Conflict is inevitable in every community. Unfortunately for me I had to learn this the hard way through the first 15 years of my life living under the roof of very toxic individuals and other family members who were just enablers, dating around a lot of toxic women and finally during the past 10 years(I'm now 34) reading every psychology and philosophy book I can muster the time for in this buzzing mind killing economy we currently live in.
What I am about to show you is nothing new. Much of what you are about to read are right in your face examples that most people encounter probably every day and not notice it. Either way the information about each example and everything else is public knowledge and available in that wonderful device you're holding in your hands right now.
My goal here is to understand the mind behind the everyday use words and the behaviors that associates itself with it. To transform into deeper understanding and elevate myself and possibly others who care to read it with open minds. Disagreement becomes transformative when paired with understanding, but becomes stagnation when met with defense.
This post is not a rebuttal or an argument but a study on how conflict reveals not what we believe, but how we protect what we believe. This small case study is to explore how common psychological patterns arise when identity feels threatened by criticism.
Again to be clear:
This is not about the person. It’s about the mechanism.
To show you all how to read between the lines, not just of others, but of our own reactions as well so that we can grow together and progress independently to living in true harmony, which also includes being open to discourse and criticism, change and accountability over one's own actions.
If you haven't read or downloaded it already, I recommend you this free ebook called, "Emotional Intelligence and why it can matter more than IQ by Daniel Goleman". It’s a key to unlocking the kind of understanding this post invites.
Psychological Projection: The Ethics Cop Illusion
Labeling is a common defense mechanism that has been extensively studied. It is used to simplify and dismiss something complex without engaging its details. When someone is uncomfortable with an idea, a feeling, or a challenge to their worldview, one of the fastest ways to escape that discomfort is to reduce the other person to a label. The central idea behind labeling others is to shape and influence not only how other react to the one being labeled, but to also redefine how the labeled individual sees themselves. especially with ones that implies dysfunction or threat.
In the social dynamic of power, judges, officers, teachers, blurt witnesses, bullies parents, even so called friends who are feeling or are in positions of power, are more prone to label others and yourself.
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. –Carl Jung
In other words, the personal irritation isn't over what the person does, but rather over what it reveals.
When someone expresses disapproval of unethical behavior, and another labels them as trying to “control” or “supervise,” what’s really being revealed then, is not a clash of ethics, but a fear of exposure. The mirror is too sharp, too revealing, and so the emotional mind projects the label of authority onto the one merely holding up the mirror.
Labeling Theory and the Social Trap
Labeling Theory As Defined By Sociology:
The theory suggests that deviance doesn’t lie in the act itself but arises from the social labels assigned to certain behaviors and people. When individuals are labeled, they may begin to see themselves through that lens, reinforcing the very behavior society expects.¹
Labeling Theory teaches that people often conform to the expectations others place on them. When someone is repeatedly called “angry,” “toxic,” “a cop,” or “a troll,” others begin to see them that way, even if it's unfounded. The common result is that the labeled person will begin to question their own sense of self and thus pick up the label as something part of their core self.
Philosopher Krishnamurti once asked:
“Can you look at a fact without giving it a name?”
It’s easier to dismiss someone than to question oneself. This is why often people resort to labels as a dismissive tactic to avoid ideas that question their core ideas.
The Irritation of Accountability
Now let's examine our case subjects reactionary comment after a psychological and satirical dissection of his own previous comment in my last post.
Your 3 main topics lately: fighting spam, storm about the regent, supervision over fizz.vai? How else to sum it up if not Ethics Cop?
The term “Ethics Cop” implies unwanted authority, a controller, an enforcer, but the only "force" being used is observation and speech. It is mere projection. When confronted with the mirror and from being scrutinized on unethical behaviors, discomfort arises, and that is why people tend to react with labeling others. It's a defense mechanism that isn't based on reason but out of fear. What is then being dismissed is awareness. Awareness that threatens the unconscious.
The goal here then becomes not one of understanding, but in discrediting the speaker. Instead of addressing the concern or critique, they label it as enforcement, authoritarian, elitism, etc. And thus turning public discourse into an accusation of control with nothing to back it up.
If no one calls out unethical behavior, the unethical behavior goes unchecked, and THAT is where the real control lays.
Calling someone an “Ethics Cop” for speaking about abuses is like calling a whistleblower a “troublemaker.” It doesn’t expose corruption, it protects it.
