sol·ip·sism
/ˈsäləpˌsizəm/
noun
- the quality of being very self-centered or selfish.
- (philosophy) the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. (Oxford English Dictionary)
As language evolved to accommodate the superficial demands of hot takes, solipsism stopped existing as a philosophical term and became a personality trait.
If you think I sound harsh … try sitting with it. Think for a moment that just maybe your idealist views — that conveniently don’t make room for fact — hold no weight outside of your inner monologue.
Everyone embeds their lives with a million little opinions — about AI, vaccines, gun control, even your haircut — yet somehow it’s become socially acceptable to debate without any real evidence or thought behind your argument. I know we all hate doing our homework, but don’t be loud if you’re going to be wrong.
In today’s social media obsessed society, we’re simultaneously drowning in a torrent of opinions and craving a deeper understanding of the topics themselves. The ideology that we would somehow be better off if we upheld respect for all opinions disregards the vital need for evidence and fact.
My point is this: not every thought deserves a microphone and spotlight.
I’m not saying it isn’t important to have an opinion. Opinions define every layer of your being — from your favorite color to your values.
The problem is uninformed opinions. An uninformed opinion is a verdict you’ve attained without the effort or crucial knowledge required to actually understand the issue. When someone’s self-reliance replaces analytics and voicing an opinion seems more important to them than seeking knowledge on whether it’s true, that opinion should no longer be regarded as relevant.
Expressing an opinion without profound understanding and proper research won’t just risk the spread of misinformation, but could also potentially distort or oversimplify a more intricate issue.
For instance, since the immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota, “Operation Metro Surge,” began, numerous fatal shootings have taken place against local residents of Minneapolis, including the death of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
These reoccurring shootings have sparked debate surrounding the extent to which intimidation is abused in relation to circumstance. Due to certain bias, the events have had conflicting reports across local and national media sources. While some emphasize unrestrained force, others argue that the victims were deemed as a threat. This exposes how making claims without evidence and context can mislead the general population, causing unwarranted discourse and a distortion of fact.
This is clearly represented when reviewing how the death of Renee Good was reported on opposite sides of the political spectrum. According to “Safety Consultant to Newsmax: ‘Tires Spinning’ as Good’s SUV Aims ICE officer” which was produced on Newsmax, a political far-right publication:
“Berez said on Newsmax’s ‘America Right Now’ that the video of the deadly Minneapolis encounter ending in the death of ICE agitator Good shows her vehicle accelerating directly toward ICE officer Jonathan Ross, not easing away from the scene. Berez described officers issuing repeated, clear commands for the driver to stop and exit, then pointed to the vehicle’s position as officers clustered around the driver’s side.”
There is an evident contrast between how Newsmax reported on this event in comparison to how the far-left publication Mother Jones described it. The article “ICE Violence Is Fueled by Misogyny and White Nationalism” states:
“This is how men who cannot tolerate a woman’s disrespect put her in her place: with violence or the threat of it. The shootings of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent and Alex Pretti by CBP agents — coming on the heels of numerous deaths of ICE detainees in recent months — are a predictable outcome of the institutional norms and social hierarchies the administration is valorizing.”
These conflicting reports prove the importance of thorough, unbiased research prior to coming to a conclusion. Before standing firm behind an opinion, taking the time to analyze the situation and educate yourself develops a view that surpasses sheer feelings. It explains the process of how and why you came to the conclusion you did, which is arguably more important than the opinion itself.
Possibly the most essential (yet difficult) part of informing yourself on a topic is the willingness to change your mind. Evidence doesn’t follow an opinion, it shapes it. Having the flexibility to reevaluate your perspective gives power to your voice. Ignorance makes or breaks the clarity of your point.
Oftentimes, however, the loudest opinions don’t require thorough research — they are derived from taste. These subjective opinions, which crave the brightest spotlight, are undeniably even more overrated.
