| curl-6 said: As I said, the alt right does employ cancel culture too, but in my experience the majority of it comes from the alt left, particularly in terms of weaponizing things like the legal system, HR, social media, and other institutions to silence opposing views. Discrimination does exist, obviously, and there are and should be interventions against it, such as businesses not being allowed to say "no black people served here" or "we only hire men" or a school not being allowed to say only let in white students. Anti-discrimination laws exist in pretty much every Western nation, as they should. |
How do you think anti-discrimination laws should be enforced?
For example, how do you solve discrimination that isn't explicit, but has the same effect via proxy metrics? To go further, when a hiring manager doesn't choose applications because the names are obviously of a particular ethnic-group, how does the state become aware of this and intervene?
The general mindset of the left is that the state isn't very effective at addressing these sorts of discrimination, especially when they involve implicit bias and the discriminator isn't even consciously aware that they are acting discriminatorily.
The solution proposed is to change the culture, to be more "woke" -- if you will -- aware of implicit prejudices/biases so that individuals and not just institutional policy act to ameliorate general discriminatory trends.
What you see as "silencing opposing views" often is about making particular settings more neutral for marginalized people. Every institution and association has its norms of conduct.
This isnt to say white people, or any other historically dominant class should be made to feel less than, but that rather when a dominant group is told it needs to share society the feeling is a sense of loss in that group. This is a basis of the far right reaction to social change towards a more egalitarian and individual-oriented society.
