We spend our entire lives
trying to escape the wrong side of a hyphen.
A success, instead of a failure.
A winner, instead of a loser.
Somebody, instead of nobody.
As though existence
were a ballot with two boxes,
and a lifetime to shade one in.
We resent the little categories
the world keeps our names in,
then spend entire lives trying to qualify for one.
We demand
that our own contradictions
be granted daily conveniences.
We want our failures
read with radioactive precautions,
our mistakes handled with white gloves,
our crimes considered in carefully crafted context.
We want the whole messy sum of us admitted as evidence.
But look at what we do with the evidence of others.
We take a single disagreement and sharpen it into a blade.
A hesitation becomes a betrayal.
A reservation, an act of war.
A question mark, a raised fist.
You may stand with me, or you may stand against me.
There is no longer a square inch of ground
for standing beside me,
and looking at a horizon I cannot see.
A hundred per cent total submission is the entry fee.
Anything less, and the conversation draws blood.
We have built a hate economy
where outrage is legal tender,
allegiance earns compound interest,
and the benefit of the doubt is an inflation-ruined currency.
We don’t merely disagree anymore.
If we do not worship, we must loathe.
If we do not subscribe, we must abhor.
We delete, we cancel, we blacklist, we un-person.
We turn living people into flat positions,
and then punish them
for not being human enough to fit inside them.
Perhaps this is why we have become so fond of machines.
We built code
to separate the things we like
from the things we don’t.
Yes and no.
Accept and reject.
Relevant and irrelevant.
We fed the machines our preferences,
until they returned our prejudices
wearing the plastic face of prediction.
Then we gave them intelligence and called it artificial.
As though the artificial part were the intelligence,
and not the act of flattening entire existences to meagre data points.
We complain
that algorithms cannot comprehend the human condition,
while we actively teach them to recognize us
solely by the things we click,
the things we buy,
the things we love,
the things we hate.
We have outsourced our judgments to a system
that never has to lie awake at night
with the consequences of being wrong.
We want our binaries read with nuance,
and everyone else read literally.
We have made nuance a privilege of proximity.
The closer someone is to us,
the more beautifully complex their reasons become.
The further away they stand,
the fewer words we need to condemn them.
In a world that doesn't experience but processes,
difference is death,
and sooner or later,
everyone becomes a stranger.
Everyone becomes far away.
Everyone defaults to a zero.
We want to be the exception
without ever questioning the rule.
We mistake choosing a side for having a mind.
And somewhere
between the person we hope to become
and the person we refuse to understand,
the spectrum vanishes, the walls close in.
There are truths that can live in the same room.
A person can be loved and be entirely wrong.
A cause can be urgent and its methods indefensible.
A thought can be worth considering without being worth believing.
But we have become too impatient
for anything that refuses to arrive at a verdict.
The ultimate tragedy of the modern human
is not that we have built machines
that think in ones and zeroes.
It is that we are training ourselves to match them.
We wanted to be the exception.
Now everybody is just another data point.
Pixels in a Polaroid
playing Russian roulette,
with bullets shaped like photocopied beliefs.