What Happens When No One Speaks? The Silent Birth of Control
When unethical behaviors go unchallenged it turns into control and creates a silent message.
"This is how things work around here, don't question it."
The lack of resistance creates an unspoken rule. Over time, members internalize the idea that speaking out is not welcome. This is classic in authoritarian or conformist group dynamics.
When people stop speaking up out against these behaviors, not because they're not allowed to as it is so promised here Blurt, but because they’ve learned it won’t change anything or it might backfire them. This is called self censorship.
The most potent form of control is the one that no longer needs to be enforced externally.
It's true blurt does not have a DC to silence dissenting voices as it is often done, but that doesn't mean it still can't happen here through the method I just described. Through Social group control and labeling others, a silent form of censorship forms, if enough people do not have a spine to challenge that status quo, that is.
Getting rarer to find these days.
Social Control through Peer Pressure and Norms
One of Plato’s most famous quotes is “Silence gives consent." And
reflects his belief that failing to speak out against injustice is tantamount to condoning it. Plato believed that individuals had a moral obligation to speak out against injustice... ²
Someone who manipulates the voting system and the masses, and or using underhanded tactics, if left unchecked by everyone, will become a common denominator. Then the social norm over some time becomes
“That’s just how it’s done. Don't question it.”
Now anyone who dares to question it becomes a "disrupter". The unethical practice becomes the standard, and challenging it becomes socially punishable, not through formal rules, but through subtle exclusions, mockery, or labeling.
When unethical behavior meets silence, normalization ensues, and when that happens, it will insure anyone who resists is the problem and hence more silence will be the result. Then we have censorship backed by the force of social pressure.
This is what I see happening. People may have left Hive to Blurt because of the mechanics of censorship, but rarely do I find it to be true in the psyche of the individual hasn't left the censorship mentality in the past. It's evidently clear to me that the mentality to censor others through peer pressure and manipulation tactics is still embedded deep in their mind.
When left unchecked it becomes a self-reinforcing system. That’s a form of organic, decentralized control. No dictator needed, just your compliance to be quiet.
Philosophical Control through Passive Morality
Enter now Ethics
If we define morality as action guided by a sense of right and wrong, then not acting when you know something’s wrong is still an ethical choice. Inaction supports the unethical choice.
Most evil isn't done by monsters. It's done by ordinary people who simply follow the status quo without question. –Hannah Arendt’s idea of the “banality of evil”
A quite and subtle way of moral tyranny develops as the status quo, when no one resists. The behavior doesn’t need to be “controlled” by a visible authority because it is protected by collective passivity. A sort of censorship through collectivism, and undermining to gain control by initiating self doubt onto another.
Control as Absence of Alternatives
When dissent is silenced, either directly (DV on Hive) or indirectly(as explained in this post) the community becomes a closed system. That is the most dangerous kind of control: one where NO new choices are allowed to enter. This will kill imagination, innovation, and freedom itself. This form of control doesn't need violence or chains; it survives through silence, stagnation, and the illusion that the current options are all that exist.
An extreme example of this is North Korea's Information control. The population is denied access to the internet, global news, foreign films, books, or even basic facts about the outside world. People grow up with a single narrative. One that is carefully curated by the state. There are no alternative perspectives, no debates, no freedom to explore new ideas. The people can't choose something better, because they don’t even know it exists.
This kind of control is dangerous because it doesn’t just limit action; it limits awareness, which is the root of all change. Without awareness, there is no choice. Without choice, there is no freedom.
Here's another example that will land closer to home. Learned Helplessness in Abusive Relationships:
In some abusive relationships, especially emotional or psychological ones, the victim is slowly conditioned to believe they have no alternatives. The abuser might isolate them from friends, manipulate their sense of self-worth, and punish independent thought or action. This kind of control is invisible and self-reinforcing, making it one of the hardest to break.
If only one behavior (say, unethical self-voting, secret alliances,) becomes dominant, and anyone who speaks up gets labeled as disruptive or controlling, then the group has created a monoculture.
Monocultures are fragile and filled with weak minded individuals. They collapse easily when stressed, because dissent, the force that brings renewal, has been quietly exiled.
In Blurt as an example, if a small set of popular authors or influencers consistently receive large upvotes, regardless of the quality, originality, or effort of their content(F.I.Z.Z.Y. M.I.L.K.), simply because they are "well-known" or "important", creates a closed feedback loop or echo chambers. New voices, experimental posts, or deep philosophical content get ignored not because they lack value, but because they don't fit the pre-established popularity pattern.
