boxers in red and blue fighting in the ring

BLUE vs. RED: Why is humanity devolving into social warfare when we could just opt for openness and respect?

Last updated: mai 31st, 2020

It doesn’t matter where you stand on COVID, you’re getting labelled nowadays. If you’re on one side, you’re being labelled by the other side. Or if you, like most people, stand somewhere in the middle, there are a growing number on the periphery who are eager to rope you over to their side and slap a label on your back.

People who wear masks are being labelled as ‘living in fear.’ People who stay at home and follow the rules ‘don’t care about their freedom.’ Or, on the other side, people who oppose the lockdown ‘don’t care about people dying.’ People who raise awareness about an alternative point of view to the mainstream’s are denounced as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and mocked.

These are four of the most persistent labels being attached to people now. And they’re all borne out of a lack of respect and an inability to hold a point of view while also respecting someone else’s.

In the blue corner


blue matches

In the blue corner, you have people who abide by all the rules of the lockdown, follow everything the government tells them and are urging others to do the same. They are sheeple who believe everything the government tells them and naively place great trust in the government, institutions and other power brokers. They do not question authority in the least.

The above profile fits a small minority of the population, yet it’s a caricature that the red side likes to paint of anyone who shares even some of these views.

People on the blue side are speaking up about the need to stay at home and follow the rules, so the infection isn’t spread any further. They’re pointing out some very useful facts that we need to think about: health care workers and other essential workers are putting their health on the line to work for us. We owe it to them to reduce their load so that they don’t get sick.

They espouse the notion that we should social distance because it’ll help flatten the curve, take the strain off the health care system and give us all a better chance of survival. They want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

They send out the message that even if you’re immune to COVID or are in a low-risk group, you should still follow the rules. If you get infected, you can pass that infection on to someone in a high-risk group who could then die from it.

The majority also believe that a vaccine is the best solution to this mess, and if one were to become available, they would jump at the chance to take it. They feel a vaccine would be safe and would be the best solution. 

Most people subscribe to at least some of these messages, and most would agree they are useful messages to share. But if they just shared messages like that and stopped there, there wouldn’t be much of a problem. The problem is that many blues disrespect the reds or fail to understand that different people have different values that don’t align with their own.

In the worst cases, they feel that their comfortably held worldview is threatened, so they attack the reds and bluntly label them ‘conspiracy theorists,’ or resort to name-calling.

In the red corner


red matches

In the red corner are paranoid libertarian conspiracy theorists who completely distrust the government and are calling them out for abusing their power. They think the entire COVID thing is a made-up fantasy that powerful interests in society are either orchestrating or taking advantage of for their own gain.

The above extreme again applies to few people, yet it’s a view many people in the blue corner like to ascribe to people with beliefs that differ from their own.

The most common view the red group is trying to espouse is that abuses of power are happening now with COVID, and they’re trying to bring attention to the loss of freedom that could result if we don’t raise our cognizance and take action. They may not have done a lot of research into a topic, and don’t have all the answers, but they feel it’s important enough that they should raise awareness, since we need to put more thought into it.

The beat of their drum has grown louder in recent weeks, as the tech overlords (namely Facebook and Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube) impose censorship on their posts, which so many people in the blue camp are quick to brush off as ‘conspiracy theories.’ They speak up about the dangers of censorship and the negative impact it has on democracy, and the attack on personal freedoms and privacy issues.

Those in the red corner are committed to showing people how we’re living in a power vacuum, where governments have much more power and much less oversight today. Since COVID dominates so much of people’s thinking (and the media), governments believe they can get away with enacting unpopular laws without much opposition, because people can’t even form a protest in lockdown. Similarly, police are abusing their power by fining people thousands of dollars for going jogging, without the courts being open for them to challenge those abuses.

The narrative being told by people on the red side speaks to a number of truths that lie hidden in what’s called ‘conspiracy theory.’ It can be helpful to share this knowledge and stay aware of what’s going on, so we don’t let powerful interests grab more and more power while we’re confined to our homes and powerless to protest.

