You see this a lot in people whose kids have cut off contact. From their perspective, the cutting off was sudden and shocking. From their kid's perspective, it was the last-ditch effort to reclaim autonomy and preserve sanity after a lifetime of abuse and endless attempts to set boundaries and seek change. An outside observer is missing key details.
Anecdotally, every person I know who's cut off people who were harmful to them has found more fulfillment even if things are harder for them. Like chosen family, chosen struggle seems to be easier to live with than a struggle that thrives on disempowerment.
The threshold was high because people didn't believe they had a choice before.
1. The threshold of what constitutes “abuse and general toxicity” has lowered significantly, giving people social tacit permission to ostracize others for lesser and lesser perceived offenses.
2. People always think that discarding something is good, and that they are better off without it, immediately after having discarded it. People naturally want to be able to blame all their problems on a single source, and after they have gotten rid of it, they quite obviously believe their lives to be better in every way. Of course, the worse the thing they discarded was, the more correct they are in their belief, but if they are entirely correct can not be known until much later.
2 might be the case, but people can certainly have a sense that something is wrong. It could turn out they made the wrong call in trying to resolve that feeling, but my ancedata tells me this is vanishingly rare.
I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off. I've already heard quite a bit from the latter and don't find their defenses compelling, so I'm still not convinced this is a serious problem.
Nobody contests that. But freedom was never the issue. The issue was a possible problem with people more and more readily abandoning dialogue for ostracism (with accompanying demonization, etc. as justification) as a normal thing to do on disagreement.
> I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off.
Both our sample sizes are very small, so we probably can’t draw any definitive conclusions either way. I was highlighting that ostracism seemed to me to become more common, and if this is true, it would point to either a rise in the existence of terrible irredeemable people, or a socially lowered threshold for abandoning conversation for demonization. Per the reasons described in the article, I tend to believe in the latter, not the former.
Third option: those people were always there, but more people are realizing they can set and enforce boundaries. You no longer have to just ignore the relative who sexually harasses children, or the relative who's sliding deeper into conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric that leads to material harm to them and people they care about.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't convince people around you to support doing something, parting ways is increasingly a socially acceptable option. Most people can't summon up a #MeToo to deal with their problems, and negative peace[0] has been the order of business for so long most people don't even realize it, so cutting people off is often the only option other than status quo.
It seems like your concern is that this movement is lopsided in favor of people giving up on solving these problems rather than sticking with someone who is reachable. That hasn't been my observation, and like I said upthread, I haven't found the evidence in favor of this view persuasive. Most excommunications I witness (or have participated in) followed a long, sometimes lifetime, campaign of patience and persistence. Often a mental health crisis brought on by not forcing the boundaries precedes the no contact situation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_conflict_studies#Con...
This is certainly possible, but why, then, are they realizing this now (in the last five years)? This option lacks a cause for it to be happening now. But the reasons I proposed, a lack of tolerance of differing opinions, do have a quite obvious potential underlying cause, namely a hardening political climate and polarization.
It’s possible that both are true, of course. I.e. a hardening political climate with accompanying ostracism and demonization of any disagreement has also made it socially acceptable to ostracise really irredeemable people in situations where it was not previously feasible.
I am now collapsing this subthread and moving on since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Good luck!