Inside the mind of a modern-day heretic
Non-conformity should be a badge of honour
When I was growing up, it was generally accepted (unless you were a football hooligan) that, however much you disagreed with someone, they were entitled to their opinion. You listened, occasionally interjecting, and then made your case – sometimes forcefully. In the end, you might agree to disagree, but you didn’t harbour any enmity.
These days, the idea that a person is free to hold their own beliefs, especially if they run contrary to your own, is considered laughably old-fashioned. The aim now is to silence that individual. If necessary, you eviscerate them, figuratively – usually online. Sometimes, tragically, their views are deemed so unpalatable that they’re silenced for good.
Of course, there were extreme sorts around back in the day, but they generally struggled to find an audience. Now they have the internet. The propagation of dubious ideas has never been easier. People with an axe to grind can reach thousands – millions, even – if they’re savvy enough. Provoke their ire and you’ll invite a ‘pile-on’ from an army of trolls, possibly followed by ‘cancelling’, in which your career is trashed and your reputation shredded in a matter of hours.
In the current climate, few of us dare speak our minds, so we seek safety in numbers. We find a tribe and dutifully recite its orthodoxies. Obstinate by nature, I take pride in refusing to accept anything at face value – but independent thought is now considered, at best, quaint – and at worst, dangerous.
The old certainties of God, King and Country were, I imagine, comforting. That mindset is now antediluvian. Yet the new enlightenment of free expression and innovation that the tech bros promised seems to have been usurped by something darker: absolutism.
The binary thinking that prevails means many unquestioningly accept ideas that would have provoked little more than a quizzical frown or wry smile not so long ago. As for the rest of us, we’re asked to pay lip-service to things that are nonsensical. To do otherwise can be career-ending or lead to social exclusion and harassment on the web. Whether it’s witch-hunts of dissenters by neo-Puritans, Greta Thunberg cosplaying the Maid of Orleans or Tommy Robinson channelling his inner Oswald Mosley, the pathological self-belief of opinion formers is alarming – as is the uncritical support of their followers.
During the 2019 election, I made the mistake of opening the door to Labour canvassers. My next mistake was conversing with them. I expressed concerns about anti-Semitism and sexism within the party, but they’d clearly been drilled on how to counter every argument. It was as fruitless as a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness. They were immune to reason.
Sadly, the backwards and forwards of good old-fashioned debate are no more. The erosion of critical thought has infected our institutions, media and politics, leading to the oversimplification of complex problems. This inability to accept nuance promotes intolerance: heterodoxy must be stamped out. Those of us who still believe in freedom of expression need to be increasingly oblique.
The new enlightenment of free expression and innovation that the tech bros promised seems to have been usurped by something darker: absolutism
I’ve tried subscribing to cultural, political and religious dogmas – God knows I have. For example, I’ve flirted with Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. At the last election, I even voted for the SDP because the alternatives were so unpalatable. I spouted their tropes, but eventually, the asininity became too much, and I thought: ‘It’s no good, this is nonsense. And (whoever happened to be leading whichever party I was supporting at the time) is clearly an imbecile.’
When, during Jeremy Corbyn’s incumbency, a woman at work encouraged me to become a Labour member and ‘change it from within’, I politely declined. By that point in my life, I’d rather have extracted my own teeth with a pair of pliers than join a political party.
After the killing of Charlie Kirk, some people openly celebrated his death. Others, while not explicitly condoning it, fell short of outright condemnation. I had no skin in the game – I’d never heard of him before he died – but it struck me that if you claim to believe in free speech, then it follows that you think murdering people for expressing an opinion, even if you find it offensive, is entirely beyond the pale. For democracy to function effectively, people must be willing to tolerate differing viewpoints. If not, political violence will only become more common.
Following the publication of my last article here on wood-burning stoves, someone who campaigns against their use accused me on X of ‘unbelievable ignorance’. I had naively thought my piece was amusing, entertaining and thought-provoking. Perversely, perhaps, I still cling to a belief in public discourse.
As an incorrigible recusant, I stubbornly resist conformity through fear, preferring instead to make up my own mind. ‘Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see,’ said Edgar Allan Poe. In an age when it seems more complicated than ever to get to the truth – Panorama’s alleged doctoring of a Donald Trump speech being a case in point – it’s a good maxim to live by. But don’t take my word for it.
Burning heretics at the stake is considered de trop in these more enlightened times, so a new punishment must be devised. Perhaps they could be made to wear odd shoes or walk in the gutter. That way, we can easily identify them and avoid being infected by their mad free-thinking ways.
Having, like many others, expended so much energy in recent years on self-censoring, I fear I may develop a neurological condition that causes me to blurt out in public what I really think, like: ‘I enjoyed reading the Noddy books as a child and I’m not ashamed.’ Before clasping my hand to my mouth and saying: ‘Bugger. No, sorry, ignore me – I completely repudiate Enid Blyton. I find her outdated stereotypes abhorrent.’
If I do actually do something demented like expressing an unfiltered opinion and am forced to tread the pavement in shoes that don’t match, then I’ll do so with pride. Non-conformity should be a badge of honour in an age when independent thought is frowned upon. Better to face ridicule in mismatching footwear than march in step with the mob.
Written by G.V. Chappell