Can we please stop assuming bad motives?

If you support keeping the economy locked down, you do not care about people who are losing everything and going to food banks. You do not care about “deaths of despair” like alcoholism, suicide and addiction. You will willingly wreck people’s lives because you feel scared.

If you support ending the lockdowns, you are a reckless, greedy monster who does not care if people die. You are willing to let vulnerable people suffer and die for the sake of your stock portfolio or because you want a haircut. No matter which side you take, you are a monster.

Or such is the debate we see not only in the wild and unruly realm of social media, but among politicians and “informed” media pundits who really ought to know better.

People, knock it off. These policy debates are very complex. Yes, there are always bad actors in any debate over public policy. Those people should be called out and shamed. But for the most part, the people making arguments for keeping or lifting the lockdowns are not people who are acting out of nefarious motives or seeking to implement the New World Order.

To some extent, the angry accusations one side have been driven by angry accusations from the other side. When you accuse someone of wanting to kill people, you are shutting down any chance of a rational discussion. The same goes for saying someone laughs at the economically destitute. We could have a debate in a constitutional republic over whether the lockdowns should be lifted or extended, but instead we have resorted to name-calling, taunts and insults.

This could have been a time for national unity. It is sad that we have squandered that opportunity because it is easier to just scream at each other and assume the worst of each other.

Comment on Facebook.