THERE are times, readers, when Badger despairs at humankind’s ability to be cruel to each other. There are times when, with a badgerly shrug, he simply wishes he could walk away and find somewhere cool and dimly lit to lie down with an un-improving volume of light verse. Readers will know that Badger has detected a certain sourness and cynicism in public discourse over recent years. As you will also know by now, readers, Badger is bang onside with sourness and cynicism, if it has a point: but what we are now experiencing is the nihilism of halfwitty and half-witted remarks, such as “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.”

A sentiment often advanced by those who do not vote and then complain at a result they forfeited all right to complain about. Consumerism has fractured society into chunks, some of which overlap and some of which stand in glorious isolation. In a world more interconnected than ever before, there seems to be more genuine loneliness – or, perhaps, wilful isolation of the self – than at any time Badger can remember.

As we have become increasingly identifiable by third parties through our actions and our responses to stimuli (for example, shopper loyalty cards; banking information; online gaming; online advertising) and accordingly placed into groups for targeted marketing, so the glue that holds us together as families and communities has weakened. Badger sees the way people, write and behave on social media and some of the vile and offensive things that appear on it. And Badger wonders whether the term “society” has somehow passed its sell by date.

The expression of extremes seems to have become the norm, particularly from the wilder shores of the fascist right. Those who express those racist, repugnant and intolerant views claim protection derived from a freedom of speech they want to deny others. That they are able to express their views at arms’ length or from the safety of a keyboard before a glowing monitor, seems to suggest that some line has been crossed.

As we look at online avatars and profiles, we become less human, less humane and more inclined to casual cruelties. The problematic result of all of this can be summarized as follows: social networks are addicting and provide the illusion of real relationship. Over time, we begin to falsely equate genuine, humanto- human relationship with the shallow connection and gratification offered by social networks.

We increasingly define ourselves in terms of our digital presence and feel the need to “share” constantly to feel heard and less alone. It is that need to be heard which causes people to ‘shout’ online. Scarcely a report of a court story can appear online without someone, usually someone with only a nodding acquaintance with spelling and grammar, hopping out from under their bridge to offer an opinion.

Over Christmas, Badger was looking at some exchanges on The Herald’s own Facebook feed. There was a report of a case. The report set out the charges the accused faced, the course of the trial, the guilty verdict and the sentence passed by the Court. Judging from the reactions, you would have thought that newspapers and their web feeds should only carry news that relates news that trolls find agreeable – for example “Billy Goats Gruff Eaten” or “Judge praises axe murderer for being nice to his mum”. It was “wrong” what was written. The story was not “true”. It was all “unfair”. It was “sad” to send the guilty to prison. Gloves off: what was written was objectively right.

There was no lie. The facts spoke for themselves. It was not unfair. The accused had their chance to defend their actions. They could not do so. The word “guilty” means guilt was established according to the law and beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the law as trolls wish it, but the law as it is. Badger was horrified by one person, who from the content of his remarks was lucky not to be lifted by the rozzers himself. Badger pondered before deciding that a line had been crossed. He deleted comments that were argumentative, intimidatory, and hectoring in tone.

Enough was enough: freedom of speech does not include the right to bully others by being a keyboard warrior. If the person whose long and aggressive rants was to be believed, people who had committed a crime had gone unpunished. The fact he was prepared to stand idly by and do nothing about that state of affairs, speaks volumes for the very special trollish logic he applied to his statements. Badger censored a debate. Now, readers Badger is in favour of open, friendly, non-judgemental and balanced argument.

At the same time, he knows he is personally seldom all four of the foregoing at one time – and occasionally their diametric opposite in each and every respect – but Badger makes a genuine effort to approach those terms both singly and collectively. Badger was reluctant to reach for the metaphorical blue pencil, but for better or ill he did. Make no mistake, the remarks Badger deleted were not the ‘casual cruelties’ he referred to earlier. These were not spiteful, petty remarks of the type made by insecure juveniles.

The remarks he censored were appalling, crass and menacing. In the great scheme of things, however, they were far less offensive than some of the toxic rants Badger has seen peddled as fact by bigots online; but they were far over the bounds of what a reasonable person would tolerate. They were certainly beyond what an occasionally unreasonable Badger could tolerate. What makes humans human is their interactions with each other. Every human is different and each of us has rights and obligations that come from being part of the whole. Badger wouldn’t have it any other way. Our society is more important than “comments”, “likes” and “shares” on social media. Badger fears, however, that which connects us in so many ways, makes inhumanity to others far easier than it was previously.

‘Humane and committed’ -do you know best this time?

DEAR BADGER, Since you started to climb out of your badger sett each week and write articles for the Pembrokeshire Herald you appeared to want to help local humans, but last week you seemed to have lost concern for yourself and your wildlife friends.

In your last article you stated that Simon Hart, MP is “humane and committed”. Simon Hart before he became our MP was the Master of the South Pembrokeshire Hunt, Director of the Campaign for Hunting and Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance which was and still is deeply “committed” to the return of hunting with dogs. So surely, Mr Badger, you have to ask the question “what is he committed to and is it humane?”.

Simon Hart MP has strongly supported the campaign to repeal the Hunting Act 2004. The Act not only made it illegal to hunt wildlife with dogs for sport, but also made it illegal for hunts to block your sett entrances whilst hunting. So that law, besides protecting you, protected young badger cubs when they were born underground. Furthermore, Mr Badger, Simon Hart MP was against vaccinating your relatives in Wales, instead of culling, so you don’t catch Bovine TB from cattle.

Culling badgers is a disaster when carried out in England and was said to be “ inefficient and inhumane” after the badgers were shot and took a considerable time to die. Surely Mr Badger you must reassess your opinion of what being “humane ” means, or one day in the future, you may be culled or get blocked in your badger sett and unable to get out, so that will be the end of your excellent articles.

Michael Sharratt

Cwm Coile

Whitland

Carmarthenshire