, is the preponderance of high-profile politicians, thought and opinion makers, civil and social leaders, who seemingly rush to out-do the faceless frenzy of Twitter trolls.
In what is nothing short of an insatiable desire to say, if not the first, at least the most profound and envelope-pushing thing about the issue of the moment, the very ones the citizenry should – in a sane, sober society – be able to rely on to turn down the temperature, promote reasoned analysis, steer the ship of state away from tumult and chaos, are the ones guilty of the worst sort of inflammatory, stupidly reckless commentary.
All you had to do was have an internet feed Wednesday afternoon to behold this very troublesome truth.
Here's the woman second in line for the presidency behind Kamala Harris:
Again, this is the person that, God forbid, something happen to our president and vice president, would become the "leader of the free world." And besides that, this is the person who our culture's woke activists are promoting politically. Insane.
Then came California's governor and first lady, Gavin and Jennifer Siebel Newsom. The motivation is obvious – Newsom's failed approach of heavy-handed government authoritarianism throughout the COVID pandemic has led to a recall effort that has a decent chance of humiliating him. So what's to do but climb into the conductor seat of the Woke Express steaming towards dissension and rancor?
What in heaven's name is that woman even talking about? We're truly at the point where in the name of profundity, political leaders press a button on the zeitgeist buzzword generator and publish whatever word salad emerges.
It's not all political leaders either. Every major sports league commented on this verdict as if it was the trial of the century. The rush to do so even prompted individual teams to offer their own hot takes, leading to this breathtaking numbskullery:
Here's the really bad part – I don't think this stuff just happens spontaneously. People actually plot and plan in advance these types of "statements." What have we become?
For their own part, the president and vice president both issued statements supportive of the decision (fine), but felt compelled to do so with racially charged rhetoric. Why?
I understand that wokism is the spirit of the age. I get that race is the current idol conformists in our culture are bowing before in their gross, ritualistic manner. But let me ask the unthinkable question here: was there ever any credible evidence that the crime against George Floyd was racially motivated?
- I don't mean was there any evidence that Chauvin was a brute.
- I don't mean was there any evidence that Chauvin's actions were criminal.
- I don't mean was there any evidence that black citizens collectively face a greater chance of having a deadly encounter with police.
I'm asking if there was ever any evidence that Chauvin harbored a racial animosity that provoked his treatment of Floyd?
If so, what was it?
If not, is it not the height of irresponsibility to pretend otherwise – particularly from those we have chosen to keep and maintain our social order?
Sadly, the miserable state of critical thinking skills among a population obsessed with emotion over reason tells us that there's no reason we should expect online social media mobs to approach such matters with temperance, restraint, and sound logic. That's the embarrassing truth.
What's really tragic, however, is that the exact same thing can now be said for our "leaders."