Truth, when it exists in absolute terms, rarely corresponds to the most popular view, to that of a group or, even less, to that of a single person. Reality is too complex and difficult to decipher, mainly because of all the biases to which we are subject – experiences, ideology, interests, beliefs or “group thinking”.
So, in addition to science, the other great weapon against obscurantism has been freedom of speech. This is one of the strongholds of Western societies and one of the engines of their enormous achievements.
From a personal point of view, it is not comfortable. When our ideas are challenged, we feel like we are being attacked. However, it is not difficult to see that although we feel safer discussing with those that we agree with, it is with them that we have the least possibility of learning and evolving.
Even ideas that seem absurd must be able to be expressed freely. To be able to be dismantled, belied with facts or teach us something that we missed from the start.
Therefore, many perceive that it is essential to defend this right even when they disagree. That it is not just about defending individual freedoms, but defending a free, prosperous and democratic society. Many. But not everyone. I venture to say less and less.
What seemed to be a pillar of many western countries, has long been showing signs of erosion, eroded by ideologies with totalitarian tendencies, communication phenomena that reinforce tribalism or by new strategies of struggle for power.
The arguments for limiting freedom of expression are many and varied:
- “We are tolerant, except with the intolerant” , since they decide what should be tolerated;
- “They are dangerous voices for society”, since they are the ones who decide what is a danger to society;
- “These are offensive opinions”, and hypersensitivity is only for a few. The alleged “offenders” do not enjoy this protection and can be insulted freely;
- “They are minority voices”, even though history has shown that reason is not often on the side of the majority.
Perhaps the root cause of this intolerance is the lack of diversity. Without conviviality with other visions, there can be no learning and moderation. On the contrary, there will be a crystallization of thought and intolerance for alternative views.
All of them seem radical and incomprehensible because they are incompatible with the dogmas that the lack of contradiction inevitably produces and feeds.
Cancel Culture
This phenomenon has been visible for several years in the academic world, namely Anglo-Saxon, but a little everywhere.
An alienated world, built on ideology and conformism, leads to even the most solid scientific evidence being rejected for contradicting established dogmas.
One way of doing this is through tampering with science, for example through publication bias, using low quality studies as “evidence” or even fraud .
Another is the censorship and even the “cancel culture”, personal and professional, of those who do not align with current ideologies and beliefs.
In academic life, the examples are endless. Since the dismissal of a dean for including, in a demonstration in support of the fight against racism, the statement “BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE’S LIFE MATTERS.”
Even to the teacher fired for going against prevailing ideological postulates and highlighting one of the most unavoidable scientific facts, in humans and animals, that there are different biological sexes.
If this phenomenon is old in academic life, it has spread to other areas such as large technology companies and some journalism. Here, too, the lack of acceptance of diversity of thought begins to be evident.
The dangers are as numerous as the emergence of a repressive society with totalitarian tics.
It is up to us all to use the resources available to defend the right to freedom of expression, even when we do not agree or even feel uncomfortable with its use.
The “annoyances” of not doing so will certainly be greater in the future.
