Voices that don’t deserve to be heard
In this country, there is a widely accepted notion that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and has a right to share it. The first right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is that of free speech. As such, discussions in this country, political or otherwise, allow for everyone to contribute his or her thoughts and insights. The wide range of opinions that consequently make up discourse is an extremely valuable thing for our country; every voice is heard and as such, everyone is bettered by the discussion of issues.
But this culture of equality of opinion also has its drawbacks; the fact that every opinion, no matter how outlandish or lacking in factual basis, must be listened to and acknowledged is also extremely damaging. Of course the idea of an opinion having a true factual basis is open to interpretation, but there is a clear, bright-line distinction between contributing to a discussion using reputable evidence and sound logic, and sharing an argument that really holds no water or that has not been truly thought out.
Take, for example, the “debate” over whether or not early childhood vaccination is linked to autism. Over the past several years, Jenny McCarthy, an actress, with literally no credentials or experience in anything even vaguely medically related, has led a massive media campaign to spread her belief that childhood vaccinations can cause autism. While you could argue that Ms. McCarthy has a right to share her beliefs, her entire campaign is based upon a single study from 1998 that has been proven fraudulent, and its authors have had their medical licenses revoked.
The fact that one woman with no medical credentials, is able to direct public opinion entirely away from a factual truth, is unacceptable. A 2011 study found that almost a quarter of Americans considered an opinion like Ms. McCarthy’s valid and that it would influence their decisions on childhood vaccinations. The very notion that we should not vaccinate our children against diseases that have been all but eradicated in the Western world because everyone’s opinion must be held valid, regardless of the facts, is entirely intolerable and counterproductive.
Instances like these are not isolated, however. In nearly every corner of public discourse, the idea that we must not rule out an opinion, not matter how ridiculous, because every American has a right to be heard, hinders and prevents real progress from being made. If we must listen to everyone, and acknowledge the validity of their opinions, then taking any sort of action that might disagree with them becomes impossible.
From debates about the validity of the science behind climate change, to 9/11 Truthers, to those who question whether or not President Obama was born in this country or is secretly a Socialist Muslim extremist from Kenya, those on the fringes of public debate are forcing their opinions to be validated. In doing so, they are polarizing the conversation and preventing any real progress or compromise from being made.
We, as a nation, need to alter our belief of what constitutes a valid opinion; you may be entitled to your own opinion and you have a right to voice it, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If an opinion cannot be backed up by any sort of factual truth, it should not be considered in public discourse. Of course everyone is entitled to have his or her own thoughts and opinions, even irrational ones, but if we want to have real, meaningful discussions about important issues that move toward some sort of truth, we need to begin to ignore those who do not contribute to the discussion with facts and logical arguments.
ugh what a terrible editorial. i think we should take away your ability to voice your opinion.
This is a rather appalling piece. You seem to be torn between allowing everyone to have an opinion, despite the questionable nature of ‘their true factual basis’ (whatever that means), while also requiring that opinions in the public discourse be ‘backed up by some factual truth.’ In doing so, you mangle the concept of having an opinion to the point of unrecognizability.
You argue that “if an opinion cannot be backed up by any sort of factual truth, it should not be considered in public discourse.” Under what criteria do you assess an opinion’s factual basis? Jenny McCarthy’s case is more clear cut than most. Her argument is premised on patently false information (at least according to scientific journals), making it easy (under your formulation) to banish her opinion to the realm of unacceptable public opinions.
But let’s complicate matters a bit. If every opinion were assessed as easily as McCarthy’s, I suspect the current landscape of ethical discourse would look remarkably different. How do you handle, for instance, differing opinions about the death penalty? Which ‘facts’ would permit me to place my opinion about the death penalty into public discourse? If there is not some sort of factual truth upon which I can premise my argument, does that mean that discussion of the death penalty does not belong in public discourse? To expect that there is a factual basis for opinions seems to be a very bold claim indeed.
However, you seem to be focusing on a particular set of opinions you deem ‘counterproductive.’ This is also worrisome- surely you recognize that counterproductivity is a matter of opinion itself? I’d be curious to know how you can sort opinions based on (counter)productivity in a totally objective way. I’d imagine that McCarthy doesn’t feel as though she is being counterproductive; conversely, she probably expects that she is productively informing the public of a health risk. The point here is that productivity is in the eye of the beholder.
Finally, you place most of the blame on the opinion holder, holding them accountable for the proliferation of these bad opinions into the public domain. Is it not also the case that the audience is supposedly at fault for listening to (and agreeing with) these bad opinions? It seems as though the audience has access to the same scientific facts, resources, etc. for assessing opinions, yet you argue that McCarthy, “one woman with no medical credentials, [was] able to direct public opinion entirely away from a factual truth.” Given the amount of mind control you ascribe to the woman, I’m surprised she hasn’t received more attention.
I agree that there are some remarkably absurd opinions floating around, but what counts as an absurd opinion is totally unique to my own personal beliefs and values. To expect that imposing some sort of factual criterion on publicly expressed opinions would improve the quality of public discourse is not only naive, it totally defeats the purpose of having an opinion. You construct a seemingly solid argument by attacking opinions that are held by few people (e.g. anti-vaccination, Obama birthers), yet when your argument is applied to mainstream discourse, it seems particularly unfounded.
We are fortunate to have the freedom to express our opinions publicly, which has resulted in a mosaic of varied opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints. Of course, such a vast landscape of varied opinions means that there will inevitably be opinions with which you disagree. Rather than try to silence others’ opinions, why not speak out more strongly in favor of your own?
Scott isn’t saying that people with stupid opinions shouldn’t be allowed to voice them, he’s saying that they shouldn’t gain wide-spread traction or media attention.