The idea that censorship and norms are useful isn't novel. In general, American society is well beyond that, with censorship and stigmatization levels reaching a new high, a recent example being the public shaming of political figures associated with the NRA. But more broadly, pro-Trump and anti-Trump people have been very busy finding virtue signals to use to categorize people into one of the camps.
As someone with major objections to both camps, I find the whole process perplexing and frustrating.
But there are valid uses of these mechanisms. I think, when the evidence is there, the recent expulsion of sexual abusers out of positions of power and privilege are generally on the right track.
How do we combine the concerns? How do we expel and exclude people in a healthy way? It seems to me that America, at least, is not very good at this at the moment. Important things like improving the mental healthcare system in the U.S. really hinge on the answers to these questions.
I think what you are observing here is that human (animal) behavior is controlled by patterns, instincts, biases, hueristics that are universal. A classic example is reflected in the aphorism “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
Public shaming is such an archetypal behavior. My contention is that critical thinking is required to examine the content of the belief system that is the implicit subtext of the behavior.
All humans have a “belief system” which helps them function by providing a simplified, more manageable model of reality to conduct themselves in. Having a “belief system” is not some mere crutch, it’s an inherent part of ourselves, essential for our survival.
Challenging an individual’s belief system will provoke an anxiety response, and compensating defense responses.
I “believe” that not all belief systems are “created equal.” Some map reality more closely, some are kinder to the members of the society who create them. Some lead to violent conflict, some are conducive to cooperation.
The “content” of a belief system can be examined with cognitive tools that attempt to transcend one’s own belief system. (This is admittedly very hard, and imperfectly undertaken, at best.) Science is one such tool. Logic is another. An adoption of an empathetic stance towards an individual holding a belief system is another.
However, because belief system have universal characteristics, identifying something as a belief system does not provid much insight into the content of the belief system, and does not provide a basis for evaluating it.
I think that self-identified conservatives, and fellow travelers in the pro NRA crowd, have pulled off quite the disengenous trick, by deliberately exploiting a kind of category confusion: they have managed, at least in their own minds, to equate attacks, or shaming, of individuals based on their belief system, with historical oppression of categories of people, that were a whole different thing.
The worst type of oppression and discrimination in our US history is the racial oppression built into the fabric of our society. This oppression was not based on the “belief system” of black Americans. It was based on amplifying and exploiting a perhaps natural affinity for others like ourselves to systematically exploit, oppress, and persecute a whole category of people, based on an aspect of themselves (race) that a) they had no choice in and b) was irrelevant to the question of whether an individual had rights to live with even a modicum of dignity, health, wealth, and justice.
So we have “conservatives” appropriating the mantle of the oppressed, because they can demonstrate aspects of treatment that resemble what African Americans have had to deal with.
It’s ludicrous. The argument seems to be: historically blacks were treated with extreme deprivation. For example, they were not allowed to participate in the institutions of higher education. Part of this would of course means they would not have been permitted to speak publicly on a college campus, were it not for the efforts of many advocates of racial equality and fairness.
So simply the act of being restricted from speaking on a public campus, because they are (self identified) members of a group, in their minds equals unfair discrimination. It would be comical, if it didn’t serve to confuse and warp the civic discourse around this already difficult subject.
As part of that social rejection, the humans in the groups doing the rejection are likely engaged in some of the same intense, sometimes disturbing, behaviors, like “public shaming” that groups oppressing blacks engaged in. That’s human nature. The fact that two courses of conduct share a common motivation is not enough to evaluate the conduct.
Anecdotally, if you peruse the comment of social media/forum/comment sections of “liberal” and “conservative” sites, you will see the same patterns of smug self righteousness, and certainty that the “other side” are depraved, delusional cretins, who can’t see beyond their own hypocrisy. (If you havent tried this, do, it’s quite surreal...the archetypal patterns of social behavior and biases, of emotional tone, are strikingly similar on Fox News and Huffington Post.) Their are liberal trolls and conservative trolls.
Getting back to the subject of the OP, I suspect that similar category errors are at work when the subject of “censorship” on a website comes up in response to moderation actions. The simple act of suppressing speech in a public forum is not enough to label it “censorship.”
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
The idea that censorship and norms are useful isn't novel. In general, American society is well beyond that, with censorship and stigmatization levels reaching a new high, a recent example being the public shaming of political figures associated with the NRA. But more broadly, pro-Trump and anti-Trump people have been very busy finding virtue signals to use to categorize people into one of the camps.
As someone with major objections to both camps, I find the whole process perplexing and frustrating.
But there are valid uses of these mechanisms. I think, when the evidence is there, the recent expulsion of sexual abusers out of positions of power and privilege are generally on the right track.
How do we combine the concerns? How do we expel and exclude people in a healthy way? It seems to me that America, at least, is not very good at this at the moment. Important things like improving the mental healthcare system in the U.S. really hinge on the answers to these questions.