What Happens When You Can’t Justify Your “Beliefs?”
Today was interesting. I was banned from a motorcycle website because my ‘facts’ didn’t fit an admin’s beliefs. It wasn’t about any belief that should have created a visceral reaction from anyone, but in this case, it did. And it only got worse when I provided scientific proof for the choices that jurisdictions made.
I imagine his behaviour revolved around the fact that he had a bike that had straight pipes. I was told my article was ‘click-bait’ which seems somewhat irrational. I was discussing the fact that jurisdictions in Canada, the US and Europe have instituted laws limiting sound levels from motorcycles. In any event his response was both surprising and disappointing.
The subject is a moot point as it entailed a discussion related to laws that have been implemented by jurisdictions about the sound of a motorcycle and how many decibels are considered to be, too loud. It’s interesting because scientists (audiologists) are the ones who determined the level of sound that is acceptable, yet for some, any restriction is beyond their capacity to understand or accept.
But what I found even more irrational was the response. By simply suggesting that there is a reason for limits on the level of sound, I encountered anger, not rational discourse, not common sense, not logic. When this individual (individuals) were confronted with a fact, that being that several jurisdictions across the country are imposing fines for having a motorcycle that is by scientific standards considered to be detrimental to the hearing of others, or sound pollution, the reaction was to suggest that such commentary be banned from the site.
Really? I was immediately attacked as the messenger of bad news. Several people on the site live in jurisdictions where there are laws. Imagine that? In their minds only ‘communists’ would impose rules and laws. Really? (That was one comment.)
One shall not introduce rational discourse into my irrational assertions, thank you. That might as well be what these people were saying. How is society supposed to function if those with invalid and untested opinions cannot tolerate being asked a question, such as, “Why do you hold that opinion? Would you mind explaining how your position makes sense?”
I think it’s safe to assume why (in terms of politics) some have views that venture beyond the fringe. If a discussion as innocuous and obvious as the need for some controls on sound levels creates near mental instability, it’s not hard to see where we are politically today. Discussion is anathema. Rather it makes sense to consider the messenger a threat to one’s mental framework. Therefore people with divergent opinions should be cast out, or if possible ostracized.
In any event, my reaction was one of incredulity. In no way do I mind not being a part of any group that is challenged by simply being confronted with facts. I believe there are several places where one can find company for such opinions, Truth Social coming to mind.
In any event, enjoy riding this season. Hopefully, none of you will be offended by someone using logic or rationality in the future.
Ciao…
Leave a Reply