Read on Twitter
The dirtbag left's appropriation of cancel culture is a big part of the reason why I keep an eye out for when leftists decide that certain people are acceptable targets of attack. https://twitter.com/gwensnyderPHL/status/1252246202495705089
Like Neera Tanden, for example. I don't know anything about her, and I don't care, but I do know that she's been deemed as an acceptable target for harassment by the left. Sady Doyle would be another good example.
These are women - it's always women - that the left has decided are safe targets, at which they can aim their firehose of rage and not only not feel guilty about it, but feel GOOD.
And that always gives me pause.
And that always gives me pause.
For one thing, we should be directing our rage at the people who are actively trying to harm and kill us. Those are the ones who deserve it, and if people have rage to spare beyond that then perhaps they aren't raging hard enough.
But also, as this thread points out, harassment and violence never stop at the "safe" targets. Okay, so THIS progressive woman and THAT progressive woman are okay to attack because *reasons*, but who's making that call? And who decides who the next safe targets are?
It won't be me - I have no audience, but more importantly, I'm old-ish, white, and male - but Gwen is already being classified as a "safe" target by the dirtbags.
We should never just let this happen without questioning it.
We should never just let this happen without questioning it.
Even when the targets seem like obvious ones. Especially when the targets seem like obvious ones!
Like I see "Kamala is a cop" a lot, and my immediate reaction is never going to be "yes, that sounds right." My reaction is "who decided that, and why?"
Like I see "Kamala is a cop" a lot, and my immediate reaction is never going to be "yes, that sounds right." My reaction is "who decided that, and why?"
Why is it so important to determine that THIS woman - and again, it's always a woman - is an acceptable target?
Like, who fucking cares? And why? Why do so many people equate activism with simply being cruel to the right targets?
Like, who fucking cares? And why? Why do so many people equate activism with simply being cruel to the right targets?
Anyway, I guess the point here is that when your community gives you permission to go after one person, you need to ask yourself why, what you would get out of that, what the community would get out of it, and who made the decision in the first place.
And as much as I fucking hate tribalism, I have to say that if someone agrees with most of the things you believe in, or even fights for a lot of things that you believe in, then maybe you should be extra skeptical when other people tell you that it's okay to attack them.
Who decided that it was okay? Why did they decide that? What do they get out of it?
And why. Is it always. A woman.
And why. Is it always. A woman.
