On the eve of one of the most universally celebrated days of the year, the English Football Association released a stunning 115-page document explaining their decision on the Suarez case. Within minutes, a legion of the brightest legal minds across the world yet to pursue law as a profession, took to the internet in a massive orgy of self-righteousness and ignorance, cascading their uninformed opinions over a technology originally meant for collaboration and academic study. Delightful.
It’s a shame, but with the hundreds of thousands of years humans have had to reach cognitive maturity, a regrettable majority of us have yet to gain the ability to quietly contemplate complicated issues. From those miscreant fans displaying an ignorant allegiance heretofore unseen since Berlin circa 1938, to the supposedly enlightened voices terming Luis Suarez a bloodthirsty racist, we’ve all gone a bit nutty.
There are those who claim Suarez is some sort of martyr, a victim of mistranslation, subject to some sort of conspiracy presumably originating from the desk of a certain A. Ferguson and ending with the Queen herself. But rather than organize a sit-in in front of Anfield, this sort have given in to a mob mentality, slewing forward vitriol at an alarming pace. An ironic situation with the sort of nastiness we supposedly moved on from decades ago. These people are, of course, idiots. But they’re not the only ones.
The other group, more sensible on the surface, are those defending the FA decision. Unfortunately, what originally seemed a reasonable defense of a legal investigation has since morphed into an excuse for a wave of hateful language against the subject of the controversy, Luis Suarez. Dirty racist this, prejudiced cheater that, all views coming from the mouths of people who were not on the pitch at Anfield to view the incident, but developed their “perspective” after skimming through a 115-page document or reading a misinformed Retweet on Twitter.
If anything, we’ve only worsened since the days of Grog gossiping about how much Mammoth porridge Crag reached for during supper. It’s all frankly a bit of a bore.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a few voices of moderation, but their sense has been drowned out by a chorus of incompetence. At what point did it become socially acceptable to spread uninformed opinions, to actively retard the mental development of strangers? I’m all for liberally democracy, but when the public is so uninformed, can we rely on the public forum to lead us down an enlightened path?
What happened to the moderation? Not only in regards to the Suarez situation, or to football in general, but the world at large? There was an article on Run of Play a few months ago on the excesses of modern fandom, and how football supporters are increasingly becoming defined by their extreme views.1 Unfortunately, it’s not just football supporters falling prey to their own boorish perspectives, but society at large.
From politics, to class, to any number of group-centered categories, our world is one increasingly becoming defined by the extremist, whose voice is always louder than the considerate moderate. Extremism not only falsely represents certain groups, but adds further static to already complicated issues. It’s unhelpful, and only worsens divisions.
Those fans spewing venom towards Patrice Evra don’t represent the majority of Liverpool fans just as the Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t speak for Christianity as a whole. The same can be said of those calling Suarez a racist. And yet, those are the voices that gain the most traction, threatening to draw in more gullible, but well-intentioned people to their cause. Perhaps you’ve been an unwitting part of the problem. It all sounds a bit discouraging, but there is a solution, a simple one at that.
If you aren’t truly educated on a topic, or know all the facts, or were actually there to witness the situation, don’t voice an opinion on it. Quietly consider the issue, but keep your opinion to yourself. Let the experts handle it. We’re all idiots when it comes down to it, but the distinguishing factor is that some of us know when to keep out mouths shut.
- Unfortunately, ROP is currently down for maintenance. [↩]
3 Comments
Okay so I disagree with all of your main points but just one quick thing, IMO there are times where your language obfuscates your points which turns me off from blogs. K so now responding to your points:
>From politics, to class, to any number of group-centered categories, our world is one increasingly becoming defined by the extremist
No. 100 years ago there were communists, anarchists, fascists and everything in between who were taken seriously.
Hell even shorter term than that, look at in Ireland. Moderates and the peace process has taken over.
