Keep an Open Mind

One of the things I’ve always prided myself on (apart from my dashing good looks, razor sharp wit, and gargantuan genitalia) is that I have an open mind. As I sat and snorted in contempt at the shower of curtain-twitching cockwasps who quake in fear as they read the latest “Be AFRAID!” headline in the Daily Mail, I felt the warm fuzzy feeling of the self-righteous; I wasn’t infected with prejudices that only exist to sell papers and elect governments. I made up my own mind, and did so with as little bias as possible.

Unfortunately, like most of things I’ve prided myself on over time, this has turned out to be gold-plated horseshit. Turns out that my mind is just as cluttered with prejudice, petty dislike, and entrenched hatreds as any blue rinsed battleaxe.

How did I reach this conclusion? Well, it was all thanks to the Austrian government. A couple of months ago, David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison for Holocaust denial, a crime in Austria (for obvious reasons really; having gifted both Adolf Hitler AND “Rock me Amadeus” to the universe, perhaps Austria feels they owe the world an apology). And my instant and unguarded reaction? I laughed. Just a little chuckle at first, but soon deepening into the kind of rich belly laugh that I reserve for headlines such as “Gary Glitter faces death sentence” or “Dubya repeatedly smashed in the face with a shovel”.

My next move was typical of news-obsessed nerds such as myself; I logged onto the Internet, went to a discussion board, and looked for other smug, counter-culture wannabes such as myself to share in my gloating. The reaction I actually got puzzled me.

Most people felt that the sentence was an utter disgrace. The idea of jailing a “prominent historian” simply for speaking his mind was akin to something from the very dictatorship Irving acts as apologist for. Not only that, but the law that jailed him was itself disgraceful and unnecessary. And even if he does believe that the holocaust never happened, so what? It’s his opinion, and where is the problem in that.

Now normally, when I get into an argument with someone over the Internet, I remember that wise adage “Arguing over the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you’re still retarded”. In other words, I don’t take it too seriously. On this occasion though, I found myself having to go for a walk to calm down. I was furious with these people. The arguments they used about free speech were the very same arguments I’d seen applied to everyone from academics in the US (many of whom face the prospect of losing their job if they dare even imply any criticism of US foreign policy), to that odious orange arsehole Kilroy.

Anyway, once I’d calmed down, I started to ask myself a few questions. Principle among these was “Why have you just lost your temper at some words on a computer screen?” And after some discussion with the people whom I disagreed with, the answer seemed to be “Because you know more about Irving’s history than these people”. My perception of him is that he’s an unpleasant nazi who has spent his life constructing a transparent tissue of lies (that the holocaust never happened, and that Nazi Germany was a fluffy and lovely place where kittens and puppies lived an idyllic lifestyle) and passing it off as “History”. He also tried to sue an author who called him an anti-Semitic holocaust denier. He lost (I laughed then too).

Anyway, this didn’t seem to be common knowledge among those I was arguing with. And after I’d explained this…well, I’d love to say everyone bowed before my superior knowledge and offered me their firstborn children by way of an apology for having dared to disagree with me. This didn’t happen. In fact, one chap castigated me for “not having an open mind”. He then bragged about how he didn’t view the extreme right with hatred and fear, merely seeing them as people with their own opinions. Moreover, he boasted about how he, unlike me, had “a truly open mind”.

It was then that it hit me just how much of an annoying twerp I must’ve been whenever I made the same boast that this 6th form wonder had made. He obviously viewed “having an open mind” as meaning “accepting everything without judgement”. And there is no way, no way whatsoever, that I could claim that about myself. I had the opinions I expressed about Irving because of the prior knowledge I claimed. Therefore, there was no way I was going to view his imprisonment with an open mind; I was prejudiced in my opinion.

It seems to me that to have a mind as open as this gentleman claimed requires an almost Zen level of disinterest in the world around you. I’ve never failed to be moved by injustice, human suffering, and pictures of small animals. But on closer analysis, these things evoke a response in me because I despise the injustice that seems to permeate every level of human society. I abhor the fact that people suffer pain and depredation around the world. And I think small beasts are simply adorable (shut up). And I have all of these responses due to having made judgements on them.

It’s simply not possible to keep an open mind in all circumstances. And if you do, then you’re denying yourself that most human of things; an opinion. If one gathers information but has no opinion on it…well, what’s point of that? Isn’t that just dullardry of the first order? Imagine a conversation with him?

“Did you see this on the news?”
‘Yeah, saw it last night.’
“Shocking innit? I dunno how they can…”
‘Actually, I have no opinion on it.’
“Oh…well, what about the footba…”
‘No opinion on it.’
“Erm…how about the…”
‘NO OPINION!”

As a side note, I would say the chap was kidding himself; the fact that he castigated me for my opinions shows that his mind wasn’t as open as he would like everyone to believe, but I digress.

So what is the difference, then, between my opinions concerning nazi fuckwhales, and the opinions of a rabid bigot who want every tanned person in the UK to be dumped in the North Sea? Well…obviously I’m going to say that the difference is that I’m right, and the Daily Mail reading public is wrong. But then, I’m sure they’d say the same. Although my opinions differ from those of the blue-rinsed right, I can no longer use the excuse of open-mindedness to differentiate myself from them. On balance, I think that’s a good thing; for the reasons I’ve explained, although open-mindedness is an admirable quality I no longer feel that complete open-mindedness is either possible or desirable. Which means whenever I get into debates in the future, I’m actually going to need to work on cogent arguments to rebut right-wing arguments, instead of relying on my own righteousness.

And lets face it; anything that makes me less smug has to be a good thing.