By Eddy Smith
You are scrolling through social media when a post makes you pause. Something about it troubles you: the accusation, the language, the ease with which someone’s dignity is dismissed. You might ordinarily object. But then you notice who shared it. It is someone you respect, someone you support, perhaps someone whose views usually match your own. Challenging it could be uncomfortable. So you keep scrolling.
A little further down, someone you tend to disagree with offers an idea. It has weaknesses, certainly, but there is something useful in it, something that might benefit your community if developed properly. Yet before considering what could work, you find yourself looking for what is wrong. The name attached to the proposal has already begun to decide its worth.
Neither moment feels especially significant. Together, however, they raise a difficult question: how much of our public judgment depends on what is being said, and how much depends on who is saying it?
Selective outrage is an uncomfortable subject because none of us stands entirely outside it. We all have loyalties, experiences and convictions that shape what catches our attention. Some matters touch us personally; others feel distant. We cannot respond to everything, and silence on a particular issue does not automatically mean approval.
The concern begins when our standards change to accommodate our loyalties. Conduct we condemn in one person becomes understandable in another. We demand evidence for an allegation against someone we support, then share an allegation against someone we dislike without checking it. Over time, we make accountability depend on affiliation.
Psychology offers a useful explanation in the idea of confirmation bias: we more readily accept information that supports what we already believe. Group loyalty can deepen that tendency. A criticism of someone we identify with may feel like a criticism of us. Recognising this gives us a practical responsibility: to examine the judgments that come most easily.
Before sharing a post, we might ask: would I consider this fair if it were directed at someone I care about? Would I accept this explanation from a person I oppose? What evidence would make me reconsider? These questions are simple, but answering them honestly can interrupt a reaction we might otherwise mistake for sound judgment.
This matters because a public message does more than express an opinion. It gives others permission to respond in a certain way. When we share humiliation as entertainment, we help make humiliation acceptable. When we repeat an unverified claim, our credibility travels with it. When we acknowledge a worthwhile idea from an unexpected source, we make room for others to consider it fairly.
Anger also travels quickly. We can absorb the emotion surrounding an issue before we understand the issue itself. Soon we are responding to the intensity of other people’s reactions. A pause, to read beyond the headline, establish what happened and consider who may be affected, can improve the contribution we make. Serious matters deserve that care.
They also deserve attention after the initial excitement fades. A troubling incident may attract hundreds of comments, yet receive little follow-up once another controversy appears. Was the complaint investigated? Did the promised action happen? Are the people affected receiving support? Sustained attention turns a public demand into something that can be measured.
Our attention is limited, so we must choose where to place it. Harm, urgency and lasting consequences offer better guides than popularity alone. An issue affecting livelihoods, public trust or the opportunities available to young people may require patient scrutiny long after it stops attracting reactions. We should leave room for that work.
The same discipline should shape how we respond to proposals for progress. We can test an idea firmly while allowing it a fair hearing. What problem would it solve? Who would benefit? What would it cost? What safeguards would it need? These questions help improve a proposal and expose its weaknesses. Dismissing it because of its source achieves neither.
Those who lead, or hope to lead, carry a particular responsibility. Their supporters learn from what they praise, excuse and leave unchallenged. Correcting misinformation that benefits one’s own position can be uncomfortable. Acknowledging a valid criticism can carry a cost. Yet both demonstrate that the standards being offered to the public are standards the leader is willing to live by.
The rest of us help establish those expectations. We can disagree without assigning the worst possible motives. We can correct a claim without degrading the person who shared it. We can change our minds openly. These ordinary choices make thoughtful participation more possible, especially for people who have something useful to contribute but are reluctant to enter a hostile discussion.
If we want a nation capable of making decisions that stand up to scrutiny, we must practise that scrutiny in our own conversations. The next time a post unsettles us, or a proposal comes from someone we distrust, there is an opportunity to pause. Give the facts a fair hearing. Apply the same standard. Then contribute something that helps the discussion move forward.
Our future deserves that depth of attention.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].