Everyone is selfish, biased and a rationalizing hypocrite by nature. That's the baseline. People can and do rise above, so to speak. That's potentially laudable, but not in itself a demand anyone can make on others... and just what "above" means to anyone can differ wildly. In the abstract, then, who is anyone to call anyone else out? Indeed, what call is there for one to be anything but an unrestrained savage, hellbent on self-interest, with all means justifying any end and all whims?
Once there is context, however, then whatever call there may be for or against anything is a question of which mores are in play and under what justifiable conditions sanctions might be applied. In any event,
it is the case that social behaviors breaking implicit or explicit norms are,
and must be, commonly called out, as this is how social convention shapes culture and language, and provides a common field of semantic and communicative play (Johnny, we say "went", not "goed"), making coexistence feasible. Not a problem, normally, if social mores are largely shared, and the rule of law prevails under applicable circumstances.* The calling out becomes strident and tensions rise, however, when the context/worldview and/or the mores are not shared by people who are in ongoing social contact. The internet, in this sense, has closed what was previously a natural distancing of strongly differing worldviews and social mores, heightening the contemporary chance for strong conflict while yet reinforcing stereotypes through the cliqish behaviors enchanced by social media and propaganda, thus contributing as well to a potentially greater general sense of malaise, and of perceived danger, by all involved.
"Political correctness" and "cancel culture" are terms used to describe when one side complains the other is improperly enforcing some unshared rule or standard (the latter having practical consequences as described in this thread). This, in my view, highlights the importance of there being a social contract, viz, to the effect that rationality should prevail over woo, that facts are veridical, and that, in any case, no appeals to absolutism should or can, logically, be made as premise or conclusion. Whenever absent or insufficiently explicit the social contract, the greater the chance that conflict will become violent, reason be replaced by emotion. And if and when absolutism enters the picture, all bets are off.
Such a social contract must be more or less explicit and shared, as could be the case under restricted conditions (in a debate class, eg) or under certain historical contexts, say, among early proponents of democratic revolution, if the goal is to reduce conflict to amenable, non-violent resolution through shaping the sociopolitical field of play. Except in time of actual revolution, then, in order for society to normally proceed rationally and, more often than not, peacefully -- self-interest and rationalization as human constants notwithstanding --
reasonableness must prevail over raw interest or emotional gravitas.
As for ISF discussion, the board is nominally supportive of atheism, skepticism and skeptical method, and such perspectives are thusly preferably brought to bear whenever applicable, and are fair to expect of others as well, given the context. Which brings me to my reason for posting: it is my view that a skeptic cannot claim any but two sources of authoritative postulates, the first being factual observation in all things amenable to natural science, the other being a socially-agreed first principle that underlies formal argument relating to social behavior and policy. Note that in both cases, the final arbiter of whether an observation is veridical, or a given first principle should serve as the operative start for reasoning, is consensus (never an absolute). In science, we rely on peer review. In all else, reasoning must proceed logically from agreed principle if the goal is to achieve predicable results (within the constraints of probabilistic systems), the qualities thereof depending on the chosen first principle and the quality of logical reasoning. The alternative, of course, being that of proceeding from no identifiable or justifiable principle, rather, of making a declarative statement, or simply proceeding from some arbitrary point which can be retrofitted as purported rationale for what otherwise amounts to personal preference/sectarian creed.
This latter alternative often seems to prevail on ISF as pertains to political discussion. Not altogether to be unexpected, as the primary shared example of a set of shared principles and later political-logical argument therefrom, the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, happen to yet contain serious flaws in terms of the foregoing. As for this thread, more narrowly my point is that there is nothing inherently wrong about society enforcing its norms, as it must and, in any case, will do, but this also can often involve enforcing the "wrong" ones, wrong being those that are irrational and do not logically derive from any shared and grounding principle under normal circumstances. When there are no shared principles at all, there will be no agreement, and conflict will be the only norm.
Off-Topic:
*I'll skip discussion of bias in justice systems, leaving it to the last question in the Off-Topic section.
I would think that the guy screaming racial slurs from a company vehicle while on the clock is NOT AT ALL cancel culture.
