The Value Of Self-Censorship

 

I am one who firmly believes that far too many people are far too easily offended today, whether it is reflected in demands to tear down statues because of historical transgressions, as in the case of Sir John A., or tossing out all of Winston Churchill's accomplishments because of his and the Empire's historical racism ( as opposed to making the statues part of history's lessons). That being said, there really is no excuse today for people to be blowing dogwhistles that appeal to a very base base.

Such is the case with the much-publicized cancellation of Dilbert, thanks to its creator, Scott Adams, opining that Black people are  “a hate group” that white people need to “get the hell away from.”

Adams deserves every cancellation he gets, but he’s not alone in deserving our opprobrium.  He might not have made the specific racist remarks he made but for Rasmussen Reports, which, smack-dab in the middle of Black History Month, decided to ask a pair of questions more befitting of Confederate Heritage Month.

Rasmussen Reports pollsters asked 1,000 people to agree or disagree with two statements: “It’s OK to be white” and “Black people can be racist, too.” Nothing good was ever going to come from those questions, and it was irresponsible and incendiary for Rasmussen to use those questions, and only those questions, in a survey.

White supremacists know such statements well.

“It’s OK to be white” is a sentence that has been embraced by white supremacists who oppose good-faith efforts to make our country more diverse, equitable and inclusive. “Black people can be racist, too,” is another sentiment one hears primarily from white people who don’t want to be reminded of the oppression white Americans have carried out. They are the same people who, contrary to all the evidence, argue that racism in America works both ways.

Of course, as is often the case in such matters, Adams sees himself as a victim, but I have both an observation and a little advice on this matter for him and his fellow travellers.

First, I think we have to admit that very few of us are completely without biases. Some of them might be minor, or they might be very significant. None of us is without blame in our lives. As long as we recognize and acknowledge to ourselves those prejudices or inclinations, we can choose not to act upon them.

Now I know many will say that if you have those biases, they will inexorably reveal themselves through what they like to call microaggressions. They may be right, but human nature offers the opportunity for growth, and I am of the firm opinion that we can choose to resist evil, because its embrace is a conscious act, doubtlessly influenced by conditioning and even unconscious underpinnings. 

My advice to people like Scott Adams and his ilk is simple: keep your views to yourself. To pronounce upon such matters from a position of some influence does no one any good. Indeed, I would extend that advice to everyone. We have to realize (and it can be humbling) that the larger world is not thirsting for our views, and that any impulse to believe otherwise is sheer egoism. 

And haven't we had more than enough of that nonsense in recent years?

 

 

A Sunday Reflection.

Reading the Sunday paper, there were a number of topics I entertained for today's post, ranging from political leadership to the Trump-Putin relationship and how it pertains to the current world situation to Ontario Liberal leader Stephen Del Duca's ghastly rally in which he showcased both his new 'look' and his obviously stage-frightened young daughters

However, those weighty topics will take a backseat to possible future posts. Today's, prompted by a local example, is about social media, public shaming, and the errors we can make in being too lustily engaged in what we perceive as justice issues.

The local example pertains to a restaurant that has closed its operation in Parkdale, one of Toronto's poorer neighbourhoods (that phrase apparently not yet quite an oxymoron). Known as Vegandale, the chain ran a restaurant called Doomie's Toronto, its purpose to promote veganism. Due to Covid and post-Covid exigencies, the owner says it was not profitable to operate in Parkdale.

Part of the problem, it would seem, was the negative reception it and the chain got from some community groups, which 

opposed the chain’s “moral imperative messaging,” which suggested veganism was superior to other lifestyles.

While they were no doubt well-intentioned, it occurred to me that some people just have too much time on their hands, time that leaves them thinking they should be the arbiters of what others think and feel. Until coming across the article, I had no idea that food-shaming is a thing.

Which brings me to the larger topic: public shaming. It is something I have some experience in, a story I shall leave to the end of this post.

There is no doubt that when we write on social media or retweet or share a story about someone's apparent wrongdoing, we feel a sense of smug moral superiority. However, often the fuller context is missing, or social media is being used to create mischief or malignity, the consequences of which cannot always be foreseen.

A good documentary on this topic is to be found on Crave Canada called 15 Minutes of Shame, produced with the involvement of Monica Lewinsky, who has some experience in the subject:

If you do not have access to the documentary, I would highly recommend a book by Jon Ronson (who also appears in the above film) entitled, So You've Been Publicly Shamed. While it has been a few years since I read it, one story in particular stands out, but it is just one of many showcasing terrible consequences for the victims of social media attacks:

Two young tech guys were attending a computer convention. Both rather nerdish, during the keynote address one turned to the other and commented upon the attractiveness of the woman giving the address, saying something to the effect that she could certainly engage his 'hard drive.' Juvenile and predictable, of course, but unfortunately his comment was overheard by a woman sitting behind him. Knowing his identity through his nametag, she launched into a social media attack, averring how she felt 'threatened' by his remark. Things escalated, as they often do on social media, and despite his public apology to her, he was ultimately fired from his well-paying job.

I find it difficult to see the social justice in his fate. 

There are many people who deserve to be called out and condemned on social media, but I am concerned about how readily we (and I do include myself) jump at the opportunities to stigmatize people on social media.

I shall end with a personal story. Some years ago I posted about a small-business owner who had failed to pay back wages to one of her employees. It was quite a significant amount of money, and I felt good to play even a miniscule role in publicizing her dereliction. Several months later, I received a heartfelt letter from the woman's daughter, who was trying to eliminate as many internet references to her mother as possible. I won't go into the details here, but the reasons for her request were compelling, and I did as she asked. I removed the post.

There are foreseen and unforeseen consequences to all of our actions. Because of that, I think we all need to be a little more reflective and humble, especially in our social media behaviour. Life, after all, is about much more than getting an abundance of likes, retweets, and followers.