In a divided country, being right is infinitely more important than truth.

We’re emotional, especially when it comes to politics, least likely to consider the idea that we might’ve got something wrong. When we see an article, a meme, or a social media post that supports our way of thinking, we’re in.

As such, we’re quick to report the facts without taking a deeper look to see if they might be worthy of public dissemination, turning our social media feeds into a junkyard of misleading information, often referred to as “science.”

We don’t do it because we’re bad people, and we’re far from being a nation of idiots. In our anger and desire to be right, we’ve become suckers for whatever we can find that says something akin to “You’ve been right along,” least likely to fact check the facts that everyone within reach so desperately needs to consider.

Moving forward, we’re all in need of what this author refers to as “forensic scatology.” Amen, brother. Following are my still-in-process reflections on how best to make that happen. If you have any additional thoughts on how to flatten this curve, or critiques, please share them below.

Emotional? Anybody?

If you reject the idea that we’re in the middle of a pandemic, that the need for social distancing, masks, staying home, etc. is still crucial, you’re a threat. On the other side, if you’re in favor of action that threatens the health of our economy, you’re a threat.

From here, it’s easy to get angry. This is my country, these are my friends, all put at risk by people who have the wrong perspective. Why wouldn’t I get angry?

But, in this former pastor’s opinion, that’s not why we’re angry.

99% of the time, anger is a symptom of emotional hurt, an unresolved something that happened long ago that rears its head whenever we experience relational tension. So, typically, what we think we’re angry about isn’t what we’re really angry about.

I might feel like my political anger is righteously motivated, like I’m posting a meme in defense of America, in defiance of unjust thinking that will certainly lead to unjust action. But it’s more likely true that my social media adversaries have rubbed their finger in something I haven’t yet managed to let go of. It hurts, so I hurt back, posting things that are little more than retaliation – typically far from truth.

Why wouldn’t I? Aren’t we fighting?

Angry people have stifled access to truth because truth isn’t the goal of anger, anger is the goal of anger, and it wants little more than to spread itself as far as possible. It feeds on people who say, “Oh, yeah, you’re totally right,” and unleashes itself on anyone who doesn’t. It leaves us feeling betrayed and marginalized, forcing us to scour the internet for “acceptance” and “validation,” belittling anyone who gets in the way.

Before we post our truths, we’re compelled to ask difficult questions about the emotions we’re feeling as we reach for the send button. I might feel more “right” than someone, but do I feel more “righteous?” Do I feel better than the people who don’t agree with me? Am I merely feeding into my anger, and the anger of others.

The best way to insulate ourselves (and everyone else) from this scat is a good dose of homework; scouring the internet in defense of someone else’s opinion.

The Other Story

As someone who leans heavy towards the liberal side of truth-finding, I don’t have many conservative friends who can articulate the reasons why I’d prefer our current president to not be our current president. Lacking the proper information, errant conclusions are drawn about why I haven’t managed to accept the truth. I try to explain myself, but end up being accused of watching too much CNN and mindlessly lobbing senseless attacks at a good leader.

Same goes for me. I don’t understand how anyone can support this guy, but I don’t have meaningful conversations about it, and I’ve never asked my conservative friends, agenda free, why they’ve landed on their current planet. I don’t want to know, I’m angry, and I need to be right, just like the rest of us.

It’s too much work.

I’d wager, though, that a face-to-face encounter, where I become a student, asking questions and giving my “adversaries” an open forum, would be game-changing for my understanding. I can almost guarantee that I wouldn’t walk away a Trump supporter, but I can find compassion for their point of view, and for them. I’d also wager that I’d hear a few things that I haven’t yet considered; facts, opinions, and perspectives that are fundamental to a deeper understanding.

There are two sides to every story. I haven’t found the truth until I understand – and can defend – both sides, regardless of where I land.

I know people who’ve mastered this, and they’re not posting false/misleading things on Facebook. They’re actually not posting anything on Facebook, but that’s a different blog post, one I’ll probably never write.

