When you're disgraced for your opinions
There are some truly awful “takes”, as we call them now, which understandably cause those who hear them to shudder and scorn. Toxic ideas and vitriolic speech can cause actual damage beyond hurt feelings. There are ideas and the speech carrying them that lead to catastrophic real world consequences. Some opinions are truly horrendous and trigger our deepest sense of disgust and horror. The question arises: how many bad ideas and how much hateful speech should we tolerate as a society and as individuals and organizations, and consequently, to what extent should we employ shame to discourage the proliferation of unhealthy ideas?
To answer this question we must examine our internal desire to censor and control. We all have a line drawn where each of us would say, “enough is enough, I don’t want to hear that hateful speech anymore.” Some would go further to prohibit such speech from being heard by anyone at all, presumably for the sake of the collective but unconsciously as an assertion of their own power as well.
So there is a tension between our limits of disgust and fear and our desire for freedom of thought and expression. The one who has the power to censor really has all the power they need. There is a range of acceptable public discourse, often called “the Overton Window” and whoever gains access to its drawstrings gets to decide which opinions are just too horrible for the common man and which should be promoted. The “Culture Wars” or “Psychwars” are a rhetorical battle over who gets to decide what is righteous and what is sin. Whichever side is currently winning that battle in your current surroundings (be they digital or physical) will play a key role in whether your opinion gets you “cancelled”.
In the span of the last ten years you could have stalwartly held the same position and it would have brought shame and disgrace from various changing political and social directions depending on the moment. Economist Thomas Sowell argues that believing that black people and white people should be treated equally made you a radical in the 1940s, a liberal in the 1960s, and a conservative in the 2020s. Believing that America should not police the world anymore was a leftist position when it had to do with Iraq but a right-wing position when it had to do with Ukraine. Being critical of pharmaceutical companies, China, or radical Islam would get you in hot water with a wide array of power centres depending on where and when you were expressing such opinions.
Of course, since you are human and likely an idiot (I include myself in this assessment) you should be open to the potential that you are indeed incorrect and could probably stand to learn more on any contentious subject which is likely far more complicated than you are giving it credit. But let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that you are as morally and factually correct as possible and it is still an opinion that might cause you to lose friends, jobs, or in some cases, even your freedom. What should you do if your opinion is deemed outside of the Overton Window and now your are being psychologically attacked because of it?
The first step is to acquire as much intellectual humility as possible. Even if you are “right” you probably don’t understand why it is people think you are wrong. If your main hypothesis is that everyone against you is either dumb, crazy, or brainwashed then you are not in a good position to survive your trip down cancel culture lane. It will be a lonely ride. This is not to say that you should abandon your values or deep held beliefs just because few others agree with you. It will help you move beyond your witch trial and maintain integrity if you can at least sympathize with how and why people are so mad at you.
Take J.K. Rowling, most notably the author of Harry Potter. She has received threats of violence and book burnings from almost every ideological corner. Many religious people were afraid her books were an invitation into the occult and should be banned from schools lest the innocent children be corrupted by tales of witchcraft. More recently her feminist opinions on safe spaces for women have landed her in trouble with trans-rights activists who have called for her cancellation with even stronger violence and vitriol. What has Jo done in response? She will often recognize where her detractors are coming from and listen to them. She has met with trans people, activists and even Christians who disagree with her. She researches the opinions of her opponents and not just the sources that favour her biases. She gets where they are coming from, even if she maintains her stance in opposition.
The next thing you might consider is becoming more familiar with the concept of censorship in general. If someone is trying to shame you for your opinions, you might decide to stay in the weeds of whatever the issue is or you could zoom out and try and make an argument for freedom of thought and expression. People can only agree to disagree if they ultimately agree that multiple opinions are allowed in the first place, which is where you should be. That’s the key problem, some people believe that your opinion is so heinous that it should not be allowed.
History has demonstrated how some ideas can be labelled blasphemous which then justifies someone’s harm or death. Socrates was corrupting the minds of the youth. Joan of Arc was challenging power. Joseph Smith Jr. was teaching blasphemies. Many prominent figures died for their beliefs but what is interesting is that in the long run they tend to look more favourably in their martyrdom. The reign of the tyrant ends with his death whereas the reign of the martyr begins with it. This is because deep down we all recognize the need for freedom of expression and the tragedy it is to kill someone for their opinion.
Your detractors, like those who attempted to take down Martin Luther or Martin Luther King Jr., believe that your ideas are dangerous. You should be equipped with confidence and the merits of the argument that ideas should be shared, even and especially when they are dangerous. Mark Twin said that “censoring is telling a man he can’t have steak because a baby can’t chew it.” Perhaps if someone can’t handle your opinion it has more to do with their fragility than the supposed dangers of your thoughts, as is so effectively argued by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in “The Coddling of the American Mind.” This doesn’t mean it would do you well to aggressively ram your “blasphemy” down everyone’s throat like you are a Youtube pundit. There is an art to persuasion called rhetoric and you would be wise to learn it but hold on to your right to be contrary.
Almost 200 years ago John Stuart Mill taught us why censorship is itself a bad idea. He argued firstly that contrary opinions might actually carry some truth so it’s beneficial to hear them and we suffer by missing out. Secondly, even if the idea is false, it allows us to strengthen our resolve in the truth. Sometimes the truth isn’t as convincing or convenient and we need contrary opinions to help us put the truth to the test. How much more convincing would it be to hear all the best arguments against an idea and then be able to systematically refute them? Being exposed to dangerous ideas helps us grow, it is the source of all progress.
So if you find yourself in hot ideological water, you might want to switch the conversation to the importance of free thought and less on the specifics of whatever thought you are trying to express.
Other previously mentioned strategies apply here as well. Namely, do not apologize! Do not apologize for your opinions, because nobody who is arguing with you will accept your apology anyway. All this does is make your position look weaker and diminish your resolve. It is regrettable that you cannot find common ground, it’s unfortunate that this point causes tension, but you should not ask forgiveness for the opinion you hold after honest and expensive research. Remember that much of the policing of thought boils down to an ideological and cultural warfare that is contentiously played out. If you are now caught in crossfires it’s likely with the unconscious or even direct purpose of controlling you or anyone else that might agree with you. George Bernard Shaw said that “all censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.” Take solace in the fact that if you are getting silenced it might be evidence that you’re on to something.
Let’s return the example of J.K. Rowling. While she has made the effort to understand her critics she has not apologized for her stances and stays fervent in her beliefs. Those who attempt to “cancel” her know deep down that she is uncancellable. Her immense success makes her nearly impervious to mass censorship but the target of her inquisitors is clear not her. What those who try to cancel Jo are actually accomplishing is the intimidation of those who agree with her but who aren’t billionaire authors with security details for protection. Like any type of witch hunt or “McCarthyism” the goal is to scare the common folk from partaking in blasphemy, and this might be the case with your situation.
This is ultimately about an attack on your social resources. They will try to make you so radioactive that no one would dare defend you or associate with you publicly. They want the social costs of blasphemy to be so high that no one dares and they want to make you a public example. This is where you may need to make a calculation. In this game, social bonds are valuable. You might have to weigh the benefits of being right versus being connected to social supports. Ideally your loved ones would not reject you for your unpopular opinions but sometimes the drama that comes with contentious debates is too much for some people. You might have to decide whether being a warrior for “the truth” is more important than putting the debate aside and focusing your energy on loving your neighbour and building relationships.
Some ideas are worth fighting for but most aren’t. Try and find a way to gain knowledge, test your ideas, and flirt with the edges of expression without sacrificing the bonds that will keep you safe through it all in the first place.