Caught in the middle


thai kick boxers kneeling in the middle of the ring

The reality is that most people stand somewhere in the middle of the ring—mostly law-abiding citizens who are following the rules of the lockdown by staying inside and wearing masks where necessary. They don’t stay inside because they enjoy pissing away their freedom. And they don’t wear masks because they are scared … they do these things because they feel they’re the right things to do.

At the same time, they don’t fully trust the government or other powerful interests, because they’ve seen too many abuses of power to believe everything they’re told. Or perhaps they’ve read something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but they just don’t have the time or care enough to research it further. However, they keep an open mind to the possibility of it being the truth.

What’s being lost by many today is the fact that people have differing views. Yet, there are also people firmly planted on one side who totally see the validity of the other side and respect it.

Polarization begets more polarization


boxer in red in his corner, holding his head

The problem is that our society has been marching towards opposite poles for so many years now, that when an issue comes up that’s particularly divisive—such as COVID—people are quick to think that if you wear a mask, you must be living in fear, don’t care about your freedom and want the government to take care of you with their new vaccine. Or the polar opposite, that if you don’t want to get vaccinated (if a vaccine even comes available), you’re a conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer who doesn’t have any trust in the government.

If you’re in one camp, you have to think everything people in that camp think. That’s false reasoning, as only a small number of people subscribe to all the thoughts of whatever camp they consider themselves to be in.

Extreme thinking has been growing in recent years, as we become a more divided society. Where in the past, there was one person in each camp and 98 in between, now there are five in each camp and 90 in between. And those 10 are emboldened as their numbers grow. As they gain more numbers, they grow louder and suck more of the middle onto their side. They’re quick to disrespect others’ views, and they’re growing less tolerant of any views that aren’t their own, to the point at which they’ll disrespect others and resort to name-calling.

What we end up with is a society that just keeps on growing its polar opposites and has a shrinking middle. A society that’s quick to adopt a warfare mentality of ‘us vs. them.’

Questioning with openness and respect


boxers in middle of ring with referee

What we need is a lot more respect and a lot more openness. If someone chooses to wear a mask or stand 2 metres away, we need to respect that. We can’t encroach on their space while thinking that by doing so, it’ll make them believe this is all a made-up fantasy and that they’ll be safe to go maskless.

And the opposite: if someone chooses NOT to wear a mask, we need to respect that, too. As long as they’re maintaining their distance and practicing basic courtesies like not sneezing or coughing on people, they should have the freedom not to wear a mask.

It has been a common sight during the lockdown to see people scream at others for not wearing a mask, but for what? No one can prove definitively that they’re infected, and even if they were, the chances of them passing the virus on by not wearing a mask are slim (assuming they’re practicing basic courtesy, of course).

Whenever anyone ventures outside, they immediately assume the risk of being in public: the chance of getting hit by a car, robbed at gunpoint or struck by lightning. Post-COVID, that risk now includes the threat of picking up the virus.

If someone chooses to believe the mainstream narrative and place full trust in their institutions and power brokers, then so be it. That’s their choice and that should be respected. At the same time, people who choose to believe in an alternative viewpoint are allowed to, and that should also be respected.

Unless someone can prove for certain that the government and those who wield power in this world do ne have their best interests in mind, or that they voulons indeed have their best interests in mind, this will remain a contested point.

In defense of their belief in the goodness of government, people in the blue corner could argue that most democratic governments provide well enough for society’s needs and that, for the most part, their citizens live good lives. They could also say that since we elect our governments to conceivably represent our interests, we determine our own fate (or, if choosing not to vote, we at least pouvions vote). They could argue that other powerful interests in society (like Facebook and Google) provide a lot of good to society, and that they provide that good as a result of the network effect, which necessitates a concentration of power in their hands.

On the opposite side of the ring, team red could point out that there are great inequalities of power and wealth (even in democratic societies) that have corrupted society, and that it’s not good enough to just have things running ‘well enough.’ Legitimate abuses of power are happening, and as power concentrates more in the hands of the few, those abuses of power are growing. No one can prove that they’re wrong for questioning the status quo, because these abuses are happening.

