Nuance

Now that I think about it, it is a funny sounding word when you look at it on its own and then start to say it repeatedly:- nuance, nuance, nuance…. I’ve distracted myself in the first sentence. Start again. 

Nuance is something that seems to be in short supply when it come to online debate (“online debate” feeling like somewhat of a mythical beast in itself). The brevity required by a status update on social media and the desire for ‘likes” on said platforms are, as we all know, not conducive to creating an atmosphere in which a healthy back and forth debate can be generated (after all, any thread on the internet is only two to three comments away from someone calling someone else a Nazi or a cunt or both). There is this strong feeling that every complex issue has to have a single definitive statement or viewpoint that boils everything down to a simple for or against which often comes with an assumption that, by stating one thing, you’re automatically excluding any other possibilities or even actively against those other options.

In my own naive and ham-fisted way, let’s take a look at some recent examples and give some opinions about them that can all be true without necessarily negating the others.

The Notre Dame Cathedral Fire
It is tragic that an historic building has been decimated by fire.
It is heartening that a wealthy benefactor has donated to restore it.
It is sickening that wealthy benefactors don’t donate to causes that could improve the lives of blighted by similar tragedies affecting non-historic buildings (for example, the Grenfell fire).
It is sickening that we live in a society where there exist a need for benefactors to step in to help people like that as the systems we have in place are failing them (for various reasons).
Organised religion has been responsible for many atrocious things throughout history.
Organised (and non-organised) religion provides comfort to many and it is understandable that a symbolic building’s ravaging would upset followers of faith (as well as those with no particular vested interest in that faith). 
Donald Trump is an idiot for suggesting dumping a huge amount of water on an historic burning building that would effectively completely destroy it.

Julian Assange’s Arrest
It is worrying that political asylum can't protect you from whistle blowing on potentially criminal practices within government.
It is worrying that political asylum can protect an accused rapist from facing prosecution.
He shouldn't be revoked asylum on political grounds. He should be revoked asylum to stand trial for sexual assault.
Donald Trump is a liar for saying that he’s never heard of WikiLeaks despite repeatedly praising them on the campaign trail.

Brexit
It’s a fucking mess. I’m not touching that one with a bargepole.
Donald Trump should really keep his nose out of this one.

There you go. Some of those don't necessarily seem to sit together but it is possible to believe all of those things at once. That's one of the advantages of the human capacity for reasoning - it allows us to hold contradictory thoughts in our heads and (for the most part) not go insane. So in conclusion, it is possible to hold multiple views on the same subject without having to fly your flag for one particular facet of it. Unless, that is, you think that Donald Trump isn’t a lying, misogynistic racist in which case you ARE wrong.*


* It’s a weak and lazy attempt at satire, yes, but I’m going to stick with it as a punchline as I don't have another ending. Normal inconsequentially nerdy service will be resumed tomorrow.