Thoughtful and appreciated. But I don't think is quite so clear cut since what defines hatred and discrimination is, in many instances, subjective rather than objective. For some, saying that a person's sex is based on that person's physiology rather than that person's perception of self (which some would assert is really gender rather than sex) is a matter of biology and not bigotry. JK Rowling's twitter feed indicates that others view that as discrimination and hatred with a vitriol that any reasonable person would see as much more offensive than a nuanced disagreement over terms. Some people agree that there is racism is America but that it is not so institutionally systemic as others might believe. There is legitimate scholarship on both sides. Does one of those positions constitute discrimination and hatred? Does it depend on who you ask? Who gets to decide who else is righteously cancelled? What makes that judgment so pure and so fair?
I agree that people should absolutely be held accountable for what they say and what they think, so I have no issue with Reebok pulling its association with CrossFit based on what its founder said if that is what it wants to do. People can buy Reebok or not based on their support of its culture or rejection of it or just whether they like what it sells. But exercising that choice does not come at the risk of being characterized as racist, evil, bigoted, etc. Are people who question whether public officials who deem mass protests related to race as necessary and protests of health orders that have innumerable significant consequences as based in white supremacy (really?) are acting in good faith based on science and without a political agenda racist? I did that despite agreeing with the need for all sorts of race-related reforms in this country. For many, that makes me a racist bigot. I do not accept that label.
What now constitutes hate speech - or silence as imputed hate speech - is a problem in my view. There is no longer a space for well-meaning disagreement or even electing not to have anything to say. Is it not possible to criticize a protester's tactics without criticizing the message? If I say looting and destroying property and even killing those who try to protect property is wrong does that mean I think it is OK for cops to choke to death a man in handcuffs? Not to me, but for too many people that amounts to discrimination and hate speech or a denial of the substance of the protest. Am I deflecting to say what about Officer Dorn? If some view the hundreds of millions of losses in property damage and theft as something more than a footnote on the events of the last week, is that discrimination and racism? In my house, no. I don't know about your house, but I do know that in many, many houses, it is.
Can a person no longer choose whether to agree or disagree with another person's perspective? I know a white person whose parents used to eat mayonnaise sandwiches and beans bought on grocery store credit when the father was in the military and who has lived a life with serious disabilities resulting from his combat service - does that person (and certainly that person's parents) not have the right to disagree with Kapernick's or Rapinoe's choice of tactics without being a bigot? Do Kapernick and Rapinoe get to decide how other people must interpret their tactics? The anthem wasn't the point of the protest. Ok, I accept that. Does that mean one can't disagree with the election to use the anthem as a tactic to draw attention to the point of the protest? Why else was the anthem used in the protest but to offend people and garner attention? Is everyone required to agree with that choice or is that disagreement discrimination and hatred? On the continuum of how Kapernick could have expressed himself relative to the anthem, is anything too far? Would sitting down have been too far? Comments from Nate Boyer suggest that his advice to Kapernick was that sitting or laying down would be too far. Sitting is offensive but kneeling is not? To whom? Isn't that up to the person who is the recipient of the presentation? Kapernick and Rapinoe did what he did intentionally because he knew it would be controversial and it would upset people. It was a tactic intended to do exactly what it did. The USWNT now wants US Soccer to acknowledge that it was wrong to prohibit kneeling by players representing the United States during the anthem of the United States. No room there to disagree without it being discrimination and hatred?
Where is the check against the clear desire of more than a few to punish those who disagree? That mentality is counterproductive, unnecessary and divisive. Why would people expect others to just capitulate on the altar of a privilege that many do not feel or believe they enjoy? Why does everyone who disagrees just need to listen and be educated? No arrogance there? If people decide that the only way they can be satisfied is to crush, dominate and persecute those who disagree with them, then I fear for the future. That approach will someday lead to scaled violence.
I agree with everything you have said above. One can take a stand against looters and violent protestors without being a racist. We all should be against looters and violent protestors. That's black and white. It's ok to support the "open up CA" without being a racist. We should all support people's right to protest to open up - regardless of our view points- because it's an exercise of the 1st amendment. I fully support opening up with social distancing and required face masks - like two months ago. It's ok not to have a view point until you gather more information or simply not have an opinion at all after you gather all the information if you think it's too gray.
I'm sure there will be people who say extreme things and lump things together incorrectly, but don't let those people define your morality and obligations as citizens of this great nation.
There's no room for police brutality. It's wrong no matter how you slice it. It's not ok for 3 police officers to help murder someone because they are just following orders. I don't allow my children to use the excuse that they did it because their peers did too or someone with authority told them it's ok. The buck stops with you kid. I raised you to think on your own and I expect you to. I will not stoop so low as to think that the majority of the police force do not have moral values and are comfortable just following orders to allow murder of it's own citizens like Nazi Germany.
It's not ok to use your police powers to cover up a killing of a human being because he's your friend or peer. I respect most of our police force and I give them leniency and perk to give free get out of jail cards to family and friends for small things, like speeding or vandalism. However, covering up a murder of an innocent jogger amounts to aiding and abetting in a murder. If any common citizen were to cover up a murder crime for family and friends, we would be inside a court defending ourselves against aiding and abetting in a murder case. This is not a gray area.
I do agree that in today's society, we have too many people on the far left and right, who deem too many things as black and white issues. Police brutality using excessive force is is black and white. Now - some people go to the extreme and look at cases where there's not excessive force or where force IS necessary but resulted in a death, and lump it in incorrectly. Don't let those people make you think that being against police brutality is wrong or is a gray issue. They are wrong for lumping it together. An officer, defending himself against lethal violence must use lethal force if necessary and at times s/he might make mistakes and it's ok. An officer, not under real or reasonably perceived lethal threat or great bodily injury, should NEVER be allowed to use physical threat.
Don't confuse the gray areas with the black and white issues. Don't use the gray areas as an excuse not to stand up for the black and white issues.
JK rowlings didn't say anything wrong. Aziz Ansari should never have been added to the MeToo movement. Does that mean we should not be against discrimination or rape? NO - it's still wrong to discriminate or rape.
Kneeling .... name another circumstance in which we ever think kneeling is treasonous and evil? It's an act of submission used for God and your spouse. (don't go there, think proposal)
Somehow, someone, convinced a large group of people and myself for a while, that it's an insult to our flag. What's the logic and reason behind defining kneeling before our flag as treasonous? drop all your annoyance with KAP and RAP. Think about the act itself. It's not burning the flag or cutting it up. It's not vandalizing it with curse words or nazi symbols. It is an act of submission to our great flag. It was an act, which was thoroughly thought out in conjunction with a fellow military peer in order to show respect to the flag and the military.
Don't use the gray areas as an excuse not to stand up for the black and white issues. Police brutality is wrong. Covering up a murder is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Not holding yourself accountable and your peers accountable is wrong.
