While browsing the satirical “news” site, The Onion, I came across an article describing an issue of filtering. The article was titled “Man Already Knows Everything he needs to Know About Muslims”. The article points out the absurdity in people only learning on part of a story and not being open to any other possible views or explanations.
The fictitious subject of the article (the man who knows “everything”) chooses not to see or recognize the existence of any non-extreme members of the Muslim faith because he has already made his mind up that 9-11 is all he ever needs to learn about the Muslim faith. Though most Americans are not this extreme, many do the same thing to an extent. Muslims have become mistrusted, discriminated against, and feared largely because of the terrorist attacks of a few extremists.
Filtering, as described by Sunstein, can lead to extreme opinions such as these. Also, as Suntein says, this polarization and lack of people seeing more than one side to stories can threaten democracy. Can you imagine the injustice that would occur if all people in the U.S. thought of all Muslims as terrorists and refused to acknowledge or even view any evidence to the contrary? In government, discussion and debate is crucial in making sound decisions. However if both sides talk and neither listens, this debate becomes completely useless and the decisions made as a result may not be as well thought out. The important points being made by both sides should be carefully considered by both sides, not fall on deaf ears.
Last year I visited a session of the Oregon state Senate. In the Senate there is a large enough majority of Democrats, that Republican votes are typically not required. As a result, the democrats only spoke amongst and listened to each other, thus ruining the balance that should be created by the discussion and compromise of two different opinions. Essentially when people don’t challenge themselves with new views, progress is the victim.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment