More than anywhere else in modern-day Europe, our island understands extreme differences of opinion. What eventually helped us bring about relative peace was dialogue and, in general, an acceptance by one side of the others’ heritage and tradition.

Today, across all spectrums of life – be it politics, sport, religion and even environment and agriculture – echo chambers are the new college debate societies. The middle ground has shrunk to something akin to the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge. The rise of hate speech, facilitated fantastically by social media, has created what I consider to be a terrifying extremism. Much of the ground traditionally occupied by fact-based media is under threat from campaigning propagandists, conspiracy theorists and general muckrakers.

Even the acceptance of the democratic result is no longer cast-iron

The traditional values of neutrally reporting facts to facilitate debate have been cast aside and now anything goes. Spin, lies and smear dismisses sensible discussion, political discourse and science-based reportage. Even the acceptance of the democratic result is no longer cast-iron. Donald Trump has already set the battle lines by creating doubt over “mail-in” voting, which may sway the US election result. We will know for sure on 4 November, when the people will have spoken. In the event of a slim Joe Biden victory, will Trump go quietly and honourably?

You could argue that trying to reverse the Brexit result is another example of the modern-day unwillingness to accept an opposing viewpoint or clear majority. Some, particularly in the noisy bowels of Twitter, see debate or discussion only through the prism of their own biased opinion. This, possibly, has always been the way in life, but now it’s coloured by a complete shutdown of the opposing view. Cancel culture takes away the right to dialogue. If you don’t agree with me, you are wrong. Period.

Reasonable people play safe and become the silent majority

When it comes to extremism, the mantra has always been to leave them be and fight for the middle ground. But that isn’t good enough for the extremists who utilise the old weapon of driving a wedge to create confusion, havoc and misinformation in order to further their campaign. It scares off reasonable views for fear of vilification and an online witch hunt. Reasonable people play safe and become the silent majority; leaving the zealots to ride roughshod over fact and science. Science should never be in dispute, but it seems nowadays that science is “biased” if it doesn’t conform to one’s view.

The slow but steady growth of right wing extremism across Europe is the most worrying example of the evaporation of respect for alternative opinion. The hard right – and, indeed, the hard left – have managed to usurp the marginalised in society to bolster their own motives. We see it here, too, how various splinter movements are using the frustration of lockdown to recruit the vulnerable and confused to a campaign founded on a very intolerant form of so-called nationalism.

Government failing to develop a fair and just society is the perfect catalyst to the emergence of such radicalism

In a Venn diagram, the hard left and hard right have two things in common: a distain for the establishment and a thirst for chaos. And Government failing to develop a fair and just society is the perfect catalyst to the emergence of such radicalism. That will always be the case.

It is the creation of this “either/or” binary view of the world via 280 characters which is slowly eating away at the whole meaning of democratic debate. If we humbly accept we are not always right, we might all be better off.