"Free expression of ideas is the path to human flourishing." What an excellent summation of your essay. Free expression is challenged on many levels, including the toughest one - the personal. I so often find myself at odds with family, friends, etc. over interpretations of current events, that I sometimes self-censor to maintain a civil conversation. It is especially challenging when the opinion I am faced with is some form of, "so-and-so is a nutcase!" without any backing evidence. The choice of response can sometimes end a relationship. I wonder how others deal with this.
I find myself engaging in that kind of self-censorship as well. I'm not, in principle, opposed to the idea of self-censoring to keep a conversation from going off the rails; if my wife asks if this dress makes her look fat, and it actually does, I would obviously never say so.
What's galling though is that those on the left not only don't seem to feel the same imperative to self-censor that we do, they often feel entitled to talk about politics & current events belligerently and obnoxiously in mixed company. My take on it is that they have so thoroughly internalized the relentless messaging from our major institutions (media, entertainment, academia, government, even corporations) that liberal = good, caring, and kind, and conservative = evil, heartless, and cruel, that they now essentially see conservatives as subhuman and think there's never a situation in which denigrating them is inappropriate.
I sometimes think that I (and many other conservatives) have internalized that messaging somewhat as well. It's probably fair to say that at least in some cases, we self-censor because we don't want to be thought of as nasty and callous, which is how we know liberals see those on the right. To the extent we do this, we have erroneously accepted the left-wing frame as legitimate.
My wife and I don't agree on much politically and it's become a third rail topic that we've more or less agreed never to discuss anymore. The last time we did talk about something political, it was when she brought up, in some context that I don't remember, the so-called "bans" in Florida school libraries of books containing graphic illustrations of underage sexual acts. Of course, it makes no more sense to say those books are "banned" from school libraries than it does to say that Hustler magazine and Fifty Shades of Grey are banned from them. And she, a professor with a Harvard degree, is more than smart enough to know this.
Something about politics in the age of social media and the 24-hour news cycle has made it seemingly impossible for many to discuss in good faith, rather than as an argument in which to score points or an opportunity to spring "gotchas" on the conversation partner. Unfortunately this is as likely to be true even of those I know to otherwise be good, high-quality people as it is of people I have little respect for.
This is such a valuable conversation. Thanks to you both for sharing. I hope others join in.
Of course, there is no one size fits all solution. We begin with our regard for others and we watch our own need to be right and from that space we will be responsive. Sometimes strong but respectful views are expressed.
Sometimes even self-censorship is appropriate. The other day I was joking with my hair stylist about how she is going to have to tiptoe through every appointment for a while. She shared that it was worse than that. Some customers get upset at what other customers are saying. In other words, they get offended not at what the stylist is saying but what they hear another customer saying.
"We begin with our regard for others and we watch our own need to be right..."
That's a valuable reminder. I try to be better about it now that I'm conscious of it, but I have had a long history of taking disagreement personally on matters of opinion, and becoming angry when others dig their heels in after being proven wrong on purely empirical questions, e.g., do the risks of mRNA vaccines in children outweigh the expected benefits or not? Do masks prevent the spread of respiratory viruses or not? Have catastrophic climate models ever made an accurate prediction or not?
Going back to the topic of self-censorship in the context of political discussion, along with my hypothesis that many conservatives as well as virtually all liberals have to a greater or lesser extent internalized the dominant narrative framing liberals as pure and good and conservatives as irredeemably flawed and hateful: I think that internalization causes shame that sits below conscious awareness in some of us on the right, and that shame blocks intimacy. If it results in self-censorship, how could it not? Censoring myself is hiding myself, my actual thoughts and opinions; it's the opposite of revealing myself. So whoever I'm talking to when I censor myself isn't interacting with the real me. And I resent feeling like I have to keep some parts of myself hidden while those I strongly disagree with and whose political opinions I consider dangerous, destructive and immoral seem to feel free to let it all hang out.
Rereading what I just wrote, it's clearer than ever that building a stronger sense of self is a necessary ongoing project for me -- one that is more comfortable just being who I am and believing what I believe, that isn't affected by others' judging me negatively, that can tolerate disagreement without personalizing it, that doesn't have to be right, and can let it go without anger on those occasions when I really am right and someone refuses to acknowledge it.
I appreciate your observations and I think your awareness is indeed the cure.
"building a stronger sense of self." This is tricky and one of the issues we have been dealing with over the months at Mindset Shifts U.
Your self-concept is the problem, not the solution. No amount of approval can ever make your self-concept feel secure. So your self-concept can behave badly in both directions. Silence when your voice is needed and an angry response when silence is called for.
