a simpler time
As a child, I often had dinner at friends’ houses, who held different religious and political views than our family. If a sensitive topic comes up, other family members can laugh, joke, or just smile. As long as he was polite, he was always welcome in his house. At no point did anger develop simply because of a difference of opinion or a life value.
How did this respect for our neighbors change? When did it become fashionable to cancel each one? Look around our country at the state of our relations. Families break up, long-standing friendships end, and people lose jobs based on their thoughts and views. We are headed down a dangerous path where people try to control what goes on inside people’s minds.
thought control
As an American, I can say with certainty that no one has the right to control how I think. The ability to form views and opinions from the absorption of information is one of our most precious rights as individuals and essential for any free-thinking person. Countries or groups of people that try to stifle freedom of thought and expression are playing a dangerous game and will end up on the losing side.
Recently, a friendship of 36 years became rocky simply because I questioned the validity of the 2020 election. He acted as if I had committed a moral crime because of my statistical analysis of the election. With an MBA degree and a long career in marketing research, I understand the inconsistency of numbers and data. The statistical issues involved in the choice are numerous.
data diversity
For example, data diversity occurs naturally within a geographic area. Historically, voting patterns top out at 90% for a party in a geographic location. It is human nature. If there are 10 people in a room, they are not going to agree unanimously on a subject. Usually, a person will think differently from others. Many areas are close to 50/50, and of course places like San Francisco are moving toward more uniformity.
However, when voting patterns approach 95% or higher in areas where historical patterns showed much less agreement, there is a statistical red flag. These red flags prove nothing. They are a sign that more research is needed. So please explain to me why looking at data, looking at inconsistencies based on professional skills, and advocating a deeper look is any kind of crime or questionable morality.
Ethics
I don’t expect my friend to agree with me, but I just ask that you respect my opinion without making personal attacks or questioning my character. I did not treat him badly or behave rudely. Why can’t we respect individual differences without resorting to harsh negative communication or pulling the cancel card?
In my value system, it’s morally questionable to end a friendship based on that person’s individual views. If we continually end relationships for the sole reason of disagreeing with our views, what kind of society will exist in the future? We will have a fractured world of warring camps where a litmus test of thought is required for club admission.
That’s not a place I want to live!