Spaces without balance

The shift has occurred

I came across an article, a commentary on how organisations, establishments, and corporations are lacking in accommodation and inclusiveness. Sadly, given the direction of our public conversation, we are expected to promote and reinforce a particular perspective or risk ostracism.

Having experienced times of political correctness, which evolved into woke culture, and now the topical issues of identity and how diversity can imply exclusion, one might wonder what has changed in our discourse that no-platforming and cancelling have become more common, along with the need to punish those who dare to think differently and voice those thoughts.

The balance has tipped towards an unrelenting intolerance of broader perspectives and dialogue. For instance, my idea of safe spaces used to be forums with a range of viewpoints available for all participants to consider, regardless of their beliefs. However, what currently exists is a safe space not to feel uncomfortable or challenged; rather, it is a space to reinforce biases instead of questioning preconceived notions.

Can we think for ourselves?

The brave space to dissent and debate respectfully without being disagreeable has been lost to a different kind of safe space. It is safe for the timid or entitled, but unsafe for the brave.

Grievance, offence, upset, and outrage often dominate, at the expense of open-mindedness and tolerance of opposing viewpoints. As a result, we fail to step into another's shoes because we believe we are already wearing the most uncomfortable shoes imaginable.

How we arrived at this unidimensional situation involves curating inputs, confirming biases, a lack of curiosity, and perhaps a lazy mind as well. Meanwhile, certain purveyors of extreme perspectives stand to benefit from homogenising and intensifying positions that leave no room for compromise or consensus. We are unwittingly pawns on their vast chessboard of power, profit, and politics.

We must ask ourselves whether we are still thinking for ourselves or have become subsumed into the malign thought processes of others. In voicing these thoughts, we become megaphones for ideas we would have once rejected.

We are not the same

This debate is ongoing in Australia, where those involved have initially faced punishment but then found themselves reprieved through legal actions and protests. It is a debate we should be having across the Western world, as exemplified in this excerpt from the article.

“All right-minded organisations try to make their workforce more diverse. But are we going to accept people from different ethnic and political backgrounds only to the extent that they behave like middle-class white people? That is, those who dominate our culture largely as a result of their luck, and who have not got a family legacy of colonisation, war, trauma and holocaust?

Sometimes, encounters in brave spaces might lead to us changing our minds, or question our own assumptions.” [The Guardian: Opinion: The ABC and Creative Australia panicked in the face of controversy. These vital institutions must not be so timid. - Margaret Simons]

Nigeria: Give way on Twitter too

Quite irked, I really was

The greatest danger in having a torrent of opinions is it begins to erode the banks of moderation and flood the plains with controversy.
— Akin Akíntáyọ̀ (@forakin) September 25, 2013

I posted the above tweet yesterday as I tried to contain my anger in dismay of some views expressed on Twitter.

There is nothing wrong with having opinions on many topics, in some cases, that person might well be a polymath, and we need the engagement of such brains on the diversity of issues that crowd the Nigerian discourse on Twitter.

Where I have issues is when opinions consistently offered unchallenged become a burdensome and unconscious form of hubris breeding intellectual arrogance causing disabling ignorance as Peter Drucker the legendary management consultant once said.

Give space for others

Sadly, when people occupy the opinion space so commandingly, we lose the input of the less articulate, but more knowledgeable leaving all of us the poorer for it at first and then allowing for the propagation of error and falsehoods that seriously needs debunking.

Even I have been reticent to enter into some scraps because it can both be laborious and energy-sapping, besides it descending into a shouting match, though I do my best to avoid that and settle for agreeing to disagree, moving on soon after that.

My tweet used the analogy of a torrent as in that of fast-moving body of water, possibly a river, and the banks being the ability to allow in interaction and discourse with the plains being the wider audience that might read the stuff, flawed as it might be.

Espouse good engagement

We all in terms of what we know, what we embrace, what we tolerate and how our patience is exercised, have a solemn duty of sorts to call out those who with their views upset the community of fellowship and the equanimity we espouse.

The simple advice I find myself wanting to give is, if you are prone to the verbal diarrhoea, find a private convenience with a huge water closet to do your thing, and when you leave, a finger depressing the air freshener for a minute would give others the opportunity to use the facility soon after you.

Thank you.

