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.