Controversy

The word 'controversy' comes from the contraction of the latin words 'contra' meaning against, and 'vertere' meaning turn, the literal meaning is therefore 'to turn against' or in a more figurative manner, to go off script.  Given this definition it is quite ironic that we live in a time where controversy is abhorred so greatly and that defence of the status quo is met with derogatory terms for being liberal as by definition defending the status quo is in fact an act of conservation. 

I've been thinking about this a lot and the more I think about it the more it makes sense.  At first you might protest the idea that those who call themselves conservative are actually liberal and those who call themselves liberal are actually conservative but take a step back and look at the ideological conflict that exists and certain things become apparent.  It is often said that those who protest the most often protest that which they hate about themselves but cannot admit to - for example homophobic people tend to be repressing homosexual desires.  A number of academic studies have been conducted testing this hypothesis with results that for the most part confirm this assertion.

When you venture into the realm of politics you are met with the same intense disdain for labels that individuals do not identify with being imposed upon them.  There is something to be said here about whether those labels would be so irritable if they had no basis in truth.  The most vehement objections I see in political discourse comes from individuals who protest a label which in reality fits quite well and vice versa from those who identify with a label that in reality does not fit them at all.  I've written before about the nature of labels and how they really only serve a purpose for us to guide the expectations of others, that they have little to no purpose when it comes to defining ourselves.  It is for this reason I don't personally care what people label me as because those labels determine where they put me in their internal filing system not how I identify myself.

The idea of controversy however in and of itself is inherently liberal because it represents the freedom to diverge from the prevailing discourse, conversely, the idea of zero tolerance to controversy is in and of itself inherently conservative because it defends the status quo to dogmatic proportions.  Yet, it is conservative media outlets who purport most controversial news and information or misinformation or disinformation delete as appropriate depending on your ideology.  Those media outlets that seek to keep things the way they are and promote the status quo and present government's version of events are labelled liberal by those media outlets.

This is of course all subjective because I haven't named a single media outlet above and I can tell you that I can name 1 of each above and identify individuals who would agree with my assessment, but then I can swap these media outlets around and I can also identify different individuals who would agree with that combination instead, the point here being that despite what we believe to be an objective point of view and an accurate assessment of the bias inherent and political ideology of an organisation, there will be others who will hold opposing views with the same determination.

How then you determine empirically which ideology they actually identify with?  The key word here is "identify" and the point that needs to be made here is that "alignment" and "identity" are not the same thing.  Alignment is objective and identity is subjective because the former is determined through a methodology whereas the latter is based on our perception of our self and the conclusions we draw.  With this in mind to return once more to the idea of controversy, relative labels are defined by consensus, whatever the consensus believes determines their definition, not the individual.  The ultimate take away here is that you should not shy away from controversy simply because it goes against the majority, you should evaluate it for yourself you might find that the definitions the majority use vary wildly from your own and those idea might not be controversial to you at all.

The horde mentality of humanity has been around for millennia, arguably it is the reason society and civilisation emerged to begin with, but if we all did the same thing, act the same way, and thought the same thoughts then we would have never moved forward as a race, we would have stayed in the same place and never advanced.  Progress by its very definition must move beyond what already exists, progress by definition has to be controversial, you are going to have to disagree with people at some point.