Radicalism Always Eventually Turns On Its Own.
We can see from the fierce persecution of the children’s author J.K. Rowling who has talked about having to endure death, rape and torture threats (in addition to cancellation) over a singular political stance, that contemporary Left-wing political aggression is not confined to Conservatives. The idea that Conservatives are especially egregious as a group, and that this is what accounts for the uniquely militant disposition of the political Left right now is refuted by the Left’s treatment of its own compatriots who dare to deviate from even a single item of its official ideological dogma. Rowling has been villified and denounced with the exact same degree of venom as any political Conservative. There has been no mercy, and no consideration of her status as a loyal fellow Leftist (who also detests Conservatives).
In the case of the author Germaine Greer we saw that even status as an iconic founding mother of “Second Wave” Feminism cannot save one from this savage treatment for daring to disagree. Greer was blacklisted, stripped of honorary degrees, excoriated by the Liberal press, and personally targeted with violent threats just as Rowling was. This trademark political malice of the modern Left is directed toward all non trivial ideological dissent (regardless of who offers it) and it is absolutely unforgiving.
Now no sensible person believes that two counterculture Leftists like Rowling and Greer genuinely harbor hatred in their hearts for individuals with gender dysphoria. Yet what certain players in today’s political conversation are endeavoring to do is to redefine the word “hate”. “Hate” now no longer refers to a kind of attitude or motivation, it refers to an outcome: the outcome of offending certain groups. It does not matter whether the person has some other purpose for saying what they say, if it happens to offend the right parties and they are aware of the potential for that offense, they are guilty of “hate".
At the very least we should be able to agree on the following rule. If it is possible in theory for a person to adopt a particular stance without an awareness of the general existence of the group that is to be offended, the stance in question cannot be fundamentally grounded in a “hatred” toward that group. Now it is obviously possible to adopt the position that identity as a man or a woman is inborn and unalterable, without an awareness of the existence of individuals with gender dysphoria (as billions of human beings have in the past ). Therefore the adoption of such a stance cannot be inherently based in a hatred of that group. Contrast this logically with, for example, the truly hateful idea of white supremacy which is impossible in principle without the concept of non-white members of the human race.
The fact that I hate an idea is no evidence of the fact that an idea is hateful. Mere offense in itself does not identify hatred. And the consequences of intentionally misapplying the label “hate" are quite serious. Whenever you label a person as hateful you are making that individual into an appropriate object of hatred from a practical standpoint. In other words, the human race typically perceives truly hateful things as justifiable objects of hatred themselves ( e.g. the Third Reich, The Klu Klux Klan etc.). Therefore to illegitimately label some party as hateful on the basis of disagreement or offense over a belief is to incite hatred against ideological dissenters. We cannot behave in this way and then wonder why the state of political discourse is as dreadful as it is.
And again, I have temporarily eliminated political Conservatives from the equation: this is the way that the modern Left deals with its own who dare to differ. This unique problem with dissent on the Left cannot be glossed over, including by pretending that both sides act in this way; they do not. Moderates on the Left must stand up to this militant attitude within their own ranks if open and honest political conversation is to reconvene within this country. And if they do not they may eventually see this uncompromising ideological regimentation come for them.
s
Your point is well taken. This is why I have moved from left toward center over the years. I saw disagreement bring dialog to a stop and then replaced by rejection and eventual vilifying of the disagree-er. (I know-not a word). It is also why I stopped engaging with those perpetrators of rejection. My evolution has been to be willing to look at both sides of an argument, doing my research, and applying critical thinking to the discussion. Indeed it is why I even read your piece.
Largely true this but as a moderate, I do sometimes see similar behavior on the right. It’s the extremism that’s the problem. You see eating your own among types of Christians and Muslims as well. They would be more right wing than left wing generally speaking. I know it’s a story but The Scarlet Letter is one such example.