A few years ago the UK started criminalizing identity via disproportional actions towards individuals with social reach. Tommy Robinson was the obvious example. His mere presence at a rally was considered incitement, regardless of his actions.
US intersectionalism has obviously been building toward this. It just started out with a negative rather than positive approach. Instead of criminalizing individuals based on identity, woke movements wanted to excuse individuals based on identity (under the reasoning that systemic effects magnified prejudice). Privilege debates switched this. Certain identities were to be "criminalized" or at least removed from any public platform.
Political reactions to Trump amplified this to crazy levels. Current politics now makes the case that if someone has the wrong identity then we should be able to pull a "show me the man, I'll find you the crime" dynamic. Victor David Hanson mentions this soviet turn in his recent podcast on American Thought Leaders (which is of course now demonitized and throttled as wrongthink). He also mentions how woke religious points serve as a wall for cancellation attention.
Here is a very overt example of the criminalization and excusation of identity. The inference is that people of a certain colour should be allowed to use word and rhetoric that others are not. Maxime Waters can do all sorts of direct incitement to violence (like sicking the justice department on foes which relies on process being sufficient punishment). But if another identity, like Trump or a conservative social media node does it, it is criminal.
No comments:
Post a Comment