I have realized that the coming of a New World Order, almost always, brings with it a big choice, a presentation of two options, and a question of which side of the fence you will stand on. In one era, it was the choice between protestant and catholic, in another, capitalist and feudalist. And now, vaccinated or unvaccinated.
What COVID-19 was successful in doing was not only compromising the health of the global population but undermining our privacy as individuals as it concerns our medical information and our personal and, sometimes, unpopular opinions. The effect of this manifests as the further carving of a society that is already carved up. Where the “good” citizen is the citizen that takes information, oftentimes, without question. Where the “good” citizen is the vaccinated citizen. Where the “good” citizen, like the “good” protestant and the “good” capitalist, has the task of promoting their views, sometimes to the point of proselytization, as a means to sway the mind of the “bad" citizen who in this case, has questions, is hesitant to trust the government and who, upon promoting their views is struck down as a conspiracy theorist, a troublemaker or even a criminal despite the Constitutional guarantees to freedom of conscience and the right to privacy.
What I’m seeing more of now is an evident partition arising between these two parties. A partition that is affirmed by the seeming ill-treatment of persons who find themselves on the unpopular side of the fence. A sort of ill-treatment that is socially permitted on the basis of there being a global health crisis. And while, in this day and age, the world is no stranger to social division, and its unpopular groups no strangers to coming under scrutiny or digital maulings. I fear that this culture of scrutiny and partiality will become part of our new normal.
The framers of mainstream media have been successful in marketing the general public as a set of fragile, gullible people whose ability to think for themselves is seemingly non-existent, making them more susceptible to following and rendering information that does not align with the ideals of the framers of mainstream media. This is the fuel that turns the wheels of cancel culture and the justification for the de-platforming of many persons. It is important to note here, that when the writer speaks of this contradicting information, she is not speaking simply of those who utilize their digital spaces to tell spread downright false information. And that when the writer speaks of cancel culture, she is speaking of the modern phenomenon whereby an individual is rendered, often suddenly, inappropriate and not worthy of praise or attention by social media users.
As it concerns the scrutinized groups in question, there are those who would claim that these individuals are mired up in conspiracy theories. That they do not have the diligence to research as many of those who are fervent advocates against vaccination converse about their elaborate conspiracy theories that make for an easy target. While this may be true, it is also important to note that, unlike their fellow “good" citizen counterparts, they have views and opinions that do not align with the health of the population or with the government. Still, there is no question of whether anti-vaxxers, skeptics, and non-believers are deserving of protection that manifests as them being able to give words and form to their beliefs, so far as it brings no one else harm. I’d go further to say that the fact that such a question arose in the first place is saddening. Right now, we are seeing the digital neutering and silencing of these persons who happen to be anti-vax, unswayed by mainstream media, or who simply have questions and reservations about the pandemic. It’s interesting how in one breath, a more liberal person would assert that they are guided by the Bill of Rights, and in another, play a part in the silencing of a skeptic. As if the liberals are becoming the same monsters that they built a society around avoiding. As if freedom of speech is acceptable only to the extent that one speaks what is popular and socially acceptable. As if the only appropriate response to a questioner is disengagement and rejection. It is not.
By protecting groups under scrutiny, one could argue, too, that we are protecting our right to privacy. And while privacy may seem like an outdated idea in the age of social media, it is still a principle we should uphold as fundamental in our society. The fact of the matter is this; we are all human beings with beliefs that differ just as much as we do. However, the presence of belief should never override the dignity of human beings and at this moment in time, now more than ever, we should take heed to these words.