We are living at a very strange time, a time when our culture seems to be under assault by howling mobs of self-righteous, empty-headed progressive puritans who insist on figuratively - at least for now - burning at the stake anyone, or any words or images, no matter how innocuous or innocent, that in any way, no matter how infinitesimally minute, transgress the sacred orthodoxies of the left.
Anyone who deviates from the "right-think" of the left on race, gender, climate change, or Donald Trump, imperils his or her livelihood, reputation and/or the success of any professional output (books, movies, etc.) they may have produced.
No one knows when they will be next to find the kindling being piled at their feet or their books thrown into the bonfire. Our "cancel culture" is reminiscent of the experience of millions of victims of the Soviet state under Joseph Stalin who were condemned to death or imprisonment on the most ludicrous charges, and as in the "courtroom" scene in the movie The Dark Knight Rises there was never any chance of proving one's innocence or escaping punishment:
There's little point in trying to reason with those in the grip of the current social bloodlust, but on the off-chance that someone who needs to read this actually will, I'd like to suggest a few simple rules people might follow when they're confronted with words or deeds they deem offensive. Before they launch a campaign of invective, hate and personal destruction against the putative malefactor they should:
First, ask whether what's being said is somehow untrue. If so, they should then criticize it for being false, but also be prepared to explain why it is false.
Second, if what's being said is not untrue then ask whether it's gratuitously hurtful to someone. If so, then criticize it for being needlessly hurtful, but also be prepared to explain why and to whom it is needlessly hurtful and to support this judgment with evidence.
Third, if a statement is neither untrue nor gratuitously hurtful it might still be something some people don't wish to hear or see or have others hear or see. It might be in bad taste or it might flout political or social decorum, but then the offended party should explain precisely how it does so and why it's wrong for the offender to have breached these particular standards.
Moreover, one should be prepared to explain why giving some groups offense is taboo but offending others is not. For example, suppose someone tweets that he's going to meet with a Catholic priest and expresses concern about being molested, and then adds, "Just kidding, I'm not a young boy."
How many of those who exclaim their outrage and disgust at someone who unintentionally or trivially offends a racial or LGBTQ group would be chortling at the audacious, biting wit of the tweeter who insults the Roman Catholic priesthood? Why is it unconscionable to offend one group but almost praiseworthy to offend the other?
To simply scream about how awful a person is who would flout the progressive catechism and how anyone who does should be fired or otherwise "canceled" for having done so - without presenting a good reason for thinking that what was done was either false or hurtful - is irrational, shallow, juvenile and cruel.
It's the sort of behavior we find in frenzied, unthinking mobs. It's the stage upon which people unwilling to do the heavy labor of erecting a cogent argument can nevertheless put their own moral purity on display for others to see and admire. It's nothing more than moral preening and narcissistic self-flattery at the expense of others.
It is, to be sure, a form of oppression.
