The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.
Even if we grant that the rise in self-censorship is entirely due to "casual racism and sexism" (and I don't grant it), wouldn't that meant that 40% of people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no?
Neither do I.
> people are secret bigots? That sounds bad, you would rather they be open about their beliefs so you can identify them, no?
I don't know how much of a secret it is. This tends to be fairly obvious regardless of whether people say it openly, and depending on which circles you spend time in, you tend to hear it already in private anyway. Perhaps there are many people who were naive, ignorant, sheltered, and are shocked to learn about bigotry, but speaking only for myself, I'm not at all surprised by the continuing level of bigotry in society, and I knew it before the rise of social media.
There was no such period. Like I said, it depends on which circles you spend time in (e.g. your family). Sounds like you were just sheltered from it.
Isn't it scary or least worrying that 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds? Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past and now people (majority of the other 60%) are calling them out and criticize them on those hence concluding not scary and perhaps good?
I find it scary too.
Some of them do, yes.
However, "The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then." In the past, there was no such thing as being afraid of speaking your mind on social media. You were typically speaking your mind in private, among friends and family. This very conversation that we're having now would have never occurred in 1957, or even 1987.
The history of our nature has shown self-censorship usually erupts by the most radicals of that group which is an uglier problem to have I would think than allowing their right or wrong thoughts to be out in the light.
>The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then.
This to me only highlights the extend to which we should be worried rather than exaggerating it.
People always have had to separate public and private life, the only differences now is that it seems like they don't understand what is public or private anymore.
I frequently see people making public comments on social networks about their employers or customers that no one should be making, they get fired and then complain there's no "free speech" anymore. The stupidity is really something.
Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly.
Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with their principles, but because it strikes at the status / tribe signal positions they've adopted.
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/66/4/503/52...
I quoted MLK (as above) at someone in 2020 and was quite surprised when it uncorked a rant about how that must mean i was a racist and didn't care for the struggles of the oppressed and so on.
In any case, we are all beneficiaries or victims of the past. Children don't start from equal positions. "average per capita wealth of White Americans was $338,093 in 2019 but only $60,126 for Black Americans" https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2022/how-the-racial-w...
As stated by the linked article, this is actually a vast improvement from 150 years ago. But let's not pretend that the existence of the racial gap wasn't the result of historical factors. Arguing that we're all equal now would just be sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that history didn't exist.
What addresses the problems of a single parent household then? Let's hear your solutions.
It was possible to get ostracized over racism and especially sexism in the 1960s, or even the 1890s, you just had to do worse things to do it generally.
If more people are afraid of ostracism, that suggest ostracism has increased (even) faster than progress on racism and sexism, and that doesn't sound like it can go on forever.
Ostracism is progress on racism and sexism. It's society pushing back against them.
This is a very long war. Wars are ugly. If you think that racism and sexism will just go down quietly without a fight, well, that's not how it works. When they feel most threatened, that's when they'll make the most noise.
It is absolutely not. Ostracism is - at best - a means towards the end, of ending racism and sexism. One of many. It may work, or it may backfire.
> This is a very long war.
If you can't tell the difference between the means and the goal, it's not just a long war, it's a classic forever war.
Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there?
I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the great accomplishments of humanity is to rise above our animal instincts and become, at least temporarily, rational and enlightened.
Sex is necessary for the propagation of the species, and when done right, it's consensual to all parties and also pleasurable, harming nobody. Can you say the same about racism and sexism?
As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Don’t need to be EO Wilson or Richard Dawkins to see why.
How do you define sexism? I'm not sure how the "stereotypical cat lady" is even relevant.
> more traditional patriarchal groups have higher birth rates
I don't think we need higher birth rates at this point, with over 8 billion humans on Earth already.
> As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common?
Romantic preferences are not racism. Would you say that failure to be bisexual is sexism? (Spoiler: it's not.)
It's crucial to recognize, though, that romantic preferences are entirely subjective. If you consider your romantic preferences to be objectively superior humans and those who aren't to your preference objectively inferior humans who deserve a lower rank in society, that would be racism and/or sexism.
I'm under the impression that homosexuality is largely accepted in the western world, and that largely, western society hasn't been destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah.