The Nuanced Truth: Exploring the Complexities of Social Issues in America

A familiar phrase often emerges in times of turmoil. A familiar phrase highlighting a fundamental idea that inspires and guides us through trying times: being on ‘the right side of history.’ Historically, being on the right side of history has meant fighting for liberty. The United States has fought for and protected the personal freedoms of [many] of those inspired by them. However, since the early 2000s, a growing sense of stagnation and discontent has been building, fueling a longing for purpose and collective action, leaving many searching for a cause to advocate and a movement to join. And as the saying goes, idle hands can lead to trouble. Many seek to reclaim denied liberties and empower themselves. And I sometimes wonder, do many of us not know where to draw the line at our feet?

These past few years I’ve been thinking a great deal about our relationship with progressive ideals: what they are, how they impact our social dynamics, the role that they play in our daily lives, and how they will shape our culture in the coming years. Because there are new emerging absolute mindsets that are beginning to hinder our progress. Of course, we always like to think, regardless of our opinions, that we are on the right side of history. We believe that we stand for something. Something greater than ourselves. That was probably once true, at least once truer than today; today we choose sides merely for the sake of choosing sides. Our narratives can become all-consuming, leading us to assign arbitrary meaning to them with hopes that we might connect with our life experiences. However, this process can ultimately consume us, as our stories and ideologies become the dominant forces shaping our perspectives.

          One such story that’s been written and rewritten depending on whoever tells it relates to personal freedoms. I’m a firm believer in subjective rights. While some conservatives claim to be, they openly condemn the freedoms of those whose beliefs are different from their own, and this is a basic contradiction that I struggle to understand. The insistence of a segment of conservative thought to involve themselves in the lives of others while simultaneously insisting on maintaining their freedoms is a glaring inconsistency present in some conservative thinking. And one that needs to change. The destiny of humanity is dependent on accountability and self-discipline. The strength of humankind has always been in our ability to find or create cohesion through adversity in the face of our differences.

And, while the refusal of some conservatives to hold themselves accountable to their confessed standards and to accept the presence of ideals that conflict is partially responsible for our mounting divisiveness, there are truths behind some conservatives' concerns regarding the so-called, “woke mind virus.” Wokeness is an idea developed by young liberals to highlight a caliber of enlightenment associated with creating distance between them and older generations (even older liberals). This insight they believe distances them from the fact that they are equally at fault for our growing polarization. The reality is that both the left and the right exhibit similar behavior. But how do some of these divisive issues look when through the lens of impartiality? How does having an open mind and objective perspective perceive some of our most pressing social concerns? Does being on the right side of history mean choosing the right side, or acknowledging that the choice itself is part of the problem?

          Our present relationship with free speech is complex and an interesting example of how the underlying behavior I mentioned above, the symptoms of which are broadcasted freely by conservatives in their disdain for wokeness affecting the liberal left, are in reality an example of this underlying behavior—a universal behavior that I believe our society owes to our seldom discussed relationship with social media. Conservatives and liberals alike accuse each other of an assault on free speech. Yet, the affiliations actively seek to censor or discredit the words and ideals of anyone who might disagree with them. The hypocrisy is maddening. I’m not sure, however, if the behavior is directly responsible for our inadequacy to recognize our hypocrisy consciously or if this is merely another symptom. I’m a writer and an artist and so it should go without saying that I wholeheartedly believe that freedom of speech is of fundamental importance. That being said, I’ve been on social media—I even have a ‘the platform formally known as Twitter’ profile. For reasons I have written about before, I believe our society collectively struggles with an emotional and intellectual decline. The reason for which you can read about here, and here, and here.

Manipulation and misinformation are—again—symptoms of a much bigger problem, and their relationship with free speech is notable. Misinformation and manipulation seriously threaten a society whose population notoriously avoids a conscious, critical approach. As a culture, we take offense to the idea that as humans we have to be taught how to think, to train ourselves to form intentional habits, deliberately. One thing is certain, we will either train ourselves unconsciously, in this case, likely forming lazy, destructive habits, or we will be indoctrinated to the unwitting training of others, or we will consciously develop respectable habits on our own. We must start reevaluating our relationship with free speech and how we want that to look as we move forward. I think somewhere throughout our nation’s history we convinced ourselves that practicing our constitutional rights would remain free of consequence. While the consequences may not be legal, there are certainly always consequences to abusing any rights, privileges, or advantages we might have.

          Furthermore, our freedom of speech is closely associated with the freedom of assembly. I suppose that strength in numbers, demanding that our voice be heard, at the very least, and our intentions acknowledged is necessary when most people might share a perspective that eclipses the beliefs of an otherwise silent minority. However, I cannot help but presume that we have grasped these Rights so fiercely that we’ve let go of the discipline, accountability, and integrity that regulated our Constitutional Rights in the first place. Wherever I look, I see us exploiting freedoms that have only fairly recently been secured, despite being denied to humanity for most of history. Is there such a fine line between the freedom of assembly and a heisted freedom to riot? Should people be put in a position to feel like there’s no alternative to rioting? Who should we hold accountable, those acting or those reacting?

In my opinion, where objective emotional intelligence and critical thought are the most genuine is who we should be encouraging even, if for no other reason, that we will be developing and sustaining the habits that are the most sorely needed—such as accountability. Rioting and violence do not serve us, and neither does ignoring the voices of the marginalized. There is no situation today where one ideal is more righteous than another. What we’re experiencing as a society in the United States is leastwise partially due to opposing ideas diverging and not uniting. People should not be put in the position to feel marginalized, however, when the marginalized riot what everyone else hears is not the relegated cry that inspired their protest, but rather the emotional outrage that arises. Those on the right side of history will be listening actively to the concerns of the marginalized with their perspective in mind and the willingness to collaborate in our hearts.

          We are not a well-balanced society. We are not making rational decisions based on reasonable, informed thinking. We are a society overflowing with resentment and turmoil. We are a society reacting and not from a place of good sense and stability; instead of healthily releasing our animosities, we perpetually consume more. Our collective cup is brimming. Our emotional standards have been reset so many times we can no longer recall what it means to be well-balanced; and what it means to be well-rounded. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an interesting example. As a nation, we have thoughtlessly chosen sides, oddly parallel to political party lines—it’s fascinating how that continues to happen with such banality—and we are fiercely aggressive, despite a desperate lack of understanding. This conflict is one of belief. Whose religion does the world deem to be more righteous and why? Who is ever on the right side of history that is killing people merely because of their beliefs? These are two people killing each other for their beliefs. These are the oldest wars man knows. And like nuclear war, the only way to win is not to fight.

Once again, we are falling into historically bad habits and condemning entire groups of people—will we never learn? How do we routinely overlook the same damaging perspectives and behaviors every few generations? The victims of this international conflict are both Palestinian and Jewish. The oppressors are both Palestinian and Jewish. We oversimplify by impulsively choosing sides. We must apply critical thought to the circumstances on a case-by-case basis and acknowledge that in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, they are both right and wrong. I know that means it’s a harder and more complicated issue to tackle, we have to, and we have to apply a degree of nuanced critical thought to this conflict. It’s not so finger-wagging-ly simple as allowing our unconscious reactions to inspire us merely to retaliate. The way that many liberals support Palestine is unquestionably an expression of unrealized rage and probably not even regarding Palestine, but rather their frustrations and resentments surrounding their perspective of American culture—surrounding their buoyant subliminal criticism that life is a mistake. And supporting Netanyahu’s crusade merely because you are Jewish or because you harbor the same hatred he does; you’re going to find that we will all suffer.

          When you hear the words, “personal freedoms,” in an open context, those words activate a portrait of ideas in your mind, expanding from unintelligible sounds to meaning and belief. A belief that is influenced by your experiences and your upbringing. The thoughts you bear in those moments are not the same thoughts everyone bears; distinct immediate thoughts, ideas, and feelings inspire entirely different meanings for different people who have had different experiences. For some, a portrait might be a family at a dinner table. For others, a portrait might be the human race in its entirety. This is why many liberals have such a relaxed view of immigration. Liberals believe everyone should have the opportunity and privilege of the lifestyle much of the Western world can offer.

          However, most conservatives believe in the importance of equal opportunity and fair compensation for one's work, as long as individuals enter the country legally; despite some conservatives holding a separate belief that social status and birthright are determined by divine will. Very few people genuinely want to bring an end to immigration. There’s an obvious merit to the process being legal. We should have better border protection, and we should create clear, reasonable avenues for immigrants to build a better life for themselves in the States. Citizens, and those on a clear path to citizenship, such as green card holders or those with pending naturalization applications, should have the right to vote. However, those who have not initiated or pursued the legal process to become citizens should not be allowed to participate in voting. The policy behind this isn’t racial. The policy is legislative. The policy is systematic, and sometimes there’s nothing wrong with that. This is one of those times.

Sometimes, when it feels we’re in constant turmoil it’s hard to get out of our heads—especially with most of us being uncontrollably addicted to social media. We can be outspoken and progressive for progress’s sake, and we might sacrifice fair-mindedness. We’re all already making that sacrifice and it’s hard to accept. We need to start asking ourselves the tough questions, including (but not limited to):

• “What if I’m wrong?”
• “What if we’re both wrong?”
• “What if there’s a different way to see this?”
• “What if I’m so convicted of my perspectives and beliefs, I can’t see this from different vantages?”

Asking ourselves these questions alone is uncomfortable, and it’s even more so to acknowledge that we might be wrong. If we can’t accept when we are wrong, society will stagnate, decline, and collapse. That’s an absolute. That’s what being on the right side of history looks like acknowledging our shortcomings and being better because even if we are right, there can be a better way to be right.