If they choose to believe in conspiracy theories, it would be folly to discount their point of view, because history has proven that many conspiracy ‘theories’ turn out to be fact (here are just 28 conspiracy facts). Just because something is a theory today, doesn’t mean it couldn’t become fact tomorrow. Or even if it’s an unprovable theory, it could become a generally accepted one—like the theory of evolution. It’s important to expose these theories for the good of society, so that we become aware and don’t let abuses of power happen in the future.

If someone is spreading fake news, then that should be questioned. Just the same on the other side: if someone spreads the latest report from the government or another source that spreads the ‘official’ news about COVID as truth, yet there’s no way to prove it’s true, then that too needs to be questioned.

Embrace differences


blue and red boxing gloves

We must question everything. A strong and healthy democracy is built on strong and healthy debate. Just as we need opposition parties in government to keep power from corroding, the same can be said for the media and society at large.

With that privilege comes the responsibility to show respect. A lack of respect leads people to shut down or view the other as an enemy, and this only leads to more disrespect. Between confirmation bias (being more open to believing things that confirm your beliefs) and cognitive dissonance (opposing something because it’s uncomfortable to believe it), our minds have mechanisms to filter our world that make it easier for us to go about our day. We have to be aware of that. And if we can’t, it’s also fine to just keep silent. There’s no need to speak up about everything and try to stay informed on everything. It’s just not possible.

A well-informed society that’s open to ideas on all sides of the spectrum isn’t just kinder and more harmonious, it’s a wise society that will progress. Our differences of opinion are just that—differences. From black to white, we come in as many shades and colours as there are people on this planet.

From liberal to conservative, political affiliation is more about picking and choosing what to believe based on each issue. From introvert to extrovert, we have a variety of personalities, but most of us fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

We’re all different and that’s what makes the world interesting. Let’s try embracing that for a change.

«LECTURE CONNEXE» Au-delà de l'individu: méditation sur la liberté en temps de Covid»


image 1 Pexels 2 image: Pixabay 3 image: Pixabay 4 Pexels 5 image: Pixabay 6 Pexels 7 image: Pixabay

  1. Dear Kiva,
    I think there’s a difference between “believing the government” and having a general trust of trained epidemiologists. I have a great respect for that science, which has eliminated smallpox from the entire world, and considerably increased the average human lifespan (just about everywhere, I think. See Dr. Larry Brilliant’s great book, SOMETIMES BRILLIANT, about his participation in the elimination of smallpox in India.) There are epidemiologists, who for the most part appear to me to speak with one voice; and there is the President, who countermands his scientific advisors AND the recommendations made in his own name just a day before, for reasons no one is sure of, except that they look like attempts to appeal shore up his political base.

    When I see people bring assault rifles to a state capital, I too am concerned, but I don’t know how to bring the two sides together. One side seems to wear defiance as a badge. The other side, to me appears basically reasonable. I don’t see an equivalency. This may simply reveal my own blind spot, but if so that blind spot is very deeply unconscious. I regularly try to root out my own blind spots, but human blind spots seem notoriously stubborn.

    Any society is based on a social contract involving certain agreements. I hear “red” folks (it’s interesting how the epithet “Red” has changed 180 degrees in it object, over the past few decades!) talk about Freedom , “Don’t Tread On Me,” etc, in ways that don’t acknowledge that these social contracts ALWAYS involve the giving up of absolute freedom for the good of the social whole. The most famous example of the curtailment of absolute freedom, of course, is that given by Justice Holmes in a Supreme Court case in (so I just read) 1917, when Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

    I am with you, Kiva, in feeling dismayed at the current predicament. With Fox News, at least in America, broadcasting a different “reality” than what many call the “mainstream news,” sources that I find thoughtful and investigative and at times not averse even to exposing wrong on “their own” side. I honestly do not know what to do about the polarization, other than pray and try to practice kindness as much as I can.

    I’ve seen Van Jones, on CNN, work with groups with totally divergent viewpoints in discussions. I don’t see too many other people doing that successfully. It’s an interesting thing: one might also prescribe “racial tolerance education groups” for Americans.