Nigeria: Disabusing the false premises in our discourse

Hecklers on Twitter, I presume

Hardly had my blog of yesterday been up 10 minutes before I got a Tweet suggesting I had offered no specific solutions. Obviously, I was not surprised that this had come out of Twitter’s woodwork, probably a heckler attempting to interrupt me in the flow of debate or an assassin poised to gun me down.

Basically, at least from my point of view, I had never engaged this person before and unfortunately I have not carried over the real life response to this type of activity which is, if a stranger accosts me on the street playing familiar that I have no connection with, they usually get ignored especially if the hour is the witching hour – it was well past midnight on my clock.

I have decided to address the matters as premises at the top of this blog and push the background to the latter part of the blog.

Premise: Article suggests no specific solutions.

The blog was written as an analysis of a speech given, which appeared to signal resignation and confusion as to why the principal was in the job he was doing. We are well beyond analysis paralysis of the problems that affect Nigeria; it is expected that those who assume leadership of the country are versed in those issues and are ready to tackle them effectively, not lament on the impossibility of their circumstances.

Fundamentally, I am not the President, he is the President – it is a job that has the micro-management of scrutiny from everyone affected by his decisions, he has had the executive fiat to select his ministers and advisors – surely, they cannot all be bereft of ideas and solutions to take the country forward that we end up with a President who appears to have thrown in the towel.

Premise: This is not the time to coach Goodluck Jonathan to be a good President.

Whilst I am slightly annoyed with the idea that this man is learning on the job, I am much more annoyed that it appears he is not learning anything at all. However, if we are to live through another 39 months of this presidency, it calls for an intervention.

The Occupy Nigeria movement started off something, the House of Representatives probe on the Fuel Subsidy scheme appeared to uncover what might be a massive fraud, and it should become the watershed for this Presidency.

I dared say that since the vocation of my assailant was motivational, it was time for him to pen something about arresting a failing goal.

Goodluck Jonathan has a number of options; to honourably resign for the fact that the responsibility he has is overwhelming and beyond him, he be asked to step down for more competent hands or he pull himself up and get into the job of being a fine President – all of which are possible.

For all the promise that 2015 presents, we are in the now, the present and these present times require radical and effective action – performance is required, trying his best just not good enough – over to the excellence merchants, bring forth your success potions and get him drunk on the brew.

Premise: People are not hungry enough for change

I think Nigerians have taken enough insults from “know-it-alls”. Pressed with the need to survive, most just go about their business and seek comfort through extreme religious devotion with the hope that things change.

Obviously, a good deal of change will have to be led by the people, and it will not be easy, but we do not have to be reminded that we are caught in the grip of an unconscionable kakistocracy.

Premise: Most people who criticise Goodluck Jonathan have never led anything in their lives

That might be true, but does one have to have once been a leader to know whether they are properly led or not? This is a false premise and a fallacy. It is like saying, because we are not pilots, we have no right to complain if the flight is in a manoeuvre that appears to endanger the passengers.

In fact, I consider this argumentum ad hominem; there are many vantage points and perspectives on issues, and there is much that can be seen by those external to the circumstances whose input can at times help. It is like having someone who cannot drive being the eyes of the driver backing into a parking space – well, that premise has fallen apart already.

The fact is, many of us have assumed some sort of leadership in various ways, and how we have commandeered situations has determined either the success or the unfortunate failure of those endeavours – there are expectations of leadership, and where that leadership appears to be falling short, the qualification to criticise should never be predicated on the critic having been in that position before.

Premise: We all have to be change agents

“Change agent” for me has become a worn cliché; it is the jargon of purveyors of snake oil remedies. The main ingredient for change is knowledge and information, the possession of facts and a good analysis of issues. Some of that will include praise, criticism, fawning, excoriation and indifference.

Honest and frank observation must be key to furthering the discussion and debate whilst engaging other minds in the common goal for progress.

I am convinced a majority of Nigerians want change for the better, but each has to hear a message that appeals to their drive to effect change, and because personalities differ, there is no “one size fits all” approach to achieving that.

I have never been a “glass half full” person because I enjoy the good things of life; it all depends on the content. If the glass has fine wine, I will expect it to be half-empty, having drunk a bit, and I will be waiting for the sommelier to top it up. My glass will probably be half-full if it were bad wine – Go figure.

