does our US Left lack confidence in its own beliefs?
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself."
--Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (no longer on the court, he passed away in 1985)
Something that's occurred in the US as the Left has won many victories regarding civil rights and discrimination --> many behaviors that had been viewed by the Left as "discrimination" are now viewed as "hate speech". This feels like a form of mission creep to me, that once an organization wins a victory they have to keep searching for new enemies along the same axis and keep punishing more and harder ... rather than declaring victory and disbanding. In 2023 there are many ways that government isn't allowed to discriminate anymore, and many ways that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate anymore, so now ... we have to go hunt down stray individuals who might say something upsetting (even if unintentionally) to anybody and punish them for it as "hate speech".
-----
In the US there used to be well-established freedoms of contract and association, in that a person could decide who may belong to their club, who they would do business with, who they would rent to, who they would hire or fire -- and the federal government didn't intervene in these private decisions. Because some people used these freedoms in ways that discriminated 100% on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or etc., the federal government was called in by Congress during the 20th Century to enforce a different type of freedom we now call "civil rights". Now your club can't keep out all the blacks or all the women. Now you have to sell your house to a black family who shows up with enough cash. Now you have to hire qualified Jews if they apply. Now you'd better have a good reason relating to performance or conduct if you fire somebody who belongs to a protected class.
To somebody like me, this sounds like progress! It was wrong for prominent social clubs to be all white, Anglo-Saxon, male, and Protestant. It was wrong to hire only white Protestant men. But we did take away the freedom to decide all on your own which people you would contract or associate with. And we created the ability for somebody to sue you for excluding them -- even if you had a good reason for specifically excluding that person. You may have to defend your good reason in court, with evidence, instead of privately and quietly getting rid of them. Defending yourself in court is expensive, may lead people to presume you're guilty regardless of the evidence, and sometimes you can lose in court even though you were correct -- because the justice system is imperfect and overworked. So you might settle sometimes, to make the nuisance lawsuits go away.
A previous LJ friend of mine who worked on discrimination lawsuits told me that the vast majority of them had no merit, but, people have the right to file a complaint and the right to an investigation. They have a right to their day in court.
-----
But as women and other minorities have gained more rights, some of them have kept on pushing beyond questions of official government acts and public business accommodations/employment. Now some of them want to go after speech for being offensive. And the problem with going after speech for being offensive is defining what the hell kinds of speech are offensive. If I disagree with you, as a political matter, whether you should have a certain right or not, is this hate speech? If I acknowledge, as a legal matter, that you have a certain right, but I say out loud that I wish you didn't, is this hate speech? If I agree that you should have a certain right, but I don't understand why you want that right, and maybe try to talk you out of acting upon that right, is this hate speech?
I remember this coming up during the fight for same-sex marriage. There were (and still are) plenty of people who have nothing personal against same-sex relationships, but for various reasons they oppose same-sex marriage. For some, this was taught to them by their religious heritage, and they sincerely believe God forbids same-sex marriage. For others, they simply don't see a need for same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples cannot produce offspring of their own (at least, not without extraordinary assistance).
[As I have no children and don't want children, and don't believe in monogamy, I've never married any of my same-sex partners, nor have I wanted to. Not every LGBT person made marriage rights a priority, or even wanted them to be granted. I would abolish civil marriage as an institution for everybody LOL.]
Sure, there are people who hate same-sex couples. But not everybody who opposes same-sex marriage hates same-sex couples. But nowadays there are plenty of folks on the Left who think that any vocal opposition to same-sex marriage is hate speech.
The word "homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals, but plenty of folks use this word as though it applies to any sentiment that any homosexual might feel offended or threatened by. Just as the term "hate speech" is now applied to any vocalized sentiment that any homosexual might feel offended or threatened by.
And as the movement for transgender rights has gained steam, now the same thing is happening with respect to trans issues. "Transphobia" and "hate speech" are being applied to folks who have nothing personal against transgender people, but who happen to express opposition to or discomfort with certain transgender rights. If a cisgender woman feels weird about sharing a bathroom or a locker room with a transgender woman, and she says so out loud, now she's transphobic or engaging in hate speech. If a cisgender woman athlete doesn't want to compete with transgender women, whose bodies have benefited from previous years of muscle-building testosterone, now she's transphobic or engaging in hate speech.
On the Left we're trying to criminalize mere opposition to our various agendas with respect to identity politics and civil rights. This drives a lot of otherwise sympathetic folks into the arms of our enemies, and makes us look like Stalinist assholes.
It also leads the Left to get into circular firing squads, where Leftists who generally agree about most things try to cancel each other over their areas of disagreement. Again, mere disagreement becomes "phobic" or "hate speech".
I think it is important to push back when a claim of hate speech is made that I disagree with, especially as a member of the Left. You might think you're being a good ally to sliently allow other people to define whether certain speech is offensive or not, but you're actually allowing your allies to make the Left look like Stalinist assholes, which drives away people who might otherwise support us on a majority of our issues.
Somebody might disagree with you on same-sex marriage, but you already have the right to same-sex marriage, and maybe they do agree with you on other things, like increasing the minimum wage, or cutting carbon emissions, or even treating transgender people fairly in the workplace. Disagreeing with you in one area doesn't mean they automatically disagree with you on everything and deserve being thrown under the bus. It doesn't mean they're scared of you or that they hate you. They may simply disagree with you about something.
--Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (no longer on the court, he passed away in 1985)
Something that's occurred in the US as the Left has won many victories regarding civil rights and discrimination --> many behaviors that had been viewed by the Left as "discrimination" are now viewed as "hate speech". This feels like a form of mission creep to me, that once an organization wins a victory they have to keep searching for new enemies along the same axis and keep punishing more and harder ... rather than declaring victory and disbanding. In 2023 there are many ways that government isn't allowed to discriminate anymore, and many ways that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate anymore, so now ... we have to go hunt down stray individuals who might say something upsetting (even if unintentionally) to anybody and punish them for it as "hate speech".
-----
In the US there used to be well-established freedoms of contract and association, in that a person could decide who may belong to their club, who they would do business with, who they would rent to, who they would hire or fire -- and the federal government didn't intervene in these private decisions. Because some people used these freedoms in ways that discriminated 100% on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or etc., the federal government was called in by Congress during the 20th Century to enforce a different type of freedom we now call "civil rights". Now your club can't keep out all the blacks or all the women. Now you have to sell your house to a black family who shows up with enough cash. Now you have to hire qualified Jews if they apply. Now you'd better have a good reason relating to performance or conduct if you fire somebody who belongs to a protected class.
To somebody like me, this sounds like progress! It was wrong for prominent social clubs to be all white, Anglo-Saxon, male, and Protestant. It was wrong to hire only white Protestant men. But we did take away the freedom to decide all on your own which people you would contract or associate with. And we created the ability for somebody to sue you for excluding them -- even if you had a good reason for specifically excluding that person. You may have to defend your good reason in court, with evidence, instead of privately and quietly getting rid of them. Defending yourself in court is expensive, may lead people to presume you're guilty regardless of the evidence, and sometimes you can lose in court even though you were correct -- because the justice system is imperfect and overworked. So you might settle sometimes, to make the nuisance lawsuits go away.
A previous LJ friend of mine who worked on discrimination lawsuits told me that the vast majority of them had no merit, but, people have the right to file a complaint and the right to an investigation. They have a right to their day in court.
-----
But as women and other minorities have gained more rights, some of them have kept on pushing beyond questions of official government acts and public business accommodations/employment. Now some of them want to go after speech for being offensive. And the problem with going after speech for being offensive is defining what the hell kinds of speech are offensive. If I disagree with you, as a political matter, whether you should have a certain right or not, is this hate speech? If I acknowledge, as a legal matter, that you have a certain right, but I say out loud that I wish you didn't, is this hate speech? If I agree that you should have a certain right, but I don't understand why you want that right, and maybe try to talk you out of acting upon that right, is this hate speech?
I remember this coming up during the fight for same-sex marriage. There were (and still are) plenty of people who have nothing personal against same-sex relationships, but for various reasons they oppose same-sex marriage. For some, this was taught to them by their religious heritage, and they sincerely believe God forbids same-sex marriage. For others, they simply don't see a need for same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples cannot produce offspring of their own (at least, not without extraordinary assistance).
[As I have no children and don't want children, and don't believe in monogamy, I've never married any of my same-sex partners, nor have I wanted to. Not every LGBT person made marriage rights a priority, or even wanted them to be granted. I would abolish civil marriage as an institution for everybody LOL.]
Sure, there are people who hate same-sex couples. But not everybody who opposes same-sex marriage hates same-sex couples. But nowadays there are plenty of folks on the Left who think that any vocal opposition to same-sex marriage is hate speech.
The word "homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals, but plenty of folks use this word as though it applies to any sentiment that any homosexual might feel offended or threatened by. Just as the term "hate speech" is now applied to any vocalized sentiment that any homosexual might feel offended or threatened by.
And as the movement for transgender rights has gained steam, now the same thing is happening with respect to trans issues. "Transphobia" and "hate speech" are being applied to folks who have nothing personal against transgender people, but who happen to express opposition to or discomfort with certain transgender rights. If a cisgender woman feels weird about sharing a bathroom or a locker room with a transgender woman, and she says so out loud, now she's transphobic or engaging in hate speech. If a cisgender woman athlete doesn't want to compete with transgender women, whose bodies have benefited from previous years of muscle-building testosterone, now she's transphobic or engaging in hate speech.
On the Left we're trying to criminalize mere opposition to our various agendas with respect to identity politics and civil rights. This drives a lot of otherwise sympathetic folks into the arms of our enemies, and makes us look like Stalinist assholes.
It also leads the Left to get into circular firing squads, where Leftists who generally agree about most things try to cancel each other over their areas of disagreement. Again, mere disagreement becomes "phobic" or "hate speech".
I think it is important to push back when a claim of hate speech is made that I disagree with, especially as a member of the Left. You might think you're being a good ally to sliently allow other people to define whether certain speech is offensive or not, but you're actually allowing your allies to make the Left look like Stalinist assholes, which drives away people who might otherwise support us on a majority of our issues.
Somebody might disagree with you on same-sex marriage, but you already have the right to same-sex marriage, and maybe they do agree with you on other things, like increasing the minimum wage, or cutting carbon emissions, or even treating transgender people fairly in the workplace. Disagreeing with you in one area doesn't mean they automatically disagree with you on everything and deserve being thrown under the bus. It doesn't mean they're scared of you or that they hate you. They may simply disagree with you about something.