Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:08 PM Jan 2015

2014: A Year of Outrage

December 31, 2014
Posted by Jack Vance at 6:26 AM

It is getting increasingly difficult to find actual news on the Internet amidst all the outrage media and clickbait. Some of the websites I used to visit regularly (e.g., Salon.com) seem to have largely abandoned even the pretense of journalism, fully embracing the over-the-top sensationalism of outrage media. Or maybe they were always like this, and I've merely grown tired of it.

- snip -

We now see widespread irrationality from many of those who promote themselves as champions of freethought, skepticism, and social justice. The particular form it takes should be cause for concern for anyone who is seriously committed to freethought because it amounts to the use of social pressure to stifle dissenting viewpoints. Certain ideas (e.g., particular feminist ideologies, the conflation of atheism with humanism) are given privileged status as being off limits to criticism or debate. Those who ask too many questions or criticize flawed aspects of these ideas are branded with negative labels in much the same way some religious believers respond to blasphemy. Not only are they branded, but social sanctions are brought to bear against them (e.g., public shaming, doxing, attempts to get them fired). This behavior is not indicative of freethought, and it should not be something in which freethinkers participate.

The expression of bad ideas - regardless of the form they take - should not be suppressed by freethinkers. And yes, I'd include truly awful ideas like creationism, racism, and Holocaust denial here. Suppressing the expression of these ideas does not eradicate them; it forces them underground where they continue to influence behavior without us being able to detect it. Does anyone really believe that scolding a true misogynist into silence will change his beliefs? He simply learns not to express his opinions in front of certain people.

But this isn't even the most serious problem with which we must contend. As difficult as this is for some of us to admit, we are not infallible. We can be wrong about some of our most cherished ideas. There could even be a few good aspects of some of the ideas we consider to be bad ideas (e.g., political ideologies with which we largely disagree). And some of the people who hold truly bad ideas in one area might still make worthwhile contributions in other areas. By silencing the expression of the ideas we consider to be bad ideas and the people who hold them, we lose the opportunity to improve our own ideas. We give up considering the merits of various ideas and end up in dissent-free bubbles where we fall victim to all sorts of biases that lead to irrationality. We must allow ourselves to be offended by bad ideas if we hope to engage in anything like freethought.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2014/12/2014-year-of-outrage.html#ixzz3NbNnyEzU

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
1. I'm having trouble getting my head around his point here.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:23 PM
Jan 2015

I think he makes some excellent point about the dangers of suppressing ideas just because one disagrees with them. It is one of the reasons that I object so strongly to those who voice their wish to eliminate religion and strongly support increased education about religion.

But when he gets to talking about the outrage expressed around Brown and Garner and questions whether it is helpful or not, he loses me. Is he suggesting that people should not express outrage.

One thing that comes to mind is the rather rigid position the DU in general takes on certain issues. There is a lockstep mentality among some who will quickly call others trolls or disruptors simply because they express an alternate view. There are some positions that I have that I would never, ever express on this site, and I'm betting that is true for pretty much everyone.

This is not something that I generally experience IRL. Dialog tends to be more two-way and less full of outrage. Perhaps that is what he is talking about.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
3. Perhaps it is the "free thought" concept that I am struggling with.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:41 PM
Jan 2015

Certainly evaluating something critically and coming to a reasoned conclusion that has taken into consideration all the available information is preferable to reflexive outrage.

But is "free thought" so rigid that it excludes emotional reactions? They can be valuable sources of information as well. While it is describe as "free", when I read about it, it seems very encumbered by rules.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
4. This part stood out starkly:
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:57 PM
Jan 2015
We now see widespread irrationality from many of those who promote themselves as champions of freethought, skepticism, and social justice. The particular form it takes should be cause for concern for anyone who is seriously committed to freethought because it amounts to the use of social pressure to stifle dissenting viewpoints.

You don't have to look far to see it in action.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
5. Oh, I get that part.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 05:05 PM
Jan 2015

The problem is conflating atheism with free thought. They are entirely different things, imo.

As someone in another thread pointed out, atheism means only one thing. It says nothing about being more logical, reasoned or rational.

Free thought is an entirely separate thing.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
6. My take away from his writing
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 05:13 PM
Jan 2015

is that there is nothing wrong per se with emotional reactions. But when those emotional reactions hinder discussion, suppress speech, and become rigid, then there is a problem.

He makes a very valid point about subjective rage. It has become almost narcissistic in that people will be so insistent on expressing their outrage that they will not even consider the emotions of others when doing so. I see this happening at both ends of the political expression here in the US.

Let me go with the example he is given about the two recent deaths of those young men in MO and NY. As a bi-racial man, I know all to well the reality of racist cops, especially having grown up in the south. I felt great sadness and even anger at their senseless deaths. But, I do not shut down my reason either. I do not assume that just because another young black man is killed by a white cop that it is a 'bad shooting'. For many, here and elsewhere in cyberspace, that is not possible. Cognitive dissonance rears its head, and even full blown denials of reality will occur. Subjective outrage has replaced any kind of rational discussion that may lead to some sort of systemic change. Buzzwords du jour are then thrown around like 'racism', 'sexism', 'privilege', 'victim blaming' etc. as rationalizations of the extreme emotional response. It does shut down discussions and it alienates allies constantly.

And there are countless other examples every day that show this same trend. The MSM as well as the 'blogosphere' lap this shit up and feed the fires daily. If it bleeds, it leads has become if it will provoke outrage, then talk about it incessantly to keep that wood burning. From Target ad campaigns to false stories of restaurant goers stiffing the server, to conspiracies that all white cops MUST be racist, etc, etc, etc., it is one outrage after another.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
7. I think your first paragraph sums it up well.
Thu Jan 1, 2015, 05:24 PM
Jan 2015

I wonder what it is about the need to be outraged on the internet. It is distinctly different than what one generally sees in real life. There is a tribalism that seems to blind some to the point that they seem to rather thoughtlessly get outraged about some things of very little consequence.

I really relate to your thoughts about the shootings, but I have seen here that to express anything other than outrage or to raise questions about facts that may not support that outrage will not be tolerated.

In addition, over and over again we see stories presented that trigger the outrage machine which later turn out to be false, sometimes purposefully false. One would think that you might be embarrassed at having fallen for it and be more circumspect next time, but I'm not seeing a lot of that.

OTOH, these recent shootings have uncovered an infected wound around the issues of racism and privilege and sometimes one needs outrage to make a change.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»2014: A Year of Outrage