Thanks for sharing. I love PG’s authenticity. His thoughtfulness is inspiring.

In this piece there are a few items that jump out as glaring oversights and they speak to how brittle the entire structure of the argument is.

First, his conclusion is “if you think you shouldn’t say something, don’t.”

Pragmatic advice, but it essentially means that this piece is not an argument against self-censorship.

His solve of “have a few friends to share verboten thoughts with” is already how closed door social systems work. In-group signaling with taboo beliefs is a core feature of tribalism. Coupled with historic wealth/power inequality it is a de facto abdication of how the social bubble we create around ourselves enables us to imagine we are doing what is best for all when we have no idea (nor curiosity) about what other people’s actual experience is. That’s why we need DEI first principals.

I find it interesting that he references two domains in a hypothetical sense that are very, very different in experience.

First, parenting. He wasn’t a parent when he wrote this. Imagining we need to see children as innocent seems like a reasonable explanation. But in my experience the issue with cussing is that when you become a parent a protective instinct kicks in - you don’t want the social group to punish your child in your absence & you worry about collective ostracism if the group concludes you are a “bad parent.” It’s warranted. I’ve experienced it and it is brutal.

Second is fashion. Fashion is only invisible to those who don’t care about it. For those who do, it is an art form. There is a vast difference between “the fashion of the day” and the function/philosophy of fashion. In this respect he both misses and catches the point - fashion is architected by active participants and consumed by passive ones. “Moral fashion” captures the “issue of the day” of the IYKYK crowd that runs corporate/tech communities. It’s signaling, little more. He’s spot on in calling out that no issue that everyone talks about deserves to be regarded as “the issue” on its own merits. But he misses the point that fashion is amazing and an incredible expression of the human experience. I don’t get the sense he personally cares much about fashion.

The subtext to all of this is that there has been a powerful, violent set of social groups deciding who was allowed to be treated as a person and who was not.

Where we are today as a society has been deeply shaped by that.

Some of the people in those exiled groups are co-opting shame & blame. I think his point is that doing so only creates a new power structure that repeats old patterns, it doesn’t solve for something better.

So we are back to his first conclusion - which is you either actively or passively participate, but you don’t argue with it.

I think there’s another choice:

I will not shame anyone, for any reason.

Shame is the tool we keep reaching for & its cost is clear - we lose connection with our own humanity & each other’s.

That’s what I see as the new choice we can make for ourselves - letting go of the assumption that we can anticipate how our actions and words affect others, being open to learning, and taking responsibility for ourselves.

For me that has meant a studious avoidance of participating in media culture.

It is possible to contribute to making society a more inclusive and supportive experience w/out chasing the latest outrage fad. In fact, it might only be possible if we let go of “allyship” - which no one seems to want - and instead:

* make space for others to share their feelings
* let go of blame (of ourselves or others)
* support the voice of those with first-hand experience

A really cool new TV show that explores all of this is “Work in Progress.” Alongside “Schitt’s Creek” it’s really profound how friendly it can be to embrace a variety of identities in society without making ourselves or others wrong.