Question for the old timers of Blurt and new readers alike, does this explain what you see today in majority on this platform?
Now, if someone critiques this pattern or suggests curating based on merit over reputation, they may get labeled as jealous, negative, divisive, ethics cop, etc.
This too becomes a monoculture:
Only one kind of behavior (rewarding popularity over quality) becomes “normal,” and all other approaches are treated as wrong or disruptive.
Over time, this discourages innovation, silences thoughtful dissent, and creates an environment where truth and growth are sacrificed for comfort and conformity.
Over time, this discourages innovation, silences thoughtful dissent, and creates an environment where truth and growth are sacrificed for comfort and conformity.
"A large part of your activity is based on 'monitoring' whether others are doing the right thing and on finding abuses... Your actions clearly show the desire to control the behavior of various people."
This to illustrate how ethical critique is reframed as authoritarianism, effectively silencing dissent by labeling it control.
The moment a group stops welcoming uncomfortable truth, it no longer needs a controller, because it becomes its own prison. This is done, but not limited to just one of these 4 methods of control:
1.) Psychological Control to make people afraid to speak up
Example:
From this point of view, you are the kind of person for whom freedom is good as long as someone does not do something that YOU do not approve of ;]
This line flips the accusation: instead of addressing the concerns about unethical behavior, it frames the critic as a hypocrite who doesn’t really believe in freedom. That subtle guilt-trap plants a seed:
"If you speak out, you’ll just be seen as someone who can't handle disagreement or freedom."
By questioning the speaker’s character and intent, it pressures others to stay silent to avoid similar labeling.
2.) Social Control as a means to reinforce unethical behavior as normal
Example:
If you are so bothered by what fizavi is doing, then instead of publicly ridiculing his group, try to show them and explain how they can act better... If they don't want to listen, that's not your problem.
This passage reframes unethical behavior (farming/milking) as something to be patiently tolerated or politely explained, but never directly challenged. It implies that public accountability is worse than the abuse itself.
Ethical standards are thus pushed out of the conversation, and social harmony is prioritized over accountability. This is how monocultures survive, not by denying wrongdoing, but by labeling any challenge to it as socially inappropriate.
It normalizes bad behavior by treating it as as a difference of opinion, shames those who object, portraying them as aggressive or impatient, and pressures others to avoid conflict and "just accept things as they are".
3.) Philosophical Control to reward passivity and punish conscience.
Example:
Perhaps I have too much faith in people, but as a rule it is the case that impatience with those who piss us off and the aggression or ridicule associated with it, more often causes the conflict to multiply and the problem to deepen...
This statement equates moral conviction and principled objection with “impatience,” “aggression,” and a cause of division. By doing nothing, staying silent, trusting that time or politeness will fix systemic issues, it rewards the virtue of passivity.
This promotes the idea that speaking up with urgency is a flaw and not a virtue. Those who take a stand are to blame for conflict, not those who act unethically. Peace is now more important than truth.
This type of framing shames the conscience-driven person and elevates the “peacekeeper” who does nothing. It instills the idea that ethical friction is worse than ethical erosion.
4.) Systematic Control to remove real choice or alternatives
Example:
YOU are the one trying to exclude some group from the community because in your understanding it is not 'righteous'. It abuses and does not deserve to be here and get blurts for what it does or publishes there.
This quote shuts down the possibility of discussing standards or alternatives by reframing ethical critique as exclusionary elitism. Implying that there is no legitimate way to question or oppose what someone is doing. Therefore, all attempts to call out abuse are really just efforts to exclude or dominate others, making passive acceptance as the only option.
If we want Blurt to truly be decentralized and free, then decentralization must not only be in the codebase or voting system, it must also live in the psyche of its users. Question not just the systems we use, but the systems we unknowingly uphold in ourselves. I can help you with that by explaining these matters to you a thousand times but I can not understand it for you. That is up to you.
Conflict isn’t the enemy of community, but silence as a means to not speak up against unethical behavior sure is. We grow not by avoiding friction, but by learning from the sparks it creates. Use humor and truth for those who are emotionally unstable.
When a mirror is clean, it offends those who have hidden behind fog. But that reflection is not there to shame you. It’s there to show you the parts of yourself you haven’t seen yet.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=rwscRurgXbQ