It is interesting to note that how a question is framed usually indicates what is desired in the answer. While there are “simple” questions that leave the person responding great latitude, quite often the query severely limits any response to a particular attitude or viewpoint. When this occurs, the “question” can become self-defeating as it no longer seeks an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the issue, but rather, a validation of the questioner’s own solution or answer. Of course, this, as noted, is self-defeating of any attempt to address the matter under discussion. I have noticed that the questions appearing in the three “contests” sponsored by Thinkspot are of this nature. In other words, the question asked, immediately limits the writer’s response to a conclusion desired by the site albeit, it does provide different means of reaching that conclusion. The first contest concerned efforts to deal with “freedom of speech” on various national and international opinion sites regarding certain sensitive subjects. As I looked at it, I realized that the foundational document had already admitted to the need to alter speech in these instances, the only question being asked was how best to go about it! Of course, as an American, the premise itself was wrong. Constitutionally, speech cannot be “altered” or “limited” by virtue of any platform’s “rules.” A platform may choose not to entertain a particular subject. That is its right as a private enterprise. But once the subject is open to debate within the platform, barring personal threats or limitations on obscene or profane language, the platform cannot prevent inclusion of viewpoints that may be considered “offensive” to some of the other participants for that reason. That is what freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is all about! Yet, the contest question obviously entertained the understanding that such censorship was acceptable, the only question being is how best to do it! Thus, I found that even answering the question as it was posed, according to our own legal framework, was wrong and nothing I could do in response would change that. I did note that other countries – as this was an international matter – had different rules and regulations, but as an American, I could not make suggestions on how to thwart the 2nd Amendment! Nevertheless, realizing that I was not responding to the contest question as posed, I sent along my response hoping that at least it would be seen as arising from a different understanding of the question; that is, that the question itself was, as I put it, “questionable.” The second contest presented the subject in a way very similar to the first, that is, “immigration” or mass numbers of people moving across the planet and into countries other than their own without the proper legal barriers established to control such traffic. The question involved how best to do this – another example similar to the question how best to censor speech! In my research of the matter, what was happening was not immigration but invasion and I don’t know of anybody who looks upon an invasion into their homes as something they wish to facilitate! Naturally, I responded accordingly but, in this case, I openly denied the “assumption” presented by the question, pointing out that I did not want to facilitate the destruction of my nation and my culture by people who had neither the legal nor the moral right to do so. Of course, as with my first response, I knew that I had no chance whatsoever of being acceptable to the judges. Again, I did not – indeed could not – respond to the question as asked because, to my mind, it was without legitimacy. I was being asked to respond to things to which there can be no response if one continued within the understanding of the original subject. It was akin to answering questions such as “what is the number of the color blue?” or “in which continent does one find unicorns?” In other words, one had to abandon reality in order to participate, at least with any hope of success. Now we have another contest, and the question here seems to follow the general pattern: What core values should form the foundation of Western democracies, regardless of the political ideology in power? How can these principles be protected to ensure the stability and vitality of democratic systems, especially in the face of reactionary political agendas? These questions are increasingly relevant as many Western nations experience a shift in policy priorities and governance approaches. The first sentence is itself astounding. It speaks of “Western democracies” though they are usually not “democracies” at least as they were conceived. America is supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy but we’ve lost so much understanding of language, I suppose we must allow that word to be used since most people don’t even understand what it means. However, even accepting the word, how can anyone then add, “. . .regardless of the political ideology in power?” You cannot have either a republic or a democracy if the proper “political ideology” is not in power, so what’s the sense in asking what are the “core values” of what doesn’t exist? Now, you can ask that question if you define what type of government is in power, certainly. Look at Communist China and compare that to what once was the United States. True, the two are much closer than they used to be, but at least anyone can see that we have not yet reached the tyranny of Red China! But an even greater evidence of the required response is that magical word, “reactionary” as in “reactionary political agendas.” Gee! Guess what those are! According to the dictionary, the word means a person or a set of views opposing political or social liberalization or reform. It is never a positive word, and it is always used for those who are against the agenda of the left. Nobody speaks of a return to communism as being “reactionary” when it is attempted in previously liberated nations, but anything that stops the liberal agenda anywhere is always termed “reactionary.” The mere fact that this contest uses that word gives me more red flags than a May Day parade in the old Soviet Union! And, like the other “questions,” one must begin one’s acceptable answer with the understanding that what the “question” has provided is the truth, reality, the way things are – as did the other two questions. Therefore, whatever is submitted begins with that understanding and must end with it albeit there will be different “conclusions” within each response. This is counterproductive in that it does not develop the ability of the writer to actually deal with the circumstances in such a way as to produce answers to very serious questions, something I believed that this site encouraged. All of these queries could have been presented in such a way as to allow the participants to look at the matter under discussion and present their understanding of how best to deal with it. For instance, the first question could have asked how best to permit all intelligent and well considered opinions to appear on those platforms that engage in dialogue in the public square rather than how those platforms might censor that speech to make everybody happy about what is being said, a matter that is impossible on its face! The second question might have asked about the involvement of governments in the movement of peoples across the globe, something that is obviously not the sort of displacement that occurs after massive natural and man-made disasters such as wars. What are the motives behind these actions such as “illegal immigrants” being actively moved by the United States government away from the border and into far distant states and cities! Certainly, this isn’t “natural,” so it must have a cause for we all know its effect! Questions determine answers. Polls are useless as indicators of public opinion because usually the questions are targeted to produce certain answers. Of course, it is possible to produce truly revelatory questions, but these only happen when the questioner wants facts and truth rather than a validation of his or her own viewpoint. I shall continue to look at Thinkspot’s contests in hopes of finding one that seeks such a response but so far, alas, I have not found any.
