One of my biggest concerns these days: We no longer seem capable of civilly discussing even the most important issues with each other. I fear where this might lead us, but I am extremely confident that this is a very bad thing for all of us.
I’m linking to a fascinating article at the intersection of cancellation culture, transgender issues, prominent filmmakers and women’s athletics, written by a gay man (Glenn Greenwald), who arrived at the following disheartening conclusion:
My own thinking about the film in light of this controversy surrounding Navratilova seemed to establish that there was no room for Kimberly Reed, as a pioneering trans woman, to produce a nuanced, complex cinematic portrayal of another nuanced, complex LGBT woman pioneer: one that included Navratilova’s heresy on this issue but did not fixate on it or allow it to suffocate everything else that defined her life and who she is. At least, it seemed clear, there was no way in the current climate to produce a nuanced film without spending the rest of our lives being treated the way Reed College students treated Kimberly Peirce when she tried to show and talk about her own groundbreaking film.
I mourn where this has already led us. There is common acceptance that something called “hate speech” exists. However one chooses to define the term, its acceptance means that we’ve accepted criminalizing thought. There are multiple laws about “hate crimes.” I contend that any definition of “hate crime” also criminalizes thought. The underlying crime is the criminal action, and criminalizing motive is thought police territory. Yes, motive can and should be considered an optional factor in proving the crime and in considering appropriate sentence. Making motive a crime is Orwellian, perhaps Kafkaesque as well.