Since the announcement that Bad Bunny would be the headline performer for this year’s Super Bowl, there’s been an uproar over differentiating opinions.
On the popular social media app Reddit, which is known for housing an environment where middle-aged bridge trolls and undeveloped pre-teens can endlessly debate without consequence, there are numerous posts disputing this decision.
“He’d have made sense for something like soccer or whatever, but having someone who doesn’t even sing in American performing for an American sport is just breathtakingly stupid,” Aware-Yam8907 said.
In Bad Bunny’s defense … I don’t think anyone’s ever sung in “American”.
“The seemingly innocuous act of having a Spanish language rap artist perform as the main act at the Super Bowl half time show signals the end game for American society. That may happen 100 years from now but make no mistake, we are a culture in serious decline. For all the doubters of this fact, let me encourage you to read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Extension_Offer8467 said.
When personal preferences molded to seem like moral imperatives are debated, disagreement becomes cheap. Arguing over subjective opinions only causes turmoil and rarely changes minds, leaving almost no room for productive conversation.
“[The] Super Bowl is a US based event, not a global one. If he was a performer at the World Cup, I would agree but not for the Super Bowl,” Pizza_Hero24 said.
In response to this, MelangeLizard said: “[The] Super Bowl is an exhibition of American culture for the world, and Puerto Rico is America.”
To spare you all 10 minutes of your time, this conversation continues and ultimately goes nowhere.
The urge to scream your opinion so loud others are forced to choke on it is almost embarrassing — and yet we see so much of it today. In the media, everyone’s take on just about anything is constantly shoved in your face, which can make it difficult to form your own opinion on the subject.
There is so much to debate: TV shows, sports, “ships,” trends — but what if not every thought that pops into the futile cavity of our minds is actually worth sharing?
The attractiveness of opinion-based content sparks emotion, but doesn’t accommodate for intellect.
News reports become unreliable debates and hot takes are incentivized by the influx of mass opinions drowning out fact. The noise has become normalized, along with the conflict it stirs.
So I beg the question: Why do we internalize conflicting opinions and allow them to provoke indignation over indifference? Why do we give subjective opinions so much power?
Prospect’s debate team’s environment demands for conceptual distance between opinion and fact.
Their claims must withstand intense scrutiny in constant battle. This is a place where opinions hold no value in comparison to data.
Students must argue their positions on a subject without regard for personal judgment, driving them to rely on research over feelings.
“People are well used to arguing [for] something they don’t believe in [in debate], but I think it’s all in the manner of the sport,” said junior Harper Romberg, one of Prospect’s varsity debate captains. “Regardless of whatever you’re arguing, you need to support it with evidence.”
Debate exposes the fragility of opinions when split from sentiments and exhibits how quickly minds can vary when faced with concrete evidence.
“When I’m in my chamber, and I’m sure when my teammates are in a chamber, our opinions change because it is like a pro-con — pro-con discussion,” Romberg said. “Recently I submitted a bill, a legislation, where we would federally legalize physician assisted suicide in the United States. But I think the more I heard other kids talking about it, the more I realized that my bill was not that good and maybe I wouldn’t actually believe that in real life, even though I think it was a good debate topic.”
I want to stress, once again, my belief that opinions are undeniably important. They surpass bleak knowledge and define your interpretation of the world based on principles and experience.
Now, I do recognize the irony that I just wrote roughly 1,500 words arguing that your opinions are, in the least offensive way, meaningless.
What gives them value, however, is what you decide to do with them. In debate, they don’t just structure their opinions around fact but they constantly put them to the test — which acknowledges their authenticity.
“Opinions are pretty integral because that’s what you base your speeches off of. I mean obviously you need evidence, either logical or some kind of physical statistic to back up your opinion, otherwise it’s not valid,” Romberg said. “That’s an important part of debate that might help people build their own opinions logically.”
Never miss important news: every Monday, get a preview of what’s going on this week at Prospect, and what went down last week. To sign up for the Knight Notes newsletter, click here.