    PS: I clicked on the “29 conspiracy facts” link. Is it linked to the right page? I didn’t see any headline about conspiracy facts. It was hard for me to tell what was there…a whole bunch of thumbnail pictures and small headlines, basically, mostly from Indian newspapers, I can try again, but it was a bit hard for me to make sense of.

    1. I know what you mean about blind spots. You have them, I have them, everyone has them, and all our blind spots combined contributes to all this divisiveness. I don’t expect huge victories tackling divisiveness since it’s such a deeply ingrained problem in society, but judging by the way things are looking it’s been getting a lot worse in recent years so I think we all need to double down our efforts.

      I agree with what you said about the social contract being in favour of the whole. More people need to realize that. I think the difficulty in this situation is that to a lot of people the good of the whole means caring more about freedom, being able to work, earn money, etc. than contracting this virus… so it’s a lot more complicated than the freedom of speech example you gave.

      You mention: “When I see people bring assault rifles to a state capital, I too am concerned, but I don’t know how to bring the two sides together. One side seems to wear defiance as a badge. The other side, to me appears basically reasonable.”

      Is the other side really “reasonable”? You wrote in your Safeway article about a woman shouting at you for standing too close? I’ve heard of numerous instances of people getting screamed at for riding their bike or going out for a hike in nature. What’s the harm in that? There’s a hysteria going on on both sides.

      btw about the link, it’s been fixed. So you can take a look.

  2. Thanks, Kiva, for the civil reply. Nothing wrong with going out for a hike in Nature or riding your bike for sure. OK, now I go read about the conspiracy theories that are true. I tend to pride myself on rejecting conspiracy theories in favor of an “Occam’s Razor” principle, which I think means the simplest explanation is most likely the true one. Maybe I’ll learn something, the way I learned at my wife’s urging to change a few habits one by one, carefully, for the sake of domestic harmony! (Proud that I’ve seen myself change even in these small ways…).

    1. I’d never heard of Occam’s Razor but just checked it out. Personally, I think that approach makes sense in some ways, in some ways not because some things are more complex than others and so it would be unlikely they have a simple answer. e.g. politics, especially international relations, is terribly complex when you look at all the details.

  3. My personal experience is that, while I don’t deny that the virus is a real threat to a lot of people, and I don’t think it’s some sort of hoax, some people have interpreted the stay-at-home orders/state of emergency/etc. in extremely black-and-white, literal terms and attempted to force these interpretations on others. For instance, I’ve lost count of how many people I talked to who said you can’t go outside, and you’ll get ‘in trouble’ if you go and get your groceries or pharmaceuticals more than once a week (as if they could keep track of that!). Fortunately, this attitude is shifting as reopening starts and people start to realize that going outdoors (with distancing) is not at all harmful. The former attitude was extremely frustrating, especially in an area that has had very few active cases, minus some early outbreaks in senior’s homes (and what citizens in the community did was irrelevant to that; our provincial government had already failed those seniors). Our cases in Ontario seem to be concentrated in a few hotspots (and some health units are down to 0, my region of Lanark East is currently at two active cases) while the rest of the province sits around waiting for the government to make a decision.

    1. I know what you mean about the govt imposing rules on a whole province when certain regions are not experiencing much infection. That’s one of the problems with centralized government. We’re dealing with the same thing here where I live. It’s a rural area with few people and few infections yet because of the big city in the province having a decent number of infections (not even that many), which is an hour away, they’re holding everyone in the province back from deescalating the lockdown. Luckily, at this point things are turning around and things are getting back to normal.

      1. I’m glad things are turning around in your area. We only had 192 cases today, instead of the usual 300 or so, so it looks like things may be getting better overall here, too (415 cases were reported, but 200-some were delayed from another day). The government is keeping us in the dark about whether the reopening will be regional until next week, though. This Ontario PC government seems very slow to act and isn’t very transparent, except about numbers.

