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.
