The Weaponization of Goodness in the Information Age

As a youngling I often heard that, to avoid controversy and strife, don't talk about politics and religion. Naturally, Darth Grampus said a whole lot about both. When I started though, social media was becoming a thing. I could pick "friends" by common interest, so most of my "friends" shared my views closely enough that we didn't tend to argue much. So I often engaged in lengthy debates with others about things I cared about. That's where I learned about annoying things like trolling and a funny acronym: FRAT... or F*ck reading all that. 

I could get wordy, even as a youngling. Some things never change. 

Speaking of politics and religion though, I'm seeing a bunch of posts asking if states within the US should ban Sharia Law. Though the exact percentage (or reliable estimate) isn't available, Pew Research guesses the percentage of Muslims in the US who want Sharia Law is near 0. Taking that into account, one wonders why the hell it's even a topic of discussion. That underscores a topic more than worth talking about, but let's look at American law Sharia law first.

Sharia Law and The Constitution

Upfront I have to admit that I am an expert in neither, but I have much greater familiarity with the US Constitution than I do Sharia law. I know that Sharia law tells Muslims how they should live as a legal, ethical and religious framework. By contrast, the US Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. What this means is that the document essentially tells the government what it can and cannot do to the citizenry. It defines the duties, responsibilities, powers and limitations of the three branches of government. The Federal and State governments cannot impose laws on citizens that infringe upon the Bill of Rights, or presume powers, rights and abilities beyond those listed for them in the Constitution. 

Can the Federal or State governments mandate that an American citizen prays? That he tithes? Nope. The Establishment clause in the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a religion (think the Church of England), and from providing favor to one religion over another, or to religion over non-religion. Today's jurisprudence over such matters is found in Lemon vs Kurtzman where the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining what constitutes "establishment." These things work together to prevent excessive entanglement of state with religion. Sharia law is religious law thus, certainly on the face of it, imposing Sharia law would be unconstitutional.

What of states only allowing communities and groups to live by it, if they agree to? I mean that would align with religious freedom the US is so well-known for, right? Well, where such religious laws are offensive to the Constitution, such laws can't be allowed. Otherwise any religious sect in the country could make their own laws without respect to the law of the land. And if the law doesn't apply to everyone, then it doesn't apply to anyone, does it? 

In fact, this question about allowing Sharia law in the US has strong jurisprudence behind it already. This adds to my wonder about why the hell we're even talking about it in the online space. Could it be the fear of Sharia law propagated through American discourse over the last 30 years? Could it be an emotional manipulation means to distract us from something else of much greater concern? How is it we can get so up in arms over something supported by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the populace within our country?

The Social Tyranny of the Minority

Over the last 35 years we've seen a massive uptick in social support for smaller demographics. Back in the 1990s we really saw support grow for gay rights, which included a shift from it being "funny" or whatever to pick on gays to possibly resulting in criminal charges under things like hate crime laws. Over the last decade we saw what I consider nearly insane levels of support for "trans" people make its way through the social media space. We saw Moms making videos of how proud they were that their 6-year old "came out" as trans. We had real discussions about how "right" it was for doctors to give children hormone treatments without parental knowledge or permission. We had instances of people losing their parental rights in California if they did not support their child's claim to be trans and wish to pursue therapies toward that transition. 

For a while, whenever someone commented on one of those posts with criticism or disdain instead of support, many others would pile on that person lambasting them with all kinds of pejorative accusations of bigotry, hatred, idiocy... 

You can feel however you want about that whole thing, but you can't deny what I've said here. There was far too many instances of this to deny. Recently, and thankfully in Darth Grampus' opinion, people have taken a stronger stand against this. The labels haven't stopped (and likely won't), but the fervor has died down quite a bit. The pool of people who see this trend as madness hasn't grown, in my opinion, but the willingness of people to speak about their dissenting feelings and opinions has. Either way, the pro-trans movement, regardless of the way it relegated women and feminism to a cold back-burner, and enjoyed a ton of social, corporate and government support for a long while, culminating under the presidency of Joe Biden. Hate me all you want for this, but I am glad that shit is over. I hope it dies entirely. 