  4. Now all the effects of George Floyd’s murder are making it clearer to me that, as even retired Generals feel duty-bound to speak out about the danger ,the US is crossing the line into aspects of dictatorship. Our federal government’s response to the coronavirus is not militarized like its response to the murder…but it has been fraught with denial and chaos from the start. In this case a certain amount of “militarization” would have helped! The US military is the perfect agency for transporting supplies that in actuality never even got manufactured, because Trump refused to lead.

    In some cases there may be too much federal government. That’s a complex matter. But the 50-states-competing model, with that competition driving up price, is simply the absence of federal leadership.

    Regarding the effects of opening the US., The Arizona state epidemiologist, I think it was, said yesterday that the state’s numbers are rising again, enough that more containment action is again needed. I’d be very surprised if this whole thing is anywhere near “over.”.

    In my region of my state, we also had lockdown without accompanying big numbers of infection, but my wife and I happily complied. I had read this famous parable about a chessboard once:

    “A king wants to reward a subject who has served him well for a long time. He brings the subject before him and says, “Ask me for anything…anything, and it will be yours!” The servant says, “Your Highness, this is so kind of you. Being a humble man, I ask only for this.” The servant pointed to the King’s chessboard, which was nearby, and continued, “I ask only for one piece of grain for the first square on the chessboard, two for the 2nd square; and keep doubling the number, every square after that, for all 64 squares.” The KIng said, “Oh, my dear servant, surely you can think of something more dear! I said I’ll give you ANYTHING!” The servant shook his head and said, “No, my Lord, that is all I want.”

    Well, the King ordered his people to fulfill the servant’s wish, a day at a time…and by the time they got to the last chessboard (2 to the 64th power)…they told the incredulous ruler, “Sir, there is not enough grain in the Kingdom to satisfy this man’s wish!”

    It shows what one is dealing with in any situation where possible increase becomes exponential. The coronavirus is more or less like that. It’s possible things are actually winding down, but I’m not ready to bet on it. Time will tell.

  5. Oops! My wife just told me that she read an article about some of the rural California counties that have opened ahead of schedule. Dire predictions have not come true! She reminds me that these matters are extremely nuanced, If the opening is done properly, maybe it works! Let’s hope so!

    1. I feel like the exponential growth isn’t as much of a problem in rural areas, since people can be kept rather spread out. I have to admit, my area’s low infection rate may have more to do with the population density than our adherence to the shutdown. Toronto citizens very well could’ve aimed to follow the rules just as nicely (minus the people in Trinity Bellwoods park a couple of weeks back :P), but perhaps they just couldn’t avoid getting crammed into crowded spaces.

  6. Here in Spain they’ve been easing the lockdown for a few weeks now and the numbers of cases and deaths keep dropping. There have actually been zero or maybe one or two deaths a day in recent days with maybe 100-200 cases a day. Far less than the thousands a day (even when we were in lockdown).

    I think the warm weather has a lot to do with it. The virus doesn’t spread nearly as much outdoors as indoors and now people are outdoors more so even if they cough or sneeze it likely won’t affect others since the germs get blown away instead of recirculating indoors. There’s also less likelihood of people touching the same place where a particle landed.

    But we don’t really know how things will turn out. It’s possible there will be a big second wave of infections and a third like what happened with the Spanish flu in 1918.

    The good news is that the deescalation of the lockdown seems to be working overall so it’s good to continue deescalating it and getting back to a “new normal” life as long as we take reasonable precautions.

    1. Yeah, I agree about the outdoors and the warm weather. Cases seem to be either holding steady or dropping here, no matter what’s opened. I recently read a novel about the Spanish flu (As Bright as Heaven by Susan Mercier), and it was interesting to see the contrast between that pandemic and this one. I hope if there are second and third waves, they’re only isolated, smaller outbreaks.

      1. Sounds like an interesting book. Maybe I’ll get a chance to read it. From what I’ve heard of the 1918 flu it sounded way worse than this. Funny that it got named Spanish Flu even though it didn’t start in Spain.

        1. I think it was worse, but I think some of our politicians thought this one was going to turn out that badly. One thing I noticed is that they realized that they had to wear face coverings back then, but they didn’t shut many of the businesses, mostly schools. One character came back to find about half of her class dead at the end of the epidemic (or pandemic?).

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *