Thread by @tzimmer_history

The “cancel culture” and anti-“wokeism” moral panics rely on a complete inversion of the actual balance of power, portraying traditionally marginalized groups as mighty forces that urgently need to be reined in – and those in elite positions as desperately in need of protection.

It’s an unbelievably cynical game: Some of society’s most vulnerable groups – trans people, for instance, whose fundamental rights, including their right to exist in the public square, are being stripped away – are presented as a dangerous, powerful cabal.

In a way, the New York Times recently elevating an unhinged anti-“woke” crusader like Pamela Paul is actually useful: In everything she writes, the cynical inversion of  power is dialed up to 11 – which gets you to “In defense of JK Rowling.” It’s not gonna get any more obvious.

Think about how silly this is: “Oh, the woke militants dominate everything over there!” – when the New York Times has just hired staunchly conservative David French to join the existing stable of famous anti-“woke” columnists like Pamela Paul, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks.

The only “persecution” that is happening here is David French being criticized online. Some of that criticism may even be unfair or cross the line – the internet is a nasty place. But that’s it. No one is firing or “canceling” him. No one in a position of power is doing anything.

In this way, this whole affair captures the anxiety that fuels the reactionary crusade against “wokeism” and “cancel culture”: Societal elites - and elite white men, in particular - face a little more scrutiny and public criticism today than in the past. And they don’t like that.

As soon as traditionally marginalized groups gained enough power and acquired the technological means to make their demands for respect and their criticism heard, traditional elites started bemoaning “persecution” - “The hordes are coming to cancel us!”

Important to note that it’s mostly the *threat* of scrutiny, the *potential* of being held to account that is enough to cause the next round of reactionary panic. In practice, the power structures that have traditionally defined American life have unfortunately held up just fine.

These moral panics appeal to (predominantly white, predominantly male) elites because the threat to elite impunity is real - “cancel culture” and “wokeism” may have made it slightly more likely that people get in trouble for racist, misogynistic, disrespectful behavior.

Simply put, elite life in the public spotlight has become slightly more uncomfortable, at least for elites who used to be able to get away with absolutely everything and now they (potentially) don’t anymore. People like David French and Pamela Paul get more public criticism.

The reason is that traditionally marginalized groups have forced their way into the conversation, necessitating a re-negotiation of norms surrounding public speech and expression. That process can be messy at times - but the alternative is continued elite dominance and impunity.

Everyone agrees that certain transgressions, certain public speech should be met with shaming or shunning. The real question is: Where is the line, and who gets to draw it? Traditionally, this was the prerogative of a predominantly white, predominantly male elite.

This prerogative has come under fire. And if you believe - as much of America’s traditional elite evidently does - that you are entitled to say and do whatever you want without legal or cultural sanction, that you are actually entitled to unconditional affirmation, that’s bad.

Think about how cynical, how utterly vile this is: “No right are being ‘stripped away.’ None.”

As red states have introduced *hundreds* of anti-trans bills, passing ever-more extreme anti-trans laws every week.

What an unbelievably disingenuous bigot this man is. Despicable.

So many people proudly taking the Sullivan “You’re just making stuff up” line in my responses. When this, below, is what’s happening across the U.S.
 
There is no plausible deniability for this level of willful ignorance or bigotry. You’re just telling the world who you are.

https://twitter.com/AlliRaine22/status/1623661865694814209

As the reactionary assault on one of the country’s most vulnerable, most marginalized groups is escalating, anti-“woke” crusaders are focused on the real threat - elite “free speech”: “Famous billionaires need our protection! Famous NYT columnists are being persecuted!” Perfect.

Addendum - This thread isn’t even primarily about Rowling’s transphobia - but to the “She’s just protecting women!” chorus: Your line of thinking is predicated on the idea that trans people are inherently dangerous, rapists, predators… It’s grounded in transphobic ideology.

The idea that the struggle of trans people for equality and respect is inherently dangerous to women and must be rejected as a threat to women’s rights is only plausible on the basis of a fundamentally discriminatory worldview that is fully in line with the reactionary crusade.

It’s the same kind of argument as “We need to protect the children” from queer teachers, the central rallying cry for homophobic reactionary campaigns since the 1970s: The plausibility of the claim depends entirely on accepting the notion that queer people tend to be “groomers.”

“How dare you accuse us of transphobia - we’re just saying that trans women are actually men merely pretending to be women who should always be treated as men, and oh, they are also inherently dangerous and tend to be child molesters and rapists.”

Keep telling us who you are.