> It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone. They literally can't imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble.
It seems to me that this stems from two interrelated issues:
1. People defaulting to their tribal position (red/blue in the US) without thinking deeply and engaging in rational discussion of issues.
2. A lack of empathy.
What is "currently acceptable to believe" is determined by your ingroup. And rather than trying to understand why someone in the outgroup would hold a different opinion, the ingroup paints all of them as crazy/stupid/X-ist. While the red tribe is generally more criticized in this regard, the blue tribe is just as complicit (look at the smug superiority of John Oliver and other political comedians).
While this tribal fighting occurs, power is consolidated. The people with keen insights (that may be construed as controversial) will make them privately, rather than take on public risk. In the words of Jessica Livingston, "I don't have time to fight with people who are trying to misunderstand me." [1]
I hope that there is a solution to this problem, so that the internet can reach its potential to democratize access to information and data, rather than becoming a mechanism to virtue signal acceptable tribal beliefs.
It's less a lack of empathy and more a redefinition of it, at least on the woke blue tribe side. In those circles, not rejecting ideas outside the orthodoxy and dehumanizing those who hold them is seen as a failure of empathy because the correct ideas are, by definition, required in order to treat the people who matter with decency. I'm not familiar enough with other groupthinks to know if this applies there too, but probably not.
It seems to me that this stems from two interrelated issues:
1. People defaulting to their tribal position (red/blue in the US) without thinking deeply and engaging in rational discussion of issues.
2. A lack of empathy.
What is "currently acceptable to believe" is determined by your ingroup. And rather than trying to understand why someone in the outgroup would hold a different opinion, the ingroup paints all of them as crazy/stupid/X-ist. While the red tribe is generally more criticized in this regard, the blue tribe is just as complicit (look at the smug superiority of John Oliver and other political comedians).
While this tribal fighting occurs, power is consolidated. The people with keen insights (that may be construed as controversial) will make them privately, rather than take on public risk. In the words of Jessica Livingston, "I don't have time to fight with people who are trying to misunderstand me." [1]
I hope that there is a solution to this problem, so that the internet can reach its potential to democratize access to information and data, rather than becoming a mechanism to virtue signal acceptable tribal beliefs.
[1] https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence