Have you ever experienced self censorship? That is, have you removed an expressed opinion, straight or by proxy, because someone else insinuates or states that it’s not a good idea that you express or share it? Or, even worse, that you do it because you simply feel that other people might possibly be hurt or upset by your expression?
It’s one thing to be considerate. It’s a completely different thing to be unconsciously ruled by those who are themselves controlled by fear of conflict or, worse, by conscious ulterior motives. There are many amateur censors out there who seemingly have nothing better to do than post opinions and links to other affirming opinions, but rant like hell or try to shame you when something different or divergent/deviant shows up. Social media is apparently a great and welcoming place if you bear a general grudge and would like to enforce your bitterness upon others.
Initially, this is entertaining, like watching a flock of monkeys mimic the rest of the terrified group in various stages of hysteric adaption. You can laugh at the folly and draw your own conclusions about the absurdity of “social” media. But in extension, the general attitude echoes nothing less than totalitarian imprinting. Freedom of expression, opinion and speech is not encouraged at all. If someone has a divergent opinion (like most intelligent people do) you can rest assured there will be a horde of do-gooding peddlers of very safe opinions raising their voices and capitalising their responses. In an environment where people grandly claim to be tolerant and pro-free speech and yet act in a diametrical way, you can also rest assured no real or visible tyrants are ever needed – the proxy-morons are already doing the job for them. And, eventually, those with a “different” attitude who self censor themselves will too. It’s not really what you say, but rather how it’s perceived via a general consensus emotional filter.
George Orwell wrote well about the mechanisms of the totalitarian mind in Nineteen Eighty Four, Animal Farm and many other texts. It’s remarkable how prescient he was:
“‘There is a word in Newspeak’, said Syme, ‘I don’t know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.’” (Nineteen Eighty Four, 1949)
“By 2050 – earlier probably – all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron – they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” (Nineteen Eighty Four, 1949)
“Napoleon, with the dogs following him, now mounted on the raised portion of the floor where Major had previously stood to deliver his speech. He announced that from now on the Sunday morning meetings would come to an end. They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time. In the future all questions relating to the working of the farm would be settled by a special committee of pigs, presided over by himself. These would meet in private and afterwards communicate their decisions to the others. The animals would still assemble on Sunday mornings to salute the flag, sing ‘Beasts of England’, and receive their orders for the week; but there would be no more debates. In spite of the shock that Snowball’s expulsion had given them, the animals were dismayed by this announcement. Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments. Even Boxer was vaguely troubled. He set his ears back, shook his forelock several times, and tried hard to marshal his thoughts; but in the end he could not think of anything to say.” (Animal Farm, 1945)
A couple of times, I’ve removed Facebook posts I liked and wanted to share, simply because they were attacked by vehement, almost outraged, individuals. I removed the posts mainly to not shame these individuals, as I’ve regarded them as friends. In my mind, one can still be friends with people who disagree with you. But although I wanted to spare them the visibility of their intolerant stupidity, I very soon regretted it. Because the end result was still that I’d self censored myself. And that, in my humble opinion, is truly a sin.
This leads on to thoughts about “trigger warnings” and sheltering people from a reality that doesn’t correspond to their pampered and fragile psyches. It inevitably leads to censorship, self-censorship, intolerance and fear. Political correctness is a deadly poison that affects everyone – unfortunately. In many ways it would be best to isolate these people who are so terrified of life and divergent opinions in a gated community of sorts. No, I don’t mean imprisonment proper (although it’s an attractive idea), but rather some special place where they could make sure they’re not aggravated by anyone – least of all themselves – and just let the rest of us develop in creative ways and enjoy life. I would make sure to shut off their internet connection and only let them use a fake intranet solution that looks like Facebook, Twitter etc. I’m sure they wouldn’t notice any difference – only that there’d be slightly less for them to rant about.
The real absurdity of the scenario is the masquerading. The most vehement ranters and shamers would probably not see themselves as totalitarian at all. On the contrary, they probably look at themselves as “good” and that they’re using their logorrhoea for a good cause. In actual fact they are stifling not only others but also themselves. In their intolerance (of course masquerading as tolerance) they create a public climate in which rational arguments can no longer be included. Emotional outbursts and shaming create a paranoid environment destined to keep people from expressing their real views and feelings in favour of an assumed, sanitised and totally safe haven of mediocrity.
It is tempting to leave this absurdity behind and just focus on enjoying life. But for many people, including myself, social media is a good thing. A great multifaceted platform to keep in touch with friends, make new friends, share information and tell stories. If one succumbs to the pressure of possible aggression from bitter don Quixotes and Mediocre Jokers masquerading as moral(istic) do-gooders, the arena will be left to rot with further restrictions, pseudo-egalitarian mush and yet more Newspeak. And that is decidedly not a good thing.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Juvenalis)
