Debate and Subversion

I value debate a lot. I believed that we become better after going through a round of discussions where opinions are seek from diverse perspectives.

But what I do not like is memes or postings that have absolutely no substance at all. I believe this is an absolutely waste of time and adds no value to the debate at all.

I do not intend to write about what makes a good debate but about the value of a good debate.

There are many who believes that being positive about everything is the only way to gain consensus and add value to any decisions being make. It is like being nice can result in any good decision being made.

But is not to say being antagonistic about everything can result in good debate. This can result in a decision gridlock where nothing is being done.

But the problem with many publications and debate is that there are simply too many " yes" and "more please" men in the discourse.

I believed the problem is that there is a taboo towards subversive thoughts.

It is believed many believed that subversion in itself can result in disunity, antagonistic debate and policy gridlock. But what many does not realised is it is precisely because of these subversion that have resulted in the comfortable standard of living that we have now.

Subversion results in changes in the status quo from the unequal and unfair state of affairs to one which is more equitable.

You see, subversion can itself lead to lots of hatred and results in violence and antagonistic behaviour. This is evidenced in the Charlie Hebdo attack by Islamic State. This is result of a group of people being offended by another group of people who poked fun at them for things who they valued importantly.

 Comics and political satire is the short-hand for people to understand different sides of an issue without going through a doctoral thesis. It is highly important in a debate- be it political or economic or social one. It is meant to be precisely biased to demonstrate a point of view. But the caveat is that it is all in good fun and nothing else.

This subversion of the debate process is precisely meant to angle the entire debate in it's different spectrum and demonstrates the biases and prejudices of the arguments. It pushes you to think about the whole issues altogether.

Freedom of speech and association is precisely the rights to guard against people from hijacking this value.

But what if people precisely abuse this right and this result in hatred and violence?

That to me, I believe that people can understand the differences between people pushing a personal agenda and inciting violence and other's who are merely pushing the envelope and inciting them to think about the issues altogether.