The self you are looking for is not built, it emerges as your ego is subtracted.
As I said this has part of our work at the U. Obviously this is a process and not something changes by reading these words.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking read. I found myself agreeing with you that the censorship and suppression that took place during the COVID era was harmful and counter-productive (although I have yet to see enough evidence it's the type of problem that contributed to "16.9 million deaths").
From the title of the article and your arguments, it seems to me that you're saying censorship on privately owned platforms is always a bad thing. Am I correct in that? Anyone who has ever attempted to run a community discussion platform will eventually be faced with the reality that, like it or not, some censorship is critical in order to create a sustainable environment for discussion. I know the thrust of your article was about abuses, but what should the guiding principles of speech/community moderation be? Is some amount of "tyranny" in the form of community standards necessary in order to create an environment that is conducive to the participation in dialogue/speech? Is it a victory for free speech if a platform becomes so toxic and filled with crap that no one wants to use it - or if it simply becomes an echo chamber? What are the right policies and approaches that allow us to thread the needle?
I think the main issue is censorship from the government, irrespective of the platform. The fact that Biden’s admin used enforcement apparatus to silence dissent is unforgivable!
The main point of my essay was as Vitaily writes, government censorship.
If we had an environment where Facebook, Twitter didn't answer the government's calls and didn't privately flinch, then we would have more confidence in their business decisions to build their platforms.
There have been very rare instances (twice, I believe) where I have had to block posters because of extreme abusive comments. So, I appreciate your point.
Loved this post. I would like to think Mill and Feynman may have met on a higher plane. Feynman’s Uncertainty of Science fits right in here. Without freedom expression, no innovation is possible.
Despite Trump's narcissism, no one claims he tried to have the social media silence his critics during his term. I'm sure the First Amendment is in safer hands under him.
Agreed, words count. I won't try to judge who has a lower character, Trump or Harris. We do know that Bush/Harris have gone after their political "enemies."
#FaucistBook is a compliance training algorithm. Where speech is neither free or protected, science inevitably degrades into a mechanistic Inquisition of Lysenkoism by #BigBrother.
"Free expression of ideas is the path to human flourishing." What an excellent summation of your essay. Free expression is challenged on many levels, including the toughest one - the personal. I so often find myself at odds with family, friends, etc. over interpretations of current events, that I sometimes self-censor to maintain a civil conversation. It is especially challenging when the opinion I am faced with is some form of, "so-and-so is a nutcase!" without any backing evidence. The choice of response can sometimes end a relationship. I wonder how others deal with this.
I find myself engaging in that kind of self-censorship as well. I'm not, in principle, opposed to the idea of self-censoring to keep a conversation from going off the rails; if my wife asks if this dress makes her look fat, and it actually does, I would obviously never say so.
What's galling though is that those on the left not only don't seem to feel the same imperative to self-censor that we do, they often feel entitled to talk about politics & current events belligerently and obnoxiously in mixed company. My take on it is that they have so thoroughly internalized the relentless messaging from our major institutions (media, entertainment, academia, government, even corporations) that liberal = good, caring, and kind, and conservative = evil, heartless, and cruel, that they now essentially see conservatives as subhuman and think there's never a situation in which denigrating them is inappropriate.
I sometimes think that I (and many other conservatives) have internalized that messaging somewhat as well. It's probably fair to say that at least in some cases, we self-censor because we don't want to be thought of as nasty and callous, which is how we know liberals see those on the right. To the extent we do this, we have erroneously accepted the left-wing frame as legitimate.
My wife and I don't agree on much politically and it's become a third rail topic that we've more or less agreed never to discuss anymore. The last time we did talk about something political, it was when she brought up, in some context that I don't remember, the so-called "bans" in Florida school libraries of books containing graphic illustrations of underage sexual acts. Of course, it makes no more sense to say those books are "banned" from school libraries than it does to say that Hustler magazine and Fifty Shades of Grey are banned from them. And she, a professor with a Harvard degree, is more than smart enough to know this.
Something about politics in the age of social media and the 24-hour news cycle has made it seemingly impossible for many to discuss in good faith, rather than as an argument in which to score points or an opportunity to spring "gotchas" on the conversation partner. Unfortunately this is as likely to be true even of those I know to otherwise be good, high-quality people as it is of people I have little respect for.
This is such a valuable conversation. Thanks to you both for sharing. I hope others join in.
Of course, there is no one size fits all solution. We begin with our regard for others and we watch our own need to be right and from that space we will be responsive. Sometimes strong but respectful views are expressed.
Sometimes even self-censorship is appropriate. The other day I was joking with my hair stylist about how she is going to have to tiptoe through every appointment for a while. She shared that it was worse than that. Some customers get upset at what other customers are saying. In other words, they get offended not at what the stylist is saying but what they hear another customer saying.