Two things need to happen before I can grasp a deeper truth. First, I’m forced to listen. Asking questions, giving the other person an open forum, and stowing the temptation to accuse, belittle; in general doing everything in my power to excuse my jackassery from the table, all come part and parcel to good listening.

Second, I’m forced to ask difficult questions about my own perspective. In the soul of someone who has a deep emotional need to be right, this hurts. Many of us will avoid it, but this is the path of wisdom, and the only trajectory towards truth. It’s also the reason why you won’t see many retractions or admitted mistakes on social media. We don’t do that.

Before we post our next inarguable fact, we’re again compelled to do some homework, to hear from qualified people who’ve done more homework than we’ll ever do, to not only read it, but study it to the point of a deeper-than-normal understaning.

We don’t have to agree with it, but if we can’t defend it, we haven’t understood it.

Unsubstantiated Sensationalism

A friend of mine recently posted a story he’d heard from a friend who works as a nurse. Apparently, a patient who’d been decapitated in an a car accident was coded as a COVID-19 death because he was carrying the disease when he died. My friend followed this story with “See? COVID-19 deaths are woefully miscounted.” The comments section was full of “I knew it!” sorts of things, with only a few people asking for data.

There’s some evidence to support the belief that deaths are miscoded. My state of Colorado recently announced that their count was off by almost 300 cases, one in which a death believed to have been caused by ethanol toxicity was coded COVID-19 because the victim was a carrier.

But there’s a ton more to the story, so much homework to be done if we’re to gain a deeper understanding of this particular issue. If we’re not willing to commit to a deeper curriculum, let’s not post, especially the sensationalist stuff.

YouTube recently pulled a popular video produced by two urgent care owners/practicing docs claiming that, “based on science,” America was overreacting, that this current pandemic is no worse than the flu, and that it’s time to reopen the country. I watched the entire video, found it compelling, and did some fact checking which opened my eyes about the myriad problems associated with our first round of antibody tests.

The video was chock full of misinformation couched as inarguable, obvious truth, and was shared millions of times. YouTube has since inacted a campaign against coronavirus misinformation and has been removing any material found to be non-compliant.

A good-sized cross section of America called “foul!” many leaning heavily towards the “coronavirus is the flu” side of things, ironically, posting ad-nauseum that censorship has been laid on our porch, suggesting that we need to fight back.

But YouTube and other social media outlets operate on private servers. I appreciate the freedom they give me to post my thoughts, but this isn’t an inalienable right. How we came to believe that it is baffles me. Nonetheless, my facebook feed is full of people trying to convince me that this is the beginning of the end of free speech in America!!! simply because an organization seeks to control what happens on their privately owned hardware.

Unsubstantiated sensationalism is lazy, irresponsible, and serves as little more than another wolf-cry that chips away at the bearer’s credibility for some, for others, it drives a deeper wedge between us.

We can’t afford that right now.

Before we post, we need to ask two questions: is it sensationalist, and can we back it up with hard data from qualified sources. Epidemiologists, virologists, biological statisticians, folks who work in the field of infections diseases, etc are all qualified to speak on our current situation. If I want to post something that compares coronavirus to the worst flu epidemic of all time, I’ve got some homework to do.

If we can’t back it up, we shouldn’t post it, regardless of how much it might feel great to do so.

We all have a platform, i.e., a group of people who trust us and listen to what we have to say. We’re also in the middle of a difficult situation, full of anger, finger-pointing, conspiracy theories, and political nonsense all having misinformation at their core.

Flattening this curve is something we can all do, but it will require time, work, and some emotional heavy lifting that doesn’t pair well with Amercian culture.

Currently, I’d rate myself a solid “C” in all of this, with vast room for improvement, hopefully bumping it to a “C+++” in the coming months. We’ll see how it goes. Thanx to the many people who respectfully engage my social media rants, and who challenge me to think beyond my biases, who’ve helped me to become a bit better. You know who you are, because it’s been painful.