I do not advocate for hatred or violence against trans people. Not remotely. I'm just tired of the idea that any group should be afforded extra rights or be otherwise privileged because of what makes them "different." That any group can wield political, economic and social sway based so heavily on such a weak basis is a loathsome demonstration of how societies can be manipulated into advocating for people not representative of the (much) broader society. I know people were screaming about criminal charges for misgendering. This tiny fraction of the populace and their lemming supporters wanted to infringe upon free spech! I know parents lost their parental rights for not supporting their minor child's expressed desire to transition. This is utter ridiculousness.

Why don't we think more about how stuff like this happens? This particular situation reveals a finer point here I think we should consider more carefully.

The Weaponization of "Goodness"

We want to be "good" people. More correctly (and honestly), we want others to see us as "good" people. We tend to consider what makes a person "good" by the norms, values and virtues we see in the groups we most commonly associate with. At work, we want people to see that we are competent, hard-working, and thereby valuable to our companies. We want our colleagues to see us that way in line with our innate desire for both belonging and esteem. 

In our social circles, something similar is true. We dress a certain way to go to church, for example, as much because our belief that we should don our "Sunday best" to go into the house of God as for the potential impact it might have on us in that social circle if we do not dress nicely. It's a quiet thing, too that last part. We ignore that about ourselves, especially when such a solid reason for doing so is at the ready; when it's been impressed upon us by our parents, our pastors, other church-goers. The proof? "Sunday best" is used to describe dressing nicely even by those who don't go to church.

We're all much more amenable to conformity in groups where our belonging isn't so certain. We're much less willing to bend or conform to the norms, values and (stated) ideals of our families than we are our social groups because of this. Such an odd social dynamic has aided in one of the great catastrophes to occur over the last 10 years, in my opinion. People have severed family ties over disagreements about politics and social issues. 

And for what? To demonstrate one's adherence to a very curated opinion pushed through the masses by silent and invisible means like algorithms and throttling? The incessant repetition of particular ideas an agendas we subject ourselves to through our nightly talking-heads of choice? To make a real sacrifice we can tell others about if our loyalty to the dogma should ever be questioned? Are these the lengths we'll go to just to cement in our minds the crafted reality we sold out to?  

That desire in each of us to be "good people," or to be perceived as "good" by others? That was manipulated by the control over public opinion we hand over. In lieu of the social backlash we might endure for critical thinking, we let the news anchors, the talk-show hosts, the movies and other arenas create the prevailing narratives that determine what "good" is. Then we commit. We conform, and with little in the way of critical thought about it. Scientific experiments proved long ago that human beings do this. The Milgram experiment showed us horrific examples of how far we'll go to obey authority. Subjects tortured people to death (simulated) on the command of authority figures. Conformity experiments reveal that we'll engage in activities that make no sense if everyone around us is engaging in it.

Have a look for more information about these:

The Milgram Experiments

Asch's Conformity Experiment

This is meant as much to broaden your perspective as it is to piss you off. We all want to believe that we have our own thoughts, make our own decisions, but a cursory exam of even recent history proves such notions entirely suspect. And headlines about whether or not states should allow or disallow Sharia law, in a nation where literally less than 1% of the population supports the notionmakes this as plain as the nose on your face. 

*Steps off soapbox*

What do you think? Is ol' Darth Grampus just having a senior moment, or am I on to something here? Let me know what you think in a comment below, especially if you disagree with me! Either way, I'd like to know how you think we can combat the massive influence exercised in society by the crafters of public opinion. How can we inspire people to reengage with critical thinking, and to not sell out so easily to social trends largely created by these tools? 

Thank you for reading. I hope you got value equal to that of the time you invested reading my post.