"We begin with our regard for others and watch our own need to be right..." - beautifully put!
"We begin with our regard for others and we watch our own need to be right..."
That's a valuable reminder. I try to be better about it now that I'm conscious of it, but I have had a long history of taking disagreement personally on matters of opinion, and becoming angry when others dig their heels in after being proven wrong on purely empirical questions, e.g., do the risks of mRNA vaccines in children outweigh the expected benefits or not? Do masks prevent the spread of respiratory viruses or not? Have catastrophic climate models ever made an accurate prediction or not?
Going back to the topic of self-censorship in the context of political discussion, along with my hypothesis that many conservatives as well as virtually all liberals have to a greater or lesser extent internalized the dominant narrative framing liberals as pure and good and conservatives as irredeemably flawed and hateful: I think that internalization causes shame that sits below conscious awareness in some of us on the right, and that shame blocks intimacy. If it results in self-censorship, how could it not? Censoring myself is hiding myself, my actual thoughts and opinions; it's the opposite of revealing myself. So whoever I'm talking to when I censor myself isn't interacting with the real me. And I resent feeling like I have to keep some parts of myself hidden while those I strongly disagree with and whose political opinions I consider dangerous, destructive and immoral seem to feel free to let it all hang out.
Rereading what I just wrote, it's clearer than ever that building a stronger sense of self is a necessary ongoing project for me -- one that is more comfortable just being who I am and believing what I believe, that isn't affected by others' judging me negatively, that can tolerate disagreement without personalizing it, that doesn't have to be right, and can let it go without anger on those occasions when I really am right and someone refuses to acknowledge it.
I appreciate your observations and I think your awareness is indeed the cure.
"building a stronger sense of self." This is tricky and one of the issues we have been dealing with over the months at Mindset Shifts U.
Your self-concept is the problem, not the solution. No amount of approval can ever make your self-concept feel secure. So your self-concept can behave badly in both directions. Silence when your voice is needed and an angry response when silence is called for.
The self you are looking for is not built, it emerges as your ego is subtracted.
As I said this has part of our work at the U. Obviously this is a process and not something changes by reading these words.
“The self you are looking for is not built, it emerges as your ego is subtracted.”
Thank you for this repositioning of my perspective. I can feel the weight of the truth in those words.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking read. I found myself agreeing with you that the censorship and suppression that took place during the COVID era was harmful and counter-productive (although I have yet to see enough evidence it's the type of problem that contributed to "16.9 million deaths").
From the title of the article and your arguments, it seems to me that you're saying censorship on privately owned platforms is always a bad thing. Am I correct in that? Anyone who has ever attempted to run a community discussion platform will eventually be faced with the reality that, like it or not, some censorship is critical in order to create a sustainable environment for discussion. I know the thrust of your article was about abuses, but what should the guiding principles of speech/community moderation be? Is some amount of "tyranny" in the form of community standards necessary in order to create an environment that is conducive to the participation in dialogue/speech? Is it a victory for free speech if a platform becomes so toxic and filled with crap that no one wants to use it - or if it simply becomes an echo chamber? What are the right policies and approaches that allow us to thread the needle?
I think the main issue is censorship from the government, irrespective of the platform. The fact that Biden’s admin used enforcement apparatus to silence dissent is unforgivable!
Thank you, Rob.
The main point of my essay was as Vitaily writes, government censorship.
If we had an environment where Facebook, Twitter didn't answer the government's calls and didn't privately flinch, then we would have more confidence in their business decisions to build their platforms.
There have been very rare instances (twice, I believe) where I have had to block posters because of extreme abusive comments. So, I appreciate your point.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!
Loved this post. I would like to think Mill and Feynman may have met on a higher plane. Feynman’s Uncertainty of Science fits right in here. Without freedom expression, no innovation is possible.
Thanks, Carol!
Do you consider the framework created by Trump more conducive to free speech? I do agree that Biden’s framework was not…
Despite Trump's narcissism, no one claims he tried to have the social media silence his critics during his term. I'm sure the First Amendment is in safer hands under him.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-warns-zuckerberg-and-anyone-who-illegally-interferes-election-will-be-jailed-life
Sad that he can't control himself, but typical Trump bluster.
Is it? When do words count?
Agreed, words count. I won't try to judge who has a lower character, Trump or Harris. We do know that Bush/Harris have gone after their political "enemies."
#FaucistBook is a compliance training algorithm. Where speech is neither free or protected, science inevitably degrades into a mechanistic Inquisition of Lysenkoism by #BigBrother.