Here an excerpt from Mondegreen's article, along with Colin Wright's illustration:
A conversation about reasonable accommodations is a nuanced conversation. Instead, we got a radical trans movement that wants to erase sex in law and society, put men in women's prisons and boys in girls' sports, and run an unregulated medical experiment on gender-nonconforming children. This has given rise to an absurd and dystopian reality where men are granted access to women’s prisons, sports, and other protected spaces, and where gender-nonconforming children have become the target of unregulated medical experiments that involve puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and extreme surgeries.
It is kinda a big problem when government asks social media to censor people opposed to masking toddlers, closing schools, mandating boosters in young men and people suspicious of the narrative of natural origin, and then turn out to be wrong on every single issue.
You need not agree with everything someone says to treat them with respect. Daryl Davis has proved over and over that good things can happen when you refuse to get caught up in hate:
At the heart of the censor resides hubris, more than anything else. If you look at the intellectual history of humanity, it's nothing but trial and error. What people believe in one generation is Absolute Truth. It gets to be regarded by the next generation as a grievous error. That's the way that we advance. That's what makes life exciting: The fact that we err, we're fallible, we're constantly in search of the truth, we're using our reasoning skills and our cognitive abilities to try and figure out what is true and what is false.
There are a lot of things I believe, very, very, very passionately, I honestly have never ever gotten to the point where I felt like what I believe in is so clearly and indisputably and permanently true that I believe it ought to be illegal for anyone to express an opinion different than the one that I had. I couldn't imagine ever finding the hubris necessary to believe that about myself that I now reside above the human history of trial and error. But that's really what these people believe. And I think that is the reason censorship is so appealing: once you convince yourself that you were on the side of objective good, whoever disagrees with you or sees the world differently than you is the enemy of all--evil--and you can only see the world in that kind of binary way. It almost becomes not just tolerable, but necessary to say those people shouldn't be able to speak because they're fonts of falsity, lies and deceit, whereas I am the owner of the truth. I feel extremely uncomfortable believing that about myself, even though there are a lot of things I really strongly believe in and believe are true. I just never have gotten to that point. And can't imagine getting to that point.
Once you adopt a view, your political opponents are no longer people who are misguided and wrong, or even ill-intentioned . . . they're essentially on the level of Hitler and Nazism. That's the single worst evil we could possibly think of. If you really believe that the United States faces a choice between remaining a liberal democracy on the one hand, or succumbing to a Hitlerian, white nationalist dictatorship, if that's something that you actually believe, on some level it becomes rational to say: "I think the evil we're facing is so overarching that anything and everything we do, censoring, lying, sabotaging, cheating and deceiving becomes, again, not just morally justifiable, but morally necessary.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
