Has anyone considered this whole phenomenon from a materialist analysis? Global society is more interconnected than before. The public discourse on social media platforms is huge. It’s also hugely polarized for multitudes of reasons. People (on the Internet) are getting into arguments with more people than ever before, usually with strangers.
From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thought of simply an act of automation. People identify reoccurring patterns of arguments, classify their adversary, and use a cached response. Thus, instead of spending the costly time and energy to respond to every argument in detail, you tag, use the appropriate function, and move on. And because modern society is so polarized, those functions tend to be fairly absolute- who wants to get dragged into another argument they’ve had before?
The problem is that modern discourse just can’t scale.
I appreciate how you bring up the point of efficiency. One of the things that challenges me in communication and resolving conflict, especially on the internet, is that it often works better if I use more precise language, which often requires more words.
So, for example, adding qualifications can show uncertainty and humility, yet adding "often works" is longer than "works" both from a character limit and a typing it on a phone keyboard.
Another example, saying "that's annoying" can be quicker than "that annoyed me" or more so "that annoyed me and may annoy others like me."
As much as I try to catch myself taking these linguistic shortcuts, I still may give in to the quickness of them, especially when I'm in a rush, and sometimes, especially online, conversations can move so quickly they put me into a heightened rush state.
Anyway, I'm grateful you pointed out this element of efficiency and scalability. I think these conversations can scale better by taking a little extra time to communicate than by always taking the shortcut. Maybe akin to how code can become more legible, and thus easier to maintain and scale, if the developer takes the time to more precisely name things. The name may be longer but may be more precise and prevent future problems.
I think this is a useful take because it points to a positive solution: Taking the time to weigh evidence and context on an individual, case by case basis, as opposed to walking around as if you have a "mute" button for everything.
I was accused of saying something I didn't say at a bar, by a black woman I was talking with. She complained to the bartender who, without having heard any of the conversation, called me a racist and threw me out.
I was very distressed by this. On hearing the story, a friend brought up the fact that bartenders don't have the time or training to resolve every dispute between customers, so they just make snap decisions that are often wrong. He also said that in days gone by, the black person would have been the one who got thrown out in a dispute, and so this is a form of restorative justice. I found this a helpful idea, because it implies that people still aren't treating each other any more equally or listening to both sides, or weighing things wisely or on the merits; and that's what needs to be fixed if we want to have any kind of discourse at all.
Agreed on the individual side. It's a response to decision fatigue. You cannot effectively understand every individual, their opinions and intentions, while scaling your personal "social network" up to thousands of people. So instead you apply a label and move on.
But "modern discourse just can't scale" is a bit of a defeatist mindset. Surly there is a solution out there for reducing polarization.
I think polarization can be decreased, I just think one of the prices to pay might be we need to collectively agree to refrain from the luxury of arguing with random strangers.
Sort of. Social phenomena like the rise of Bolsonaro or Zemmour, or the gender wars currently going on in South Korea, might be influenced by culture wars in the U.S. but are also propelled by their own local experiences.
This would be fine if we were moving towards canceling thoughts, and not people. In a hyperconnected society where everyone is watching everything all the time, we're all bound to be cancelled for something eventually.
From that perspective, canceling/labeling heresy could potentially be thought of simply an act of automation. People identify reoccurring patterns of arguments, classify their adversary, and use a cached response. Thus, instead of spending the costly time and energy to respond to every argument in detail, you tag, use the appropriate function, and move on. And because modern society is so polarized, those functions tend to be fairly absolute- who wants to get dragged into another argument they’ve had before?
The problem is that modern discourse just can’t scale.