It is the inability to find the confidence to see anything that one's peers have told one, one ought not be seeing - especially when seeing the truth would force the group to face its own shortcomings.
At times, it is even fear of the possibility that the group, which is expected to quickly end all disputes before it members need to cope with any "negativity", might have shortcomings to face. Fear of the fact that justice doesn't come quickly and easily, without real thought, or the need to occasionally admit that one's friends were in the wrong. Worse still, to have to face the fact that someone will have to face the hostility of a group that has accepted the comforting notion that it is the truth, embodied, even as he forces the group to see that it isn't.
Over the last few decades in the West, especially in the United States, we've seen a transformation of attitudes regarding ethical standards. Before our own immediate era, there was a recognition that moral truth existed outside of our wishes as to what it might be, and that our actions, even when we act out of a consensus with our peers, might rightly be judged under it. Human beings might fail, individually or collectively, and they might fight the recognition that they had done so, but once that recognition came, it was the norm to accept it, however grudgingly, and feel just remorse. Peace, as opposed to domination, could then follow, as the aggrieved parties finally saw justice. It might take a fight, and the fight could be lost, but with enough determination, it could eventually be won.
But then came the idea, a very old idea that people deluded themselves into thinking was new and fresh, that justice was whatever people thought it was. Many often found that they could no longer seek vindication when wronged, by appealing to the better nature of those who had closed their minds to the possibility that they might have one. The attitude came forth, that the real troublemakers were not those who committed injustice, maybe encouraging others to join with them as they did so, but rather those who got in the way of the increasingly fashionable attempts to see to it that evidence of past wrongs was lost. Or, as some came to say, swept under the rug.
There was even a new "value" invented, to reinforce this approach. The position was taken by many, that if justice was stalled long enough, it should simply be forgotten - acceptance of this nakedly self serving position as if it were a legitimate philosophical principle being offered as a criterion of sanity. But raising awareness of the truth in a habitually untruthful society is a slow process, and accepting this "principle", provides a more for the dishonorable to fight to make it even slower. Yes, justice delayed is justice denied, but it shouldn't be justice discarded altogether.