          When controversial social ideas are prohibited from open discussion, and stripped of freedom of expression, and a sense of humor, those ideas need to be restructured and reexamined. Whatever idea(s) just crossed your mind reading that last sentence you should write it down and dedicate some time to researching and exploring it. One notion I’ve been thinking a fair amount about lately, as unpopular and potentially out-casting as it might be to discuss, and the very fact of which is why it’s important to do so. Surrounds our evolving relationship with transgender identity. I have never been faced with as much hostility despite my own ignorance as when asking questions about or trying to understand trans issues better so that I might respond better when relating with trans people. Thoughtless hostility was my first and second impression within a dialogue of transgender people assimilating to American culture.

Regardless of my feelings about what it means to be transgender, which of course, I am fairly ignorant of, my motivation for writing about this today is related more to 1.) the integration of trans people into American culture, and 2.) the reactions of both trans people and non-trans people in American culture about trans issues—the collective social role the transgender community plays in society. There is a great deal of anger and resentment guarded in the emotions and mindset of some members of the trans community; in response, many people would say, “Well, of course; can you imagine the hatred the community is confronted with?” I make a habit of mentally and emotionally putting myself into seemingly unimaginable positions, uncomfortable and terrifying positions. So that it might help me be more open-minded about experiences I’ll otherwise never relate to. But afterward, I can step outside of the experience. And because of that, there’s no way I’ll ever be able to truly understand what it means to be an American minority, a woman, LGBTQ+, and there’s no way for me to understand what I don’t know. At the very least I am earnestly aware of that.

That being said, the transgender community's struggles are rooted in a fundamental quest for identity, recognition, and acceptance, which is distinct from the assimilation-focused efforts of the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Liberation Movement. While those movements sought to integrate into mainstream American culture, the transgender movement's fight is more complex, involving acceptance [of course], and a redefinition of societal norms and understanding. People are still people, regardless of the mistakes of our past. Our hardwired minds are fundamentally the same. Society finds adapting to change extraordinarily difficult. As irritating as that might be for many of you to read, that’s simply an emotional and biological fact. People must make a conscious effort to acknowledge their shortcomings and mistakes, and that’s not just hard for most people, it’s nearly impossible, and the process takes time. Legally, in the United States, and perhaps as some reproach to ideological reparations for our mistakes, we are doing way too much way too quickly. I remember being a teenager. I was among the last to experience the time before social media completely reimagined how young people come of age. The experience was emotionally and intellectually stupefying. I couldn’t even imagine what it would be like today, constantly reinforced, on social media, by our rebelliousness and civil disobedience.

The number of transgender people has increased significantly among the millennial and ‘Z’ generations. 43% of all transgender people are between 25 and 34 years old. I can’t help but wonder whether young people who were unable to experience the modern-day ‘vision quest’ that teenagers and early twenty-somethings were once compelled toward, and who are confused and tormented by the reality of being alive and the almost unmanageable grip of social media, are looking for some semblance of footing within the safety of counterculture. It’s getting more difficult to learn what it means to be human. While we might be more open to emotional, intellectual, and technological concepts, we are sacrificing the teachings of many essential characteristics that are developmentally indispensable to our humanity. We are no longer teaching genuine self-exploration and self-acceptance to our children. Without the same emotional tools that most millennials were taught, and with the constant borage of social media, many are escaping into identities that are easier to define than their own.

I’m sure many people have found themselves in other gender-affirming ways at the crux of their quest. But children? Children younger than the age of biological adulthood, whose life experience has barely taken them beyond their front porch. When the only genuine life experience is through social media, you do not have life experience. Removing children from their parents surrounding gender-affirming surgeries and providing life-altering surgeries to minors who are too young to have explored themselves emotionally or mentally, is quite simply not appropriate. Social media is a gaping wound that bleeds with emotional, intellectual, and social dysfunction. We’re not being reasonable about the transgender role in American culture. We’re blanketly and thoughtlessly reacting to the mistakes of our past. New affiliations, whether a majority or minority, should be assimilated into a society and a culture, while the culture adapts organically. That’s not the experience we’re having collectively regarding trans people, and we have to acknowledge that and explore ways to avoid the mistake in the future.

          Our society is at a crossroads, grappling with complex issues like free speech, immigration, and transgender identity. We must acknowledge the intricacies of these topics and engage in open-minded dialogue, rather than resorting to simplistic, divisive, or reactionary thinking. And by embracing empathy, critical thinking, and self-awareness, we can foster a more inclusive and adaptive culture. It's crucial to recognize the humanity in others, even when we disagree, and to approach discussions with a willingness to learn and grow. As we navigate these challenges, we must also confront the role of social media in shaping our perceptions and behaviors. By doing so, we can work towards a more nuanced understanding of the world and our place within it. Ultimately, our collective future and being on the right side of history depends on our ability to engage in constructive dialogue, challenge our assumptions, and strive for a deeper understanding of the complexities that surround us. Be on the right side of history, and please recognize that doesn’t always mean choosing between the loudest sides, sometimes it means acknowledging that we are both wrong.