On the Violation of Personal Freedoms
I’ve begun to notice that people are growing more content with the idea of societal censure, cancellation, and ideological shaming. This, of course, only appeals to the people not being censured, cancelled, and shamed, because within this logical loophole lies the immoral ‘us vs. them’ mentality. The other issue with this way of thinking is that it discards any nuanced look at the question of personal or societal freedoms, and polarizes discussions.
To-wit, my picture is a simple reminder of America’s first amendment right. It is not particularly interesting unless you begin to take issue with it in some manner. For example, if some speech is too abhorrent to be expressed and some isn’t, then we begin needing an arbiter, hopefully someone impartial, who can deem some speech abhorrent and some not. This forcibly shrinks the Overton window of acceptable discourse. There are hate speech laws in the U.K., Germany, and Australia, as well as restrictions around criticism of the state in China, Cuba, and North Korea, making the U.S. a particularly special country. And yet, we are also falling into these traps, both societally and politically, because we are letting the loudest voices dictate what is true and false, what is offensive and inoffensive, for people who simply want to go on with their lives. And the state is in on it, the corporations are in on it, academia is in on it; everyone who can get power from enforcing limitations has some stake in the conversation, and the average citizen suffers.
If it were not for power, what would it be for? The good of the common person? These charlatans spit on the common person — perhaps it’s not even strictly due to their malice, but the fact that we let them. In a matter of 1 1/2 years, one of the most freedom-loving countries in the world has embraced mandates of all kinds, restrictions on speech and self-expression, data harvesting and spying — and much of this is not even due to the pandemic. Suddenly, your social status is dependent on whether you express the right mix of decorum and self-deception — in my mind, any person with a conscience is aware that “being pressured to believe something” is not a good thing. It does not help matters that entities like Google and Facebook cooperate with the government to weed out freedom of expression. It is for power, and only power, because egotistical charlatans dream of making people miserable through compliance. It’s why they become politicians.
The foolishness of the conformist is that their opinion is not their own. If you are afraid to believe something other than what you believe, your beliefs are illegitimate. The conformist will constantly remind you that you’re the outsider, yet that is merely more gaslighting. And the conformist will rationalize their beliefs through the echo chamber of other conformists. I am not against people who believe in the goodness of centralized state power, revolution, or even conformity, so long as that is their own, genuinely held belief. But I fear such people are in decline, given that everything focuses on your apparent reputation and publicly held beliefs. But then again, why do I care what a stranger thinks about me? Do they know the context of what I believe and my reasoning for my belief? Would they listen to me?
Certainly, the problem is made worse by those who enforce a particularly damning ‘social status quo’. Rather than be honest and express positions of integrity, many people feel bullied into agreeing with the socially acceptable views, even if they may be deluded by discussions of solidarity, human rights, anti-racism, and so on. There is no objection of “you should agree with this because it’s true” because we are literally discussing what is ‘politically correct’, rather than what is actually correct. If society were concerned with being actually correct, it would have long stopped fighting itself for no good reason. Many people, in fact, find themselves subtly propagandized into becoming political extensions of themselves, ignorant of the fact that they might sow more divide. They listen to people who think like them, discarding the obvious tribal mistake they’re making, and they continue to dogmatically analyze the world. This is what I’m most against: only a fool would rather be reassured than right.
A legitimate objection could be that the people in question genuinely believe the socially acceptable ideas, and believe it is morally good to push them upon others. But I find this objection misses the point, which is that nobody, and I mean nobody, can impose their ideas on another and be morally right. And, once you start imposing them on celebrities, online personalities, politicians, professors, you begin to shape the narrative, even if it’s well intentioned. Beyond the matter of constitutionality is the actual sanctity of society, shaped first by its ability to exist without imploding from within. That is to say, if a society has incredible ideological schisms, biases and pretenses towards particular groups or identities, and constant tension, it will implode. And everyone will get hurt, everyone will get marginalized, because a society of distrust will take the place of freedom. I fear that the more our government supports this distrust, the more we become like our authoritarian rivals.
I believe the solution to this problem is extremely unclear, seeing as there will always be those who believe the revolutionary, progressive, emotionally-charged spirit is the only way forward, while others will inevitably want to preserve society and allow traditions to prosper. There will be grifters on both sides, opportunists who see leverage in being on one side today and the other tomorrow. There will be politicians who, despite being censured and shamed, will stick to their principles and not buckle like scared dogs, while others will submit to the most popular opinion available and have no leg to stand on. I am under the impression that power determines these facts, not truth, and I stand against the notion that we should be forced to believe something. We should not disqualify people from speaking because we suspect them of wrongdoing, we should not gaslight people who want to have serious, albeit controversial conversations, and we should not use society as some sort of inquisition that looks for ‘witches to burn’. Surely, that is illiberal as can be.
If we are morally honest and upright, I believe we will listen to every perspective, focus on what is true and false, and reduce the tendency to get emotional about very complicated matters. But also, we should stop hiding behind groups when we are clearly individuals — a group is not a monolith, and neither is society. Only when we will respect each other’s right to expression will we actually have mature, meaningful discussions.
