This, if inadvertently, gets right to the heart of the CANCEL CULTURE circle-jerk:
Here’s the thing: “self-censorship,” for lack of a better term, is good. Self-censorship works. It is literally one of the most important skills a person can learn. Most of us, myself definitely included, could probably use more of it. Human discourse without extensive self-censorship would by unimaginably miserable.
But that’s what this is all about: people who want to be able to say anything they want with no social consequences, and in particular think it’s intolerable to have to give a moment’s consideration to how their words might affect other people. That’s all there is. “To afflict, period.”
In related news, this is excellent stuff from Garland:
CRUZ to MERRICK GARLAND: “What are your thoughts on what is called “cancel culture”? Is “cancel culture,” as you understand it, consistent with the values of free speech?”
GARLAND RESPONSE: “I do not have an understanding of the meaning of the term sufficient to comment.” pic.twitter.com/7y3DYJIFHl— Matt Laslo (@MattLaslo) March 2, 2021
“I’m sorry Sen. Cruz, the confirmation hearings for ‘guest columnist for Bari Weiss’s ShakeShack’ are next door.”
…as a Twitter responder observes, the argument of Weiss’s flounce letter is that her colleagues were not engaging in nearly enough self-censorship when responding to her arguments, with the strong implication that if they weren’t willing to self-censor their bosses should be doing it for them:
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in.