CT Mirror's independent, nonprofit journalism depends on reader support.
Create more of it with a tax-deductible donation today.
Sometimes a single online conversation can reveal more about the state of our culture than any press conference, policy debate, or campaign speech ever could.
In Simsbury, a discussion that began with a simple point about defending a grieving Muslim mother from what appeared to be public religious bias spiraled into something almost unrecognizable. What unfolded was not just disagreement. It was a complete breakdown of moral reasoning and civic integrity. It was a snapshot of what happens when emotion replaces truth and when people mistake moral relativism for open mindedness.
The Inversion of Accountability
The issue at hand was straightforward. A local political leader publicly referred to a Muslim woman as "bigoted." The woman in question had spoken courageously about her child's death and her experience of being silenced in a public meeting. Instead of compassion or reflection, she received a label. And when that label was challenged, defenders appeared to insist that criticizing the comment was somehow more offensive than the comment itself.
This is the kind of logic that eats itself alive.
What should have been a clear moment of collective empathy instead turned into an intellectual circus. Some argued that calling the incident discriminatory was "stretching" the truth. Others went further, accusing those who objected of "Gestapo like tactics" simply for tagging journalists and advocacy accounts to bring attention to it.
In this strange reversal, accountability became oppression and bigotry became free speech.
The most revealing part of the exchange was not the hostility, but the pretense of empathy. Several commenters went out of their way to express sympathy for the grieving mother, only to use that sympathy as a shield to scold others for "making it about religion." They acknowledged her pain while dismissing the context that shaped it. They wanted compassion without complexity.
This is what I call performance empathy. It is the act of appearing kind while silencing what kindness demands you confront. It sounds moderate, but it serves no one except those already comfortable.
The Comfort of Anonymity
The conversation was further distorted by the chorus of anonymous accounts. Behind masks of digital privacy, they hurled accusations of "rage baiting" and "agenda pushing." They claimed fear for their safety while confidently disparaging anyone using their real name.
Anonymity has a purpose when it protects the vulnerable. But when it becomes a weapon for avoidance, it weakens everything civic life depends on. Our democracy relies on people being willing to stand by their words. Courage is not about shouting the loudest. It is about being accountable for what you say when others disagree.
If your words can wound, they should also have an author.
What happened in this small town online forum reflects a larger cultural sickness that has spread across Connecticut and the country. We have replaced the search for truth with the performance of virtue. We have substituted tone for substance.
The same people who warn against "cancel culture" are often the first to try to silence those who expose discrimination. The same people who preach about free speech recoil when that freedom is used to challenge their own hypocrisy.
In Simsbury, this contradiction was on full display.
What It Says About Us
I do not write this to relitigate every comment in that thread. I write it because that thread, chaotic as it was, revealed a truth about our times.
We live in an era where standing up for someone else's dignity is seen as a provocation. Where asking questions about power is branded as extremism. Where defending a Muslim woman's right to be treated with respect somehow makes you the aggressor.
This is not progress. It is moral regression wrapped in polite language.
When public officials or political figures can attack marginalized voices and then be shielded by people calling themselves "moderates," the problem is not just local. It is systemic. It is cultural. It is what happens when comfort outweighs conscience.
The truth is simple. Defending a person's faith, dignity, or humanity is not radical. It is the bare minimum of decency.
And if that has become controversial in Simsbury or anywhere, then Connecticut has a far deeper problem than politics. We have a problem of conscience.