Exchange of words in public space

This is the topic of discussion. The content expresses the author’s opinion and position.

Of course we have to put up with something, those of us who get our heads out, whether it be elected representatives or professional representatives in the public sphere. For my part, I’ve heard how futile and wasteful it is to fight for what the population wants, both in terms of hospitals, skewed distribution and territorial boundaries, just to take a few examples. To take some of the cutest versions:

– Our fault is that we do not go to Nordmøre more, and we have to fight more for our causes.

– You have to understand that there is nothing better in Trondelag, they fight just as hard there.

Now you have to stop worrying about hospitals, it was Nordmore who wanted a community hospital.

And now at the end of this year’s election campaign, she has faced accusations of both lies and “blinding,” reproducing actual events that can be documented in both protocols and the edited media.

The interesting thing about the comments I made here is not that they are particularly ugly. far from. What is interesting about these comments is that this is what politicians and people who express themselves by virtue of their positions and positions can say. People who “should know better”. Thus people who “should know better” encourage elected officials to fight rather than argue objectively and gather the majority for the greater good. People who “should know better” believe that residents should be reassured that we risk losing our hospital in Nordmoor because someone perhaps “should know better” once chose a stillbirth strategy without asking residents what they wanted. Now I see that people who “should know better” mean that “ordinary people” should think the way they communicate in public discourse.

Of course, it is not acceptable for someone to send private harassing messages to people they disagree with. of course not. Let’s all be clear: It’s not okay to harass someone, for whatever reason, and it’s not okay to send spam private messages to anyone. like that. But there is public discourse permission. It is something other than private messaging, and we like to take care of public discourse in an open and democratic society where we place great emphasis on freedom of expression. is not it? We must, of course, think about the way we express ourselves. We must be realistic and accountable. We must differentiate between the person and the case. But as long as we do so, as many people as possible participate in the general exchange of good, not evil.

Something happens to society when you experience adversity over time, when you don’t arrive objectively, when you are left feeling left out, that you mean nothing.

If we want to take the challenges of our society seriously, we must address the causes of the problems. There is no point in trying to eliminate the symptoms if we do not treat the real problem. If we silence the public debate going on in the public domain without doing anything about what people are concerned about, we are not removing the problem, nor are we removing the discussion. We just hide it. What happens to the climate debate then? If what has been said is invisible, and therefore not open to correction from the outside either?

It is an opportunity that we should fear more than what is actually said in public. For what has been said in the public domain, we at least know it, and can to some extent defend ourselves against it. But accusations that are repeated outside the public sphere are difficult to protect us from.

Then I think it is far worse for those who “should know better” to spend all their weight on getting past “ordinary people”, because those who “should know better” hate debate. We all benefit from the fact that the discussion is conducted in an appropriate manner, but if we want to clean up the format of the debate, it is important that we do not crush the discussion with the same slander. Then we are on the wild roads.