The Highway Re-route Movement's final salvo, embodied in Dr Wayne Kublalsingh's hunger strike, was an ideal opportunity to mount constructive debate on an issue of national importance.
Regardless of where you stand on the Pt Fortin highway or Kublalsingh himself as torchbearer for the movement, this was the moment for citizens to engage in debate amongst themselves on the wider issues of development, governance and accountability.
If you find that I'm hovering here, it is with good reason. Using the highway as an example, many civil-society groups have gravitated towards the HRM movement hoping to ignite a wider discussion on concerns which deeply affect our lives; in other words, for many people, this is about more than a highway (or a segment thereof), this is actually about encouraging citizens to gather up a greater understanding of their role in guiding governance in a democratic society.
For all of the posts and publications from either side of the divide of maps outlining the proposed route, the alternative route and the Armstrong report, elucidation remains elusive as it is drowned out by "Build de damn highway" or "Dis stinkin' guvament doh kearbout nobordy."
Everything in this country is viewed through the prism of tribal politics and as such, achieving enlightened debate that can eventually engender the sort of governance we all claim to crave will exist only beyond our grasp.
President Anthony Carmona stoned a jep nest with a pre-action protocol letter issued to radio personality Rachel Price in the wake of presumably libellous remarks made about the first lady's rather adventurous attire at the UN General Assembly.
Some people viciously attacked the President, perceiving this as an assault on free speech. Others staunchly defended Price, bemoaning a grave offence committed against the nation by Reema Carmona's fashion faux pas. This online conversation spread like wildfire, rapidly degenerating into toxic vituperations and ultimately into a racist diatribe.
All the while no one paid any attention to a post reminding people of legal action taken several years ago by Rachel Price against then popular radio-show host Ricardo "Gladiator" Welch for slander.
Therein lies the problem, the individual who added that post was trying to insert some context into the "discussion": it was an attempt to demonstrate that such affairs are rarely black and white.
What happens invariably when facts inconvenient to the "us against dem" narrative are introduced is that they are immediately scuttled with insinuations of tribe loyalty. A cogent rebuttal of any clearly ill-premised argument is waved away with "mus be eatin' ah food."
It isn't that Trinis are incapable of understanding debate which undermines their entrenched positions; truth, in their world, is a malleable concept and must be moulded to suit their purposes.
On a radio station this week I had the misfortune of hearing the most distressing racist diatribe being carried on by one caller to the station after another; it was like a relay race of racism.
This seething enmity was ably stoked by the host of the programme, who undoubtedly seeded the conversation in the first place.
Such an environment cannot support debate, as the quality of citizen would not permit it. This station is clearly a political pulpit for listeners who are fact-proof and irretrievably miseducated.
So there is little hope that the media can provide balance to discussions on any issue of national importance.
With the exception of morning television, there are no current affairs shows either due to economic considerations or a lack of appetite in the market for legitimately analytical discourse.
The radio stations have committed to making the situation worse by creating talk radio steered by people the least equipped to function in this format.
These radio talk-show hosts all have opinions, none of them with any foundation in research. Callers phone in with glaring inaccuracies and astonishing accusations but the hosts can't correct these fallacies because they either don't know or don't care.
No one is expecting omniscience of these radio personalities, at the very least they ought to flip through a newspaper before sitting in front of a microphone. These are essentially civilians who were taken off the street and put in a studio; there isn't an inch of difference between them and the gleefully ignorant professional callers.
There are a few exceptions. Mariano Browne and Ardeen Sirjoo host a programme which deftly rises above politics and challenges the audience to debate the core problems of our society. As such the programme attracts a particular type of caller, people who seem more discerning, more interested in understanding rather than simply hearing themselves.
They are, however, in the minority. Public forums such as Facebook and radio talk shows have become the new rabble in the square. The din smothers reasoned discussion about HRM, crime, chikungunya, Ebola and everything else.
We blame our politicians for perpetuating this barren chatter. Former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday once told me in an interview: "You have to meet the people where they are."
How else would their words resonate with people for whom "cussout" trumps debate?