>Within minutes, a legion of the brightest legal minds across the world yet to pursue law as a profession, took to the internet in a massive orgy of self-righteousness and ignorance, cascading their uninformed opinions over a technology originally meant for collaboration and academic study. Delightful.
So normal people shouldn’t read the document and voice their opinion on it? How much more educated do you want someone till their allowed to have an opinion?
>It’s a shame, but with the hundreds of thousands of years humans have had to reach cognitive maturity, a regrettable majority of us have yet to gain the ability to quietly contemplate complicated issues. From those miscreant fans displaying an ignorant allegiance heretofore unseen since Berlin circa 1938, to the supposedly enlightened voices terming Luis Suarez a bloodthirsty racist, we’ve all gone a bit nutty.
This is one of the examples where I think your language clouds your point. but responding to it I think that complicated issues SHOULD be contemplated out loud and it is foolish for someone to make up their mind about an issue before discussing with others. No one can see everything, so if you noticed something I didn’t, whether a fact or a line of reasoning if you tell me my opinion may change.
>The other group, more sensible on the surface, are those defending the FA decision. Unfortunately, what originally seemed a reasonable defense of a legal investigation has since morphed into an excuse for a wave of hateful language against the subject of the controversy, Luis Suarez. Dirty racist this, prejudiced cheater that, all views coming from the mouths of people who were not on the pitch at Anfield to view the incident, but developed their “perspective” after skimming through a 115-page document or reading a misinformed Retweet on Twitter.
I disagree. In fact I think you fall in the very trap that you are trying to warn people against. The vast majority of people defending the FA’s decision are reasonable. But you say that since some of them are adequately informed [they all are](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)
In fact it’s this paragraph that I find most offensive. I can’t find the words to accurately explain why, but it becomes clear to me here you aren’t interested in actual discourse because you generalize EVERYONE who agrees with the FA’s statement.
>What happened to the moderation? Not only in regards to the Suarez situation, or to football in general, but the world at large?
I’m not sure what exactly you meant by that. If you read the report they actually considered a longer ban, but because Evra started the confrontation and Suarez’s previously clean record.
Hey there, thought I’d respond to a few things:
- So normal people shouldn’t read the document and voice their opinion on it? How much more educated do you want someone till their allowed to have an opinion?
I think we’re talking about different groups here. I’m perfectly fine with people thoroughly reading through the document and getting a firm grasp of the issue before voicing an opinion. Thing is, a lot of people didn’t do that, and made judgements on the FA’s conclusions before even working through the document. That’s problematic.
- This is one of the examples where I think your language clouds your point. but responding to it I think that complicated issues SHOULD be contemplated out loud and it is foolish for someone to make up their mind about an issue before discussing with others. No one can see everything, so if you noticed something I didn’t, whether a fact or a line of reasoning if you tell me my opinion may change.
I agree with you. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but my gripe is with people forwarding ill-informed opinions. If you know more than me on some topic, or have insight interest garnered by research, then yeah, you could completely change my perspective. But if your view is based on faulty premises, there’s a problem.
- I disagree. In fact I think you fall in the very trap that you are trying to warn people against. The vast majority of people defending the FA’s decision are reasonable. But you say that since some of them are adequately informed [they all are](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)
In fact it’s this paragraph that I find most offensive. I can’t find the words to accurately explain why, but it becomes clear to me here you aren’t interested in actual discourse because you generalize EVERYONE who agrees with the FA’s statement.
I think we just disagree here based on experiences. From what I’ve read and seen, the people defending the FA decision have been just as guilty for volatile language and generalizations. I think we’ve just seen different things. Obviously not everyone is guilty, as I said in one of the closing paragraphs. Maybe you just missed that?
- I’m not sure what exactly you meant by that. If you read the report they actually considered a longer ban, but because Evra started the confrontation and Suarez’s previously clean record.
I wasn’t talking about the FA here, but rather, the moderation of opinions. Basically careful consideration and contemplation of the issues. This one’s a misunderstanding.
And about the historical differences, I think that’s just due to a different reading of history.