The background continues from the end of the second paragraph

However, on Twitter, I am much more mellow, quite accommodating and usually responsive, probably too good-natured and too much of an English gentleman for my liking.

So, I responded, the purpose of my blog was not written from the premise of “If I were President” but to ask that he begin to act like the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Meanwhile, I was reviewing the Twitter profile of my assailant, glad to know that he was a bit travelled and schooled; the long and short of the profile was as I have found on many Twitter profiles – Snake Oil Merchant on the Bleeding Obvious.

Motives in motivation

Don’t get me wrong, motivational speakers have a market, each person has a modicum of an inferiority complex that needs addressing, and there is enough pulp fiction to teach success, leadership and how to make money out of thin air – I have bought a few and junked much more.

However, you can hardly get the thickness of a Chinese wall between confidence tricksters that portend to have all the tricks to make money, especially ritualistic and religious ones and the more refined success merchants of the Un-impossible.

I knew I had my work cut out, mostly in disabusing the premises that govern their God complex of knowing why and how, having found ‘sheeple’ to eat their grass.

What my blog said

In the context of my blog, I doubt he had read more than what I wrote yesterday evening, considering I had at least covered this topic for over two years, and it was evident from my writing yesterday that I was expressing disappointment in someone who, at the onset, appeared to have promise.

In my view, President Jonathan definitely has rotten speechwriters, but speechwriters need to be inspired by the speechmaker to craft messages to convey a mood, a purpose or a situation. Both the speechwriters and the President have failed to inspire, and Nigerians, as passengers on a cruise ship about to be shipwrecked, are left confused as the captain and crew seem to have abandoned the ship long before the rescue has commenced.

The incredulity of it all is captured in speeches he made in January and February, which I reviewed in opinions published as blogs; the President was not pulling his weight and announcing to the world that he could not.

In my exasperation, I asked him to stop his lamentations and start to preside, I have had my fill of Nigerian politics but surely there must be better brains and more capable Nigerian hands to run that great country if the system is not warped against them for the benefit of the few who have mercilessly run that amazing country of great potential into the ground and we have to endure the sophistry of “glass half full” snake-oil success merchants who think the President’s best is the best Nigeria can have and all is well.

I am neither a coach nor a footballer, but I do not need to be told when a goal is scored and which side appears to be winning. The false premises have been debunked.

America: Calling an end to the civil war

America at war

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona yesterday brought into stark relief the fact that America is at war, a civil war of multiple fault lines drawn and being made sure by generals and lieutenants that range from the media, through religion to politics.

The sides are many, the Conservatives versus the Liberals, the Republicans versus the Democrats, the right versus the left, the right versus the wrong; the wedge issues being big government, abortion, guns, immigration, gay marriage, taxes, the military, the rich, in fact, any issue from which someone can launch an attack, discarding the facts for sensation, talking lies so much that they become true, rallying the mob – a euphemism for the American People to action through intemperate vitriolic language leaving no room for contemplation.

God has been stolen by the one side, patriotism is the drumbeat to which another marches to call the others traitors, pundits have their entrenched positions never to meet in the middle, analysis is dead twice over and common-sense has long been fossilised it is burned off as fuel, one-upmanship, brinkmanship are the order of the day – if you had a heart, it had better not be of flesh or it will be exhausted by the tirades.

Seeking one healthy body of America

Yesterday, America had the opportunity to look at itself again and wonder how it all got to this – where did the wide gulfs exacerbated by earth-moving tremors emanate from, who gives this state of affairs the oxygen of existence and what can be done to bring America back to one body at ease with itself?

Two eyes that see reality, two ears that hear in stereo, two nostrils that do not breathe alternately, one brain not ravaged with schizophrenia, two arms lifting burdens in unison, two legs that walk strong in the paths of righteous, wholesome and civil discourse engendering brotherhood, a house in unity and one nation kept in good faith.

Making amends with the 1st and 2nd

Yesterday, brought the freedom of assembly in the promotion of democratic representation and accountability met with the abuse of the right to bear arms responsibly and that is probably where the real debate should begin from.

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution [1] covers a whole range of freedoms from religion, to free speech and the freedom to assemble whilst allowing for the people to petition for governmental redress of grievances.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution [2] is broadly accepted as the right to bear arms, I have had issues with the English interpretation of the this amendment but this is not where to raise those matters, but I have come to the conclusion that the people who know that law have predicated this amendment on just the five 4-letter words obviating the need for the grammatical constructs of the statement. “Well free keep bear arms”

Applying the gun safety rule to speech

In context, let us examine the matters of the right to bear arms and that of freedom of expression.

