But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.
Here’s a very old debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate
There’s a good quote inside:
”Let us ever apply ourselves to the task, feeling assured that the more we thus exercise, and by exercising improve our intellectual faculties, the more worthy shall we be, the better shall we be fitted to come nearer to our God.”
The gist I get from it (not saying it’s 100% right) is that we enrich ourselves by exercising our mental state, which means challenging ourselves, exploring new intellectual points, and having the fortitude to go through with it (and hopefully find meaning).
Instead, the easy way is to forgo such “intellectual exercise” and simply regurgitate the same sentiments back to ‘the group’ and drown out the ‘other side’ with self-serving, dribbling retorts.
With respect to “What can’t be said”, this reinforces conditioned thinking that is black or white with no gray area in between to formally discuss. Instead, the ethos is “You’re either with us or against us”, and challenging that classification is violating Rule #1.
https://www.lesswrong.com/s/M3TJ2fTCzoQq66NBJ/p/ZQG9cwKbct2L...
When more moderate, reasonable, or relatively skeptical people leave the group, people who remain are, on average, more fanatical and extreme. Which leads to even more extreme viewpoints, which pushes out more and more people who previously might have been acting as a voice of moderation.
> After the [moderate members] escape, the remaining discussions will be between the extreme fanatics on one end and the slightly less extreme fanatics on the other end, with the group consensus somewhere in the “middle.”
So
> This is one reason why it’s important to be prejudiced in favor of tolerating dissent. Wait until substantially after it seems to you justified in ejecting a member from the group, before actually ejecting. If you get rid of the old outliers, the group position will shift, and someone else will become the oddball.
For instance, violence/threats against those with different political viewpoints. Or attempts at justifying actual abusive/manipulative behaviour.
It makes me worry that the goal of civility has been lost, that a depressing number of people actively seem to think they're at war with their opponents and that their goal is not to come to any sort of compromise or get along, but to destroy the other team by any means necessary.
Why do we allow it?
Unless I misunderstand what you're pointing to?
examples?
"Wait before you say anything more, that seems like a poor choice, but go on"
"How dare you! Victim shaming is not ok!!"
Person A is accused of criminal act X.
Person B: "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place."
Person C: "X-apologist!"
"She's a witch!"
"It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place."
"He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")
In society, witch hunts have been a thing for quite a while, I think the web mostly just didn't have the opportunities to show its witch hunting abilities in the early, pre-mainstream years.