Viewpoint fragility (noun): discomfort and defensiveness on the part of individuals, usually progressive media figures, when confronted by information that opposes or challenges their worldview.
Those exhibiting the above tendencies are prone to social media outbursts, vigorously worship at the altar of censorship, and harbor deep-seeded elitism and snobbery.
This behavior is so irrational and bizarre, it would make 20th century fascists and communists blush.
The intolerance of ideas is becoming too pervasive in America today. Here are some recent examples.
“Unfettered Conversations” on Clubhouse, Oh My!
Recommended
The popularity of Clubhouse, an audio-only iOS app, is unsettling for these censors. How dare Americans seek out new avenues to freely communicate without retribution!
Unsurprisingly, New York Times journalist and TikTok aficionado Taylor Lorenz balks at unfettered conversations happening on the platform:
Clubhouse has generated debate about whether audio is the next wave of social media, moving digital connections beyond text, photos and videos to old-fashioned voice. In thousands of chatrooms every day, Clubhouse’s users have conducted unfettered conversations on subjects as varied as astrophysics, geopolitics, queer representation in Bollywood and even cosmic poetry.
Lorenz isn’t the only person in the media bothered by Clubhouse. The Hill’s Rebecca Klear echos the former’s concerns about “unfettered conversations” since the app’s conversations aren’t kept on file. Klear wrote:
But as the platform continues to grow, the same model that has allowed users to connect while physically apart is raising concerns about how the app will handle the spread of misinformation.
Unlike traditional social media platforms, where a user’s footprint is more permanent, Clubhouse’s chat room conversations are not recorded by the app, making it "essentially impossible" to discern the spread of false information or harassment, Emerson Brooking, resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, told The Hill.
Shouldn’t Lorenz and Klear be more outraged by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) censorship? Alas, free expression in an open forum is too much to bear for these gals.
The Democratization of News Triggers UCLA Professor
Dr. Sarah T. Roberts, a professor and co-manager of UCLA’s Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, is equally triggered by the democratization of news through outlets like Substack—an upstart newsletter platform where ideas roam freely.
“Substack is a dangerous direct threat to traditional news media. But more importantly? It is a threat to journalism,” Roberts tweeted.
She expanded her thoughts in a long-winded, cringeworthy thread—arguing Substack isn’t “governed by norms and practices and by ethics.”
Matt Taibbi, a Substack user and man of the Left, speculated Roberts’ thread was directed at him and fellow independent journalist Glenn Greenwald. He observed:
Roberts is making a “stolen valor” argument. As it’s abundantly clear she’s talking about people like myself and Greenwald in particular, she’s arguing that we made our names as reporters in the structure of traditional newsrooms, taking advantage of “norms and practices” like fact-checking and editing that, in her mind, is what first induced readers to trust us. Then we took that trust, that precious thing nurtured in the cradle of mainstream media oversight, absconded with it, and fled to Substack, to hoard unearned profits.
Why the fighting words by Dr. Roberts about Substack? Traditional news outlets are failing readers, Taibbi added.
The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing.
I suspect the professor was peeved by Wordpress blogs back in the day too?
Dr. Seuss, Gone But Soon to be Forgotten?
The most recent display of “viewpoint fragility” came after President Joe Biden nixed any mention of Dr. Seuss (born Theodor Seuss Geisel) on “Read Across America Day”—an event that’s been commemorated on March 2nd (Geisel’s birthday) since 1998.
The National Education Association—the largest labor union in the country—believes it’s time to pivot the holiday away from Dr. Seuss. Moreover, a company tasked with preserving Geisel’s legacy announced they’re ceasing the publication of six Dr. Seuss books altogether, citing racist and insensitive imagery.
Guess who is bucking the cancelling of these six books in question? Public libraries, believe it or not. For example, the New York Public Library will keep the six Seuss books in circulation—for now.
The library, which serves Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, said it does not censor books and will keep the controversial titles in circulation until they are no longer in suitable shape to lend out, a spokeswoman said.
“As with all public libraries the New York Public Library does not censor books,” library spokeswoman Angela Montefinise said.
Kevin Williamson similarly posed, “The idea that children are harmed by mere exposure to words and images — rather than educated by such exposure — is pure superstition, but regnant superstition.”
Conclusion
The First Amendment stipulates, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Vehement intolerance of opposing views is simply un-American. Free expression is the bedrock of the U.S. It would be lamentable to see our nation morph to resemble the regime my family escaped—a system that was mired by suppression of viewpoints and book bans.
For the good of this country, it’s imperative we vigorously discourage “viewpoint fragility.”
