Actually he should say it, erroneous ideas and beliefs can't be challenged when they are kept hidden or silent due to societal taboos that prevents people from calling .the Emperor naked but instead praise him on his new invisible clothes.
Just like when it is shown that there are many white Muslims out there but thanks to pseudo liberal, apologist brainwashing many so called enlightened liberals equate Islam with brown skin and call anyone who criticizes the religion or it's followers racist.
Hmmm. I think that our various defenses to avoid confronting reality or engaging in socially unacceptable or dangerous speech or behavior are there for a good reason.
And, in sentiment, I absolutely agree with you. Thus I will rephrase to my taste:
1. It may or may not be a good idea to say something, but denial or disavowal of an idea is worse. Thus, it is important for us to have avenues to express our deepest biases in some fashion that allows us to work on them. The best expression is not necessarily direct speech.
2. A culture of shaming someone based on the perceived virtues of their speech is bad. It is an inhibition to #1. It compels speech and is contrary to the virtue of free speech even if it does not invalidate it altogether.
3. Sharing a moralistic attitude toward the speech or behavior of another is productive and not shaming. It is simply the difference between communicating "that idea is bad" instead of "you are bad for having that idea".
4. Engaging in shaming another makes you feel better about yourself but does not help anyone recognize and modify a bad belief. Instead, it will reinforce their belief. It may change their
behavior, but only in an anxiety-producing, disingenuous, and thus merely partially effective way.
5. Sharing a moralistic attitude, on the other hand, always gets someone closer to challenging their inherent belief so long as they have even a shred of interpersonal positive feelings toward the person sharing that attitude.
6. All this stuff happens mostly unconsciously, and many people have been so influenced by less healthy education methods that they are very far from consciously accepting that their underlying feelings oppose their unconscious beliefs.
7. And now we circle back around to the original post. The likely product of #6 is something called
reaction formation. In order to ward off the anxiety caused by consciously realizing someone's own hypocrisy, they engage in speech or behavior that exaggeratedly opposes their unacceptable belief. For example, a man with some degree of attraction toward other men (even a shred if their anxiety is that strong; not necessarily latent homosexuality) -- demonstrates public and overt homophobia. Of course, some people have beliefs and impulses so strong that not even such an overt reaction formation can suppress them acting on them. But, hell, haven't you ever wondered why people with moral conflicts about severe impulses to say, molest children, become
Priests, Child Counselors, Coaches, etc.? What a fantastic way to honor the strong prohibition against such actions while sneakily providing you easy access! And politicians who eschew moral values while using their power to sleep around on their wives?
Makes sense, don't it?
But here's the funny part. There are a lot of these people whose reaction formations actually work well enough to suppress the behavior. And, interestingly enough, some progressive good does come out of it from time to time. Funny to imagine that among the most helpful people for society in say, civil rights, may be people who are simply running away from their awareness that they have hardcore racism locked inside them.
Facebook
Twitter