The Scold Problem
Why fear-based moral enforcement is killing the left’s ability to build democratic coalitions
I had just boarded my plane when this piece from Julia Métraux at Mother Jones caught my eye on the socials. I think Jon Stewart has been making a lot of moral sense lately, so to see an overt ethical charge lodged against him caught my attention. I do write about morality a lot, after all. These things interest me. So I clicked in, read it, and immediately started writing this piece.
Métraux’s underlying point is valid. People with medically fragile family members face real harassment for masking. One father described getting cremation quotes for his daughter after others’ refusal to mask led to pneumonia and life support. That’s not abstract—that’s material harm. Stewart made jokes about masking, and Métraux argues he’s punching down at vulnerable populations.
Here’s my problem: she’s right about the harm and wrong about the tactics. The piece reads as scold, not persuasion. “First of all, asking people why they are masking is invasive behavior.” Not “can be” invasive. Categorically invasive.
This matters because moral life requires context. Was Stewart’s question cruel or curious? Mocking or awkward? The absolute language eliminates the distinction—it replaces judgment with rule-following. Protocol says asking is invasive, therefore Stewart violated protocol, therefore correction is required. But protocol compliance isn’t virtue. It’s the elimination of the moral reasoning that virtue requires.
And I’m certain—I’d bet handsomely—that if Stewart were presented with these examples, he’d respond with genuine empathy. He’d probably apologize. He’d bring someone affected on the show. He’d model the correct response.
Which is exactly the problem. Because Stewart’s inevitable apology won’t demonstrate that Métraux made compelling moral argument. It will demonstrate that the scold works. That fear of being called out is sufficient to extract submission. That you don’t need to persuade when you can threaten public correction.
I understand the counterargument: persuasion is slow, vulnerable people need protection now. But fear-based enforcement doesn’t protect them—it creates the backlash that endangers them. The average voter experiences constant protocol enforcement as dispossession. They watch Stewart get corrected for a joke and learn: step out of line, face the scold. The boundaries keep tightening. Compliance never leads to safety, just to the next demand. And millions choose authoritarians over continued supervision. The right’s recruitment pitch is brutally simple: “The left thinks you’re a bad person. We don’t.” Every extracted apology proves them right.
This isn’t a critique of left-wing values—protecting vulnerable people, taking harm seriously, building inclusive communities. It’s a critique of the professional-managerial class substituting institutional moral signaling for democratic persuasion. The oligarchic threat is real. But when you make potential allies choose between living under constant protocol anxiety or voting for authoritarians, you’ve made coalition-building impossible.
You can’t defeat oligarchic capture by treating potential allies as subjects requiring correction. Métraux is right that vulnerable people face harassment. She’s wrong that fear-based enforcement will protect them. Her tactics help elect the people who will make vulnerable lives immeasurably worse.
Real civic virtue requires persuasion, not compliance. It requires treating people as capable of moral reasoning, assuming good faith, maintaining proportionality. Stewart will apologize. The virtuocrats will claim vindication. The reactionaries will use it for recruitment. And the space for genuine democratic deliberation—the space we desperately need to resist actual oligarchic capture—will shrink further.
I take your point but I'm stunned that mask-wearing is still viewed as political, as "progressive", and therefore as some kind of political marker - and there's the real problem. If somebody says they don't want to talk about it when asked why they're wearing a mask - that's their prerogative. They've been civil enough to answer the question! The American idea of "freedom" is seriously screwed up if folk who choose to wear a mask are politically categorised and made fun of - simply for wearing a medical mask. Thanks for linking the Metraux article, it's an interesting read and reveals a sick culture - in more ways than one.
I am a physician and one well-versed in reviewing thousands of articles on viral illnesses. I am also immune compromised by virtue of a B-cell malignancy, heart diseasea and CKD (chronic kidney disease) as well as age. The topic here is a Microcosm of the entire MAGA vs non-MAGA split in our country. It involves, to be blunt, MAGA relying on Fox News and social media for its medical education vs a far more information-validated non-MAGA group. Let me explain:
• Masking has been used in Asian countries like S. Korea, and China for decades for a number of reasons, but one major one is to lower the risk of air-borne infections during seasonal peaks--Winter for one. Major decreases in upper respiratory infections from the common cold to the more serious RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) or to COVID-19 & Influenza has been found in those that mask versus those that don't.
• The above is most important in crowded conditions, or where air is recirculated (air planes).
• If one combines the above with hand sanitization, the incidence of such infections goes way ↓.
And yes, there are many peer-reviewed papers on this topic. And yes, the CDC and other spokespersons to the Public were moderately lame in educating those who do not access PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed or Google Scholar.
• Trump, in delaying information about COVID-19, and in not having on-hand N95 masks that were easy to obtain and cheap, cost 400,000 Americans their lives. Check this out with your sources. I highly recommend Gemini Pro AI assistant. FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND LIVES. I break my balls as an oncologist to save one life. Can you imagine murdering 400,000 lives?
Yes, sometimes masking makes no sense. If you are out in the open air and not in contact with anyone (e.g., taking a walk, riding a bike, jogging), then the only reason to wear a mask is to filter the air assuming there is significant pollution. Or, if you are with someone and you are feeling ill, coughing or have concerns that you could spread an infection. Stay at home, away from others, and don't spread your infection.
There are some notables on TV who I like very much. But not everyone is an expert, and if you are not, then shut the fuck up. So, Bill Maher, I love you man, but you know shit about masking.
I will say that I invite others in public to challenge me because 99 times out of 100, they don't know what they are talking about. I am never rude or crude in such encounters (as I may be here).
I only wish that major TV shows has some lay people as guests that have been in the trenches rather than pundits who spout the usual spiel. The other day, I did hear a conversation with Tom Nichols of The Atlantic about Ukraine and Putin that was so excellent in content with nothing held back. I wanted to write him and thank him, but closed my Twitter, Facebook and other glib social media accounts.