Whilst the debate about bearing arms rages the fact is responsible gun ownership means adhering to a whole range of gun safety rules; safe storage from unauthorised use, engaging the safety latch/catch to prevent accidental discharge, aiming in the direction in which the gun is being fired with the responsible selection of the right targets and not shooting indiscriminately endangering yourself or the public in your use of the weapon.

That, in itself is definitely not too much to ask, gun owning does not having to become gun-toting; America is no more the Wild West.

Applying that analogically, speech is free, just as the right to assemble is free but we do not assemble in dangerous places putting ourselves and others at risk, a public place like where the congresswoman was meeting her constituents should have been safe, secure and without risk to life or limb.

In the same vein, one wonders why a safety catch cannot also apply to the freedom of expression and free speech, that safety being civility when expressing oneself and having the ability to hold ones peace even when provoked.

People can choose their words carefully that they can disagree without being disagreeable, they can express great displeasure without being abusive, they can withhold praise rather than rail with condemnation, they can speak the truth without helping rekindle the fires of hell and incitement.

Return to one America

There is opportunity and scope for Americans to revisit the spirit that built that country into the greatest nation on earth, this unique and elevate position cannot however been maintained if you are all bent on tearing each other down to be hear, to be seen, to gain power and to diminish others.

The shooting at Tucson was one tragedy too many, as the local sheriff said [3], Arizona had become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry, true Americans know their nation was built on greater virtues and godly principles – they should call a time-out on this unpalatable situation.

Lower the temperature, stop the vitriol, engage in wholesome discussion and the hardest thing to do is probably genuinely smile whilst accepting that a difference in opinion does not have to become the seed for sowing hate and waging battles.

As we reflect, our thoughts and prayers should be with the bereaved and the victims of this heinous tragedy and the people who fan the embers of discord should be called out and shamed for their un-American activities.

Sources

[1] First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2] Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[3] @HuffingtonPost: Arizona sheriff: 'We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry' http://huff.to/hqR1sF

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gabrielle Giffords I Know http://shar.es/XUlDh by Eleanor Clift - A really human side to being a Democrat Rep in a GOP district.

Thought Picnic: Using a putdown as a bridal bouquet

Starting with the alphabet

It is usually amusing to have to try and break down into fundamental parts the writings on my blog for the comprehension of people who do not bother to read and understand the points I am trying to convey.

I would be the first to admit that my writing hardly caters for the lowest common denominator of language or expression but I do take my time to clearly state my views and when controversial find a sense of balance.

There is no doubt that there are people who feel that the withdrawal of the Nigerian football teams from international competitions by the President is wrong – what has been missing from their clamour are clear reasons why they think he was wrong.

Scavengers are vermin

My blog on Questioning the FIFA Hegemony yesterday was written to offer exceptions to the FIFA rule of no political interference in national football associations with clearly documented examples of Togo, France and Nigeria.

A good blogging friend decided to highlight my blog as an excellent piece on Facebook and before you knew it, vultures descended on it, dismissed it out of hand and offered no objective counterpoint to the views raised.

That is what I find most irksome, seemingly intelligent people who yap and bark rather than foster an atmosphere for discourse with constructive input.

Distracted by a lack of comprehension

So, it was only right for me to suggest that certain readers might have been distracted by a lack of comprehension so evident from their comments to which one responded without first wondering if he really had missed the context of my blog by suggesting what I had written was stupidity beyond words, he had earlier said I was talking trash.

That left me with no other option but to state that the blog could not be recomposed on Facebook to accommodate intellect below par all by reason of the fact that the exchanges did not address with any sense of understanding of the matters raised in my blog.

In some ways, my less than courteous statements were flung out like a bridal bouquet and the over-exuberant bridesmaid made a lunge for it tripping over her shoes.

As a matter of principle, I never set out to patronise anyone nor do I enjoy the prospect of belittling people either, but when such persons make a blatant show of common breeding unworthy of gentlemen, it simply sets the stage for a gentle English putdown; the sad end of the tale is what once looked like a man is really a boy – and boys rarely ever understand when men speak.