Ah, don’t we all live in a free society overflowing with the sentiments of freedom of expression and speech. Ample amount of channels capitalising on this exercise exist too, Twitter, Facebook, IG, and the the good old Reddit. We are allowed to express our opinion, with that opinion when needed to be pushed onto the ruling state we have freedom to protest, but it all stops with the nonexistence of freedom to overthrow a government, sounds unsettling I know, but what that entails is that there is an end to all the opinions. Aside from the division in the population of opinion which thus creates a barrier in ever thinking about reformation, nowhere does it say that people are free to overthrow their government, unless of course US intervenes.
If opinions matter such that everyone is entitled to their own opinion that entitlement means nothing for that it will never manifest, but that the ones already in place use the mentioned statement as a disapproval. It troubles me when people think that having opinions is fine, we hypocritically disregard certain opinions for that their merit effects the ground reality, elections are a good example. You don’t vote for a certain party because their opinions will manifest in ways that you don’t want, but, also to consider is the fact that the supporters of that party don’t want your opinions to manifest, this entails to a simple mostly unrecognised fact that just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean its right and neither it is fine to have it if that’s the case, and if it’s the opposite, then well your own opinion was in the wrong and that’s not fine either. If you’re in a democracy the majority opinion will rule regardless of it being right or wrong, we’ve seen many cases like that over the ages. But anyway, this leads to the realization that opinions drive nations, and opinions create realities, so having an opinion just for the sake of it is not fine at all.
This might seem obvious, but then again the exercise leading to the weighing of the opinion is hard and doing it on a mass scale i.e. having everyone test their own opinion is non-conclusive. Now there exists another magic word that bypasses the weighing of opinions, its called “perspectives.” If there was one word that I wish never existed frankly it’d be this. I have ended up in so many discussions over the years and whenever we’d reach a point of binary results of right and wrong and need a bit more knowledge to take those steps, the discussion ends with “well that’s my perspective.” All the hours spent in the discussion go down the drain, although it does hit harder every time when you realize that the more you read the discussions get harder and soon you clear conscience with the term “perspective” and that “you’re entitled to your opinion.” How much research was actually done in forming that “opinion?” Did it have a bias? Which opinion is actually not well informed? The questions continue and must be asked.
Perspectives, aren’t conclusive either, they are just a lens, but that lens itself is guided by a pillar of ideals forming an ideology, and it’s frankly stupid to assume that there isn’t a perfect (and an imperfect) ideology. Because if there isn’t then change in laws shouldn’t occur, that occurring happens with a realization or tyranny which then again points to ideology and or prior ignorance. As laws evolve, with what we had yesterday, what we don’t want to change, and what will change, all create an ideology itself, and laws are just words backed by guns for its implementation. And not following those laws is apostasy (of that ideology); go to prison, be executed, be exiled or whatever. To give you a quick example, if you support death penalty for a certain crime, that is guided by an ideology too, that regards that particular crime, be it against the state or people as worthy of a death sentence. There is a force by an authority already in place and always will be, which is an opinion by itself.
Opinions are core things, core to people, but the weight of it isn’t actualised by most of them. Some even have a privilege in discussions, I see this all the time; for example, if two people are discussing something and one has his/her opinion already in law (i.e. that opinion is already as a law e.g drunk driving laws) the one opposing the law will be easily dismissed by the one in favor by a simple smiling statement of “that’s your opinion and that’s fine” and the two will walk their own path. And, this right there multiplies exponentially with every single discussion that doesn’t change minds, because a few things need to occur to not reach a conclusion; first is denial by either side, second is ignorance of the subject, third is heckling, fourth is the favorite of many which is to create defence already by saying “I don’ know but” and then following it by “….and that’s fine.” One might say that they were there to learn and fair enough, but if the things you discuss are the things you already didn’t care enough to read about them, well, that’s not a good start and what’s the guarantee that the person you’re discussing it with knows all about the topic and isn’t actually just a “perspective.” When allowing someone to walk away with their opinion still intact, one has essentially allowed an action they recognise as false to me implemented in reality. Now obviously am not saying to chain them down, but, how sure were you about your own opinion, if let’s say, it was so weak that it didn’t even budge the other person. And if in that discussion your opinion looked incoherent, rather having it be entitled to you, shouldn’t it be reanalysed? That’s were the hard part starts.
Having your opinion butchered is hard, and your mind won’t allow that because it’s existence itself in today’s world at least is made to revolve with that opinion – identity politics. There’s a phenomena that occurs when opinions (which form beliefs) are hard questioned and seem to crack, it’s called cognitive dissonance. The brains’s alarms go off when this happens, causing it to shut down and dismiss any rational evidence that contradicts what the person regarded as “truth.” I can almost guarantee that this makes people think, and it’s quite funny, that they aren’t the ones experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Opinions matter, everyone’s opinion matters in a democracy at least, because they’ll act it out, they won’t just be living in a shack with their opinion, they’ll be calling to action, campaigning, voting, screaming and shouting it just like everyone else. If having an opinion “is just fine” then there should be no opposition, no wars, no battles, no debates. Most, just like I, soon realise when observing actual experts in a particular field debate, that we the general masses really don’t know anything or not as much about what we support. The roots are way deeper than we think. Now think about all the people you’ve met with varying opinions, each one of them guided by an ideology just like you and I, even not aligning to an ideology is an ideology, there’s no escape, unless you’re dead, even suicide is evidence of an ideology i.e. removal of an entity to escape a change, of an ideology that asks the entity to go through the pain. The matter of finding the best one is one that takes no “just fine” but “sit down and let’s talk till we reach an actionable conclusion.” And if you realize you or you both are out of words, then all the things you supported, were hollow with ignorance. And the identity you yourself embody is just a shell to just live and let live till the majority takes you somewhere.