Everyone Less Covid-Cautious Than Me is a Murderer: The Ultimate Guide to Having Opinions Online

 Everyone less Covid-cautious than me is a murderer, and everyone more Covid-cautious than me is a maniac.

It seems that nearly everyone, or at least nearly everyone on Twitter (and other social media) believes some version of this statement. Now, do not get me wrong, the murderers and maniacs do walk among us - I think anyone would have a hard time excusing the actions of Prime Minister Boris Johnson during the various national lockdowns that hit the United Kingdom over the past two years. However, the point is that everyone sets the bar of what is acceptable just below what they are actually doing - and the bar of what is and is not acceptable is a very firm, and very binary line for most people when it comes to coronavirus.

There is some logic in it - after all if you believe what you are doing is acceptable then why would you limit yourself further for what you see as no reason? But the logic seems to end there, as people find it very difficult to conceive that others might put that bar in a different place without suffering from some kind of moral deficit. Thus, people argue about it fanatically on social media. This used to not be the normal approach to debate, instead there would be a wide range of positions that were not considered abhorrent by most, and most people would fall within what opinions a person did not consider abhorrent, and debate would be trying to convince someone to move closer to your position, which is considerably more likely to get someone on side than calling them a murderer on Twitter.

This extreme form of debate is seen everywhere, even when only a small section of the public is involved. As a member of the Labour Party myself I see it quite regularly when it comes to criticism of Keir Starmer. Thanks to a number of Labour members who clearly state that they would refuse to vote for a party that isn’t led by Jeremy Corbyn yet refuse to leave the Party, the perception has emerged among some groups that anyone criticising Keir Starmer is in cahoots with these cranks. Yet, a large range of members have a far more nuanced view of the party’s leader. Nevertheless, on Twitter at least, the prevailing opinion is “everyone who likes Starmer more than me is a Tory and everyone who likes Starmer less than me is a crank.” This could, of course, be easily solved by removing the actual Tories and the actual cranks from the Party.

The final example that has caused fury among almost all Twitter users is the developing crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Most people believe that Russia should face consequences, even possible military consequences, if it invades Ukraine. Most people also believe that a general war between Russia and the West must be avoided. Within this, there are of course a number of positions someone could take, that would be reasonable to hold. Unfortunately, the debate has turned into “everyone pro-Ukraine is a war hawk and everyone who wants to avoid war is a Communist.” So it is impossible to hold an opinion which to those not on Twitter seems obvious without coming under fire for being both a war hawk and a Communist. Russia isn’t even Communist anymore.

Perhaps the most sensible position on Russia was from the Foreign Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, who, when asked if the UK recognised Russian sovereignty over the Russian oblasts of Rostov and Voronezh, said that the UK would never support Russian claims to sovereignty over these regions of Russia. Why is this sensible? Well, while she said it because she did not know where these regions are, it implies that the UK government does not recognise any territorial claims of Vladimir Putin’s government as legitimate at all, which is a movement I can get behind.

Did this help you have opinions online? No? Well I guess we will all have to stick to tweeting the most deranged things we can think of instead then.