Woke Totalitarianism: Stan Richards' Case
You might have seen that Amy Coney Barrett was dragged briefly on the Left for using the term “sexual preference” in her testimony, to refer to gay people. She later apologized, saying that she didn’t mean anything negative by it. In Commentary, Noah Rothman details — with many examples — how the phrase was perfectly kosher with the media and academia until the moment they could use it to criticize Judge Barrett as a homophobe. Rothman continues:
We should not mince words. What were witnessing is a concerted, perhaps even coordinated, effort to manufacture an allegation of bigotry from whole cloth and to force previously neutral language to comport with that accusation. And all to assault the character of one politically inconvenient woman.
This is retroactive conditioning on a grand scale. Before Tuesday, this was a term that most well-meaning people used within perfectly explicable context to convey their commitment to tolerance and egalitarianism. But now, with a Supreme Court seat on the line, it is being perverted to mean the precise opposite of tolerance.
If the goal here were a fuller understanding of the gay communitys sensitivities, we would not be witnessing an inquisition. Barretts critics would be educating her rather than accusing her. But this is not a good-faith display on the part of the theatrically incensedit is a nakedly opportunistic fabrication. And we are all expected to subordinate what we know to be true to the party line. That is totalitarianism, and our....