ne of the most riveting lessons to be learnt from the fact that, in prison, many heterosexual men regularly seek to receive oral sex from men or to have the active role in anal sex with men is that most of us can become used to just about anything given that we find ourselves in circumstances favorable to the behavior in question.  Indeed, inmates who regularly penetrates other men for sexual relief is apt to think it obvious that any man who does not fight not to the death to avoid anal penetration is a faggot.  As to what on earth this observation has to do with hatred and the internet, I shall explain in what follows. 

For what it is worth, I believe that democracy can survive only insofar as it veers towards the truth.  And while the American democracy once did that with great majesty, I no longer think this is the case.

It is I believe a striking feature of politics in America that politics have become increasingly about cultivating an attitude of hatred towards those with whom we disagree.  We as a nation have increasingly become accustomed to invoking and hearing the language of hatred in reference to others.  This, I maintain, is bringing about a shift in our moral sensibilities.  And therein lies the relevance to the initial remarks about straight men having gay sex in prison.  I gather that the average heterosexual who ends up prison does not suddenly think that gay sex is a good thing.  Rather, as Thomas Nagel observed in his essay “Sexual Perversion,” things have to get pretty bad before we opt for no sex at all.  Prisoners negotiate with that reality. 

Every time I recall that Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee both admired one another although they fought on opposing sides of the Civil War, I am pained about how numb our moral sensibilities have become when I consider the rhetoric of today’s political differences.  Both Liberals and Conservatives are at fault here.

A Liberal might refer to someone as a “moral callous bastard who would sell his own mother for profit”.  Conservatives have referred to abortion as America’s holocaust.  In either case, there is very little room to think well of the person so characterized.  Perhaps no one believes this sort of thing at heart.  That, however, does not change the fact that we have become used to employing that sort of language in the way we characterize those with whom we disagree.  And if we have become used to it, then it follows that we have become numb to just how inappropriate such characterizations are.

But how does the technology come into play in all of this?  The answer, quite simply, is that technology has made it possible for human beings to be extremely manipulative in their presentation of things.  In particular, technology has made it possible to invoke rather visceral emotions with all sorts of images.  It almost does not matter what the context might be.  An example of this is seeing images of Muslim women being fired upon.  It almost becomes irrelevant that the women are protecting Muslim men who are prepared to commit quite atrocious acts.  Indeed, it becomes irrelevant that the very scene of the Muslim women surrounding the mosque is staged in order to shock the sensibilities of the Western viewer. 

So, while it may be true that technology has made more information available than ever before, it is also case that now, more than ever before, our assessments are increasingly based upon mere feelings rather than reasoned reflections.  Indeed, where we ought to be angry for being misled by images, it seems to me that we are increasingly unable to see that we are being misled by the images. 

Increasingly, then, our assessments of events are more consistent with the images that we behold or the sound-bites that we hear (even when those images and sound-bites are misleading) than with the facts that actually pertain to the matter.  This truth gives political opponents a reason to be more concerned with images and sound-bites than truth.  This truth makes it the case that invoking feelings of hatred towards one’s opponent is increasingly a rational strategy to employ even when the facts do not in any way warrant that assessment.

Kant rightly observed that the capacity for rational reflection marks the difference between human beings and other species.  But what is manifestly false is that most human beings can fully realize that capacity in the absence of a social environment that is conducive to rational reflection.  We are quintessential social creatures; and what that means is that most of us are profoundly influenced by the character of our social environment.  That is what the case of prison gays sex shows ever so profoundly.  The example is telling precisely because sexual preference seems so very inexorable.  In prison, the active/passive distinction does work in terms of whether one is gay or straight; yet, on the outside the active/passive distinction seems to have no relevance whatsoever. 

Lies repeated in the “right way” and at the “right time” can in fact become accepted as truths.  And nothing has facilitated repeating lies in the “right way” and at the “right time” like technology. 

The issue, of course, is not whether there have always been evil people around, prepared to do whatever it takes in order to have power.  We know that this is true.  Rather, the issue is whether technology has facilitated being evil in ways that have, as it were, outpaced our humanity.  I believe that it has. 

One the one hand, technology has escalated the language of hatred by making the manipulation of images and sound-bites very easy to do.  On the other, people have become numb to the language of hatred as a result of being constantly exposed to these forms of manipulation.  In particular, it is increasingly the case that, notwithstanding the wealth of information now available, people think more with their feelings than ever. 

This brings me back to the point of veering towards the truth.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a formal correlation between feelings and truth.  And Americans have become a nation of people that privileges feelings over truth.  So in the oddest of ways, we now legitimate hatred.  Indeed, we are no longer united by the truths that we hold to be unshakable but simply by the feelings that we share.  Accordingly, it is not what another says, but how we feel towards that individual.

If this is right, then a most surprising conclusion is that at this point in time a person of Adolph Hitler’s ilk would more likely experience greater success in America than an individual of Winston Churchill’s personage.  Hitler preyed upon the weaknesses of a nation; Churchill called a nation to greatness.  Hitler played upon the feelings of the average citizen of Nazi Germany.  Churchill asked a nation to rise above its feelings. 

Are we better off?  You tell me.  A nation whose citizens have become so numb that the language of hatred is an on-going part of the daily experience of their lives is, no matter who is hating whom, a nation that will surely perish in the fulness of time.