He who is without bias may cast the first argument
Just because someone has an agenda, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong.
‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.’
- John 8:7 KJV
In this famous passage, Jesus rebukes any human inclination towards neutrality, purity, and moral superiority. For committing the sin of adultery, the woman was condemned to death by her fellow people, and to be killed by the barbaric practice of stoning. But before the execution begins, they consult Jesus on what must be done, and when he answers (as shown above), they drop their blunt, misshapen projectiles on the ground and depart from the Messiah, leaving the woman unharmed.
The lesson here is simple: that righteous judgement is the prerogative of the Holy Trinity, and only the Holy Trinity. For man is a fallen creature, susceptible to misguidance and corruption, so extreme and rash judgements against one’s fellow man have no place in the mortal world, even if one is at fault.
Through civilisation, we have attempted to dampen our dark, animalistic nature. Through our judicial and political systems, we have sought to disincentivise and extinguish the parasitic appetite of nefarious politicians through checks and balances (results have varied), while forging our understanding of the physical universe on rigorous experimentation feeding the mind of humanity with verifiable, objective information. It was the Vatican’s trigger-happy decision making that landed the astronomer Galileo Galilei in hot water.
While we can subdue the carnal, self-serving impulses of man, we can’t eradicate them completely. Homo Sapiens are not angels nor robots, so there will inevitably be cracks in the system and bad faith actors who flood these gaps like bacteria over a gaping wound. Nevertheless, there is always room to learn and modify our approach.
One area where this is acutely apparent is through societal discourse. Perhaps the most important lesson that is taught at university (though the bar is as high as a blade of grass) is that bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Under every paper there is a conflict of interest footnote and so long as all known personal friction is declared, no harm, no foul. The argument is assessed based on its own merit accompanied by the supporting data provided.
Meaning that, just because someone has an agenda, and they may even be financially backed by the most ruthless, profit-driven, power hungry organisations the world will ever know, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong.
Whenever some Twitter user who failed debating 101 accuses another account of being a shill, or hack, or (God forbid) ‘having an agenda’, the irony meter goes off like a Geiger Counter in the heart of Chernobyl. Everyone has curated their own thoughts and opinions; everyone has their reasons for believing the way they do, either through personal motives or emotional investment, or both. Everyone wants to see their arguments reign supreme; everyone wants to be seen as being ‘the good guys’.
In fact, it is for this reason why being branded as having an agenda carries so much height within polar opposite, warring echo chambers who believe they are in a holy war of good vs evil. The problem is: everyone believes they’re a hero in their own eyes.
What could be the solution for this conundrum? The most likely solution is for returning to the days of the gladiator without the metal weaponry or bloodshed. When opposing armies stared down one another at the field of battle, sometimes the strongest fighter from each would be volunteered to fight, for the glory of themselves, their troops, and the Kingdom.
It may surprise you to know that these fights were not carried out in anonymity. Through the symbols embroidered on their shields and helmets, it was clear who they were fighting for. Why don’t we return to this today?
Many social media users make a good start, arrogantly sticking certain national or socio-political flags on their profile. Why can’t all internet keyboard warriors be capable of the same, instead of cowering behind the fallible vail of anonymity?
From that point onwards, nobody can peddle the ad hominems of ‘you are bankrolled by them’ or ‘you are flogging this product’ or (God forbid) ‘you have an agenda’, as this would no longer be secret information. Discourse is fought along the best argument, statistics, and cross-examination, not character attacks and assassinations.
What a better world this would be! But man is so righteous in his intentions and flawed in his interactions, that this dream will unfortunately remain a dream.