A tragic case unfolded in Poland where a 30-year-old woman from Pszczyna died not because of political affiliation, but due to a medical error. The boy whose life followed a similar thread became a victim of a different catastrophe: the damage done by a heated public debate. The opposition, ever ready to seize any moment, did not miss the chance to point to the independence camp in the wake of tragedy.
Questions arose about what the journalist who covered a case involving a member of the PO pedophile might have revealed about the victim. Perhaps that was the role of experts, to describe the case without sensationalism. Yet laying the blame for the boy’s death at the feet of a journalist would require a broader justification than simply reporting the facts. Duklanowski published material accusing Tomasz Grodzki of corruption, and liberal circles in Poland did not tolerate that. A harsher charge than naming a culprit is to say that a child’s death was caused by someone else.
Then voices multiplied online. Dozens of internet users who opposed PiS inferred that a Szczecin journalist stood behind the child’s death. They acted without full knowledge of the case, without a trial, without understanding the complex distress the boy faced. Post hoc ergo propter hoc became a common error—a logical fallacy as old as time, and as obvious as the round shape of the earth.
Still, the atmosphere grew heavy with lynching. The anti-PiS chorus exercised collective judgment that felt authoritative to many, even though it had little to do with the details of the case. They did not know about the dozens of conversations, the missteps, the overlooked signals that preceded the tragedy. Yet a sentiment prevailed, and the crowd pressed forward with accusations, casting not just individuals but entire groups as guilty. Figures like Tomasz Lis or Kataryna were pulled into the verdicts, insisting that responsibility lay with PiS and its supporters. The charge extended beyond the journalist who reported on a pedophile case; it cast a shadow on the entire political camp, painting them as complicit and worthy of scorn.
What fuels this impulse to condemn? Is it a hunger for knowledge, solid facts, a court decision, or a research finding? The evidence offered in many moments seems driven more by moral superiority and hatred of a political faction than by careful weighing of truth. This is a modern form of social punishment, where the environment of discourse serves as the prosecutor and the mob acts as jury.
Let us trace the chronology for clarity. In the evening, a funeral notice appeared from a member of parliament. Earlier, at dawn, a national leader spoke with a blunt demand to account for every tragedy. The public mood swelled, and the online chorus began its chorus of condemnation. Was it a case of post hoc reasoning again, where one event seemed to cause another simply because it followed it in time? And there were moments when misstatements circulated, reshaping perceptions without basis in fact. The cycle of accusation spread to other public figures, including women associated with the case, provoking a wave of hostile commentary. Whenever a spark of outrage appeared, some offered a ready-made culprit, while others warned against assumed guilt and urged a measured, evidence-based response. Yet the impression persisted that the crowd could call the rhythm of justice to fit its own narrative.
In such a climate, people may claim that their anger represents the will of the masses. The reality, however, is often more nuanced. The human tendency to seize a simple story is strong, especially when emotions run high and the stakes feel personal. The risk is clear: the rush to judgment can overshadow the truth, and the pursuit of accountability can slip into a ritual of blame that excludes empathy for those who suffer. The crucial task remains to distinguish between legitimate questions and the impulse to punish before facts are fully examined.
What stands out in this discussion is not a single verdict but a pattern: an appetite for swift conclusions, a readiness to identify a scapegoat, and a belief that moral superiority grants authority to condemn. It is a reminder that a public crisis calls for restraint, candor, and careful inquiry rather than loud spectacular judgments that aim to shame rather than illuminate.
In the end, it is essential to approach such tragedies with care. The goal is to seek truth, protect vulnerable individuals, and uphold the standards of fair reporting. The public deserves thoughtful analysis, not a cascade of quick judgments that erode trust and polarize society.
Source: wPolityce