Convention, is it a reason for Consensus? – I think So

Just Accept It

With current trends for people to be accepted outside what is normal convention, I thought I would consider what we mean by ‘conventionally’ and at what stage convention is socially acceptable

Definition of Conventionally:-

• In a way that is based on what is traditionally done or believed.
• In a way that shows concern with what is held to be socially acceptable.

Now I would like to believe that the above definitions are acceptable to everyone, but no doubt some would perhaps still to choose to argue the point and they are free to think that, but they would be going against convention… 😊

In our current world we have extreme views on most things, and these are clearly evident on most social media platforms, with Twitter possibly the most furious. These opposing views are clearly not the consensus or even a majority but the differing opinions at extreme ends on any subject.

The extremists for example on the political front, make up say 20% on each side, they are clearly not for changing, while there are usually about 20% that don’t give a damn on any subject and so we are left with the 40% that take a more moderate view on life. Does this 40% therefore provide the consensus on this issue, not really but they generally are the ones that need to be convinced on any  election to allow a political party to be successful.

Red Gary, (either GL or GN), or Red Carol are no better placed to have their views accepted as are Blue Piers or Blue Andrew. The extremists, seem to follow the old adage that they always know best. With whom shouts loudest with conviction will win the debate, unfortunately it is not the case, and I often think the saying ‘empty vessels make the most noise’ is a truer reflection of their opposing rants.

Based upon the above, is a 51% majority deemed a consensus? No not really, well not in my mind, and on important matters I am uneasy with this method being adopted. Brexit being an example in point and IndyRef2 would no doubt likely follow a similar contentious path.

I have stated previously, that in my opinion for major or significant change or broad acceptance, there should be a clear mandate.

I believe this must be at least 67% (two thirds) of those being considered, but more realistically at least 70%, or preferably 75% (three quarters). By having this benchmark you have clear authority for any change or resolution and clearly have a consensus especially when you consider 20% don’t care.

So I come around to the point of this particular Blog, why is so much time given in the media to opinions of those that represent less than 5% of the population.

I recently gave my opinion on LBGTQ+ where this small but now broad band of ‘people’ only represent less than 5% of the UK, but the consensus of 95% clearly recognising the established convention on this gender issue, are continually being asked to unreasonably accept an unconventional opinion.

As always everyone is entitled to their opinion and can actively promote this, as long as it doesn’t interrupt those that accept convention. This same philosophy should be adopted for the ‘Just Stop Oil’ brigade, whose noble views are as I have stated many times hold great merit, but are currently not the conventional view, they should ensure that their battle should be undertaken within the law and to not disrupt the majority. If they eventually manage to convince those that currently disagree with them, then perhaps at that time they will hold the conventional view, and no doubt by then they may well have become the ‘I told you so’ activists.

So, in the interim wouldn’t it be great that convention ruled the day, and activists of all sorts, no matter what beliefs, promoted their opinions, but perhaps with a little more thought and understanding of those with opposing views. When all said and done, we are all entitled to an opinion, without it being forced upon others.