George Takei brooks no dissent - updated
Now this entry is not an attack on same-sex marriage or a defense of Thomas.
Mr. Takei has demonstrated the preferred tactic of progressives and the American left. They attack the person and avoid discussing the ideas.
Perhaps it is the inevitable result of “the personal is political.” It becomes easier to discredit opponents if you never acknowledge their thoughts. In our time, it’s become necessary to suppress anything that does not match the accepted narrative.
Or as I put it, Thou Shalt Not Dissent.
It’s so predictable it’s scary. There for a while, anytime I disagreed with President Obama’s ideas or policies, the first, fourth, fifth, and seventh responses were exactly the same, “You’re racist.” Too many times I picked that up and tried to refute it.
With climate change, there are now lawmakers who want to make it against the law to deny the “consensus,” and some people have suggested that deniers should be killed.
See, the issue is not that Mr. Takei disagreed with Justice Thomas. It’s that he went straight for the insults and smears before thinking about the dissent. Even if Mr. Takei “walked it back” later.
Thou Shalt Not Dissent.
The only real defense is sticking to the issues and insisting everyone else does too. Politics is a dirty word for a reason, politics is about controlling other people.
I didn’t know Mr. Takei all that well before this. I admired his acting, particularly some of his voice work. I’m afraid his documentary was a film I didn’t finish watching.
But my opinion of his character has dropped.
We should be talking about issues, not people.
UPDATE: My ISP was uncooperative yesterday, which means it took several hours to do the upload and I didn’t catch all the errors.
But I also ran across this from The Federalist.
❝It is not enough for these Americans to say: “I have had my day in court and prevailed.” In effect, they now add: “You do not have the right to hold a different opinion, even if you lose in the public arena. You may not hold on to your belief as a minority view, or even as a private thought. And if you persist and still disagree, I will attack you without quarter and set others on you to deprive you of your status in your profession, of your standing in your community, and even of your livelihood.”
This attitude promises social warfare without end, because there is no peace to be had until the opposing side offers a sincere and unconditional surrender. It means that the people on the Left taking bakers to court, de-Africanizing Justice Thomas, and making Young an accomplice to rape will not be satisfied with winning. For the new totalitarians, prevailing in the courts or at the ballot boxes isn’t enough if there’s still a suspicion that anyone, anywhere, might still be committing thoughtcrime.
Most of all, they do not want you, Present Reader, to even think about agreeing with people like Thomas or Young. By attacking everyone in the public sphere from judges to writers, they’re sending a clear warning that there’s plenty of room in the bonfire. It is a vow that you will be held to account for your personal thoughts, even if you’ve already been defeated in a democratic or judicial contest.❞
That’s a long way removed from ‘live and let live,” isn’t it?
Thou shalt not dissent. I was right with the very first entry on this blog.
❝Lately I've seen a disturbing trend. Both the "right" and "left" have their extremists, but it seems that the leadership on the left is made up mostly of extremists. Most moderates and conservatives seem to be willing to sit down and talk over differences, but that doesn't seem to be true on the "progressive" side. It's a lousy observation to make, but by golly, that is what I see. The "leadership" of the "left" wants to exclude any other possibilities.
The people making the loudest noises about "diversity" are the very ones who want to take it away.❞
So here’s the question folks.
What will you do about it?