Connect with us

I’m Proud Of My Liberal Bubble, Where Being Intolerant Means Not Putting Up With Bigotry

Published

on

Not All Opinions Are Created Equal

There’s been a lot of talk lately about what our responsibilities to ensure someone else’s free speech rights are and what we’re supposed to protect. In the wake of accusations of being stuck in a “liberal bubble,” many of us have been accused of being intolerant of other opinions and shutting down debate before it even starts.  

And you know what? It’s true, and I’m proud of it.

Not every opinion or point of view is valid and acceptable. 

There was a time when we all agreed with that — really, we did. Not long ago the majority of people in America believed overt racism was unacceptable in our society and we shunned those who put forth such opinions. We relegated them to the outskirts of society because we were willing to speak out and say that we do not accept such bigotry here. 

(That’s not to say racism was gone, becuase we know it wasn’t. It’s just that we were willing to say we refused to tolerate obvious racism in the public square.)

But now there are white supremacists (back) in the White House and across the administration, and most of the Republican candidates ran on platforms that focused on abandoning the idea of “political correctness” — the idea that there are just certain things you shouldn’t say in public, because they’re gross and offensive. They ran on a platform of bringing back public bigotry, and they won. 

I’ve seen people I’ve formerly thought to be considerate moderates suddenly sharing articles on social media that have some of the most vile thoughts I’ve seen in print lately. These folks defend the both the opinions and their authors, in what they assume to be their responsibility to free speech and the need to “hear both sides.”

I’m not sure what they’re hoping to learn, but I don’t need to hear from a Klansman why ethno-nationalism and white supremacy are beneficial (because they’re not). I don’t need to hear from a radical Christian who says that transgender people are (a) not real or (b) only here to attack you while you use the bathroom (again, because they’re not). I don’t need to listen to that guy from high school who swears that the Muslims are going to take over our country and force all of our women to wear burqas as they impose Sharia law (once more, they’re not).  

I don’t need to read those articles or listen to those opinions because I don’t need to engage with racism and bigotry to know it’s bad. That’s not a lesson that takes much to learn. I can even teach someone else to “treat everyone equally” without ever having to give them a counter argument. 

But even more than that, I don’t need to defend those people and what they write, because nothing they say has a basis in reality. People who share and say such sentiments should absolutely be silenced because they are objectively wrong. We can prove that. 

Holding ourselves to the highest standard of free speech doesn’t mean accepting arguments that aren’t factully correct — and it doesn’t mean that every individual citizen has to listen to and validate every opinion that exists simply because someone holds it.  

The First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting a citizen’s free speech rights. It says nothing about what private citizens can and cannot do when it comes to giving others a platform. 

I absolutely believe and support the idea that the government should protect any and all forms of speech. No one should be jailed for sharing their opinions, no matter how disgusting they may be. And I absolutely defend everyone’s rights to speak out in safety.  

But beyond that? I owe them nothing. I don’t have to invite everyone to speak at my debate, I don’t have to share their articles on my social media, and I don’t have to engage in conversation with them just because they think they have an opinion. 

There are plenty of times I’ll welcome challenging debate and engage with those whose opinions are the opposite of mine. The best way to provide healthcare? Filled with a thousand possibilities. How to increase gun control and what that might look like? Of course, because we can find common ground on how best to approach communal safety. Whether or not transgender people are real and should be allowed to exist in public spaces? Absolutely not. 

There is no gray area when it comes to discussing someone’s humanity. There is no, “Well, let’s look at it this way.” I’m not willing to tolerate “just a little” racism or bigotry or transphobia or Islamophobia and, to be sure, I’m proud of that. 

Somehow “Make America Great Again” has turned into “I get to say all the disgusting stuff I want and you can’t stop me.” I refuse to live in a world where that’s the standard. 

So, go ahead and call me intolerant. You can even make up new fancy-sounding terms like “reverse bigotry” if it makes you feel good.

If the worst thing you can say about me is that I live in a bubble becuase I refuse to tolerate racism and bigotry? Great. Bring it. I’ll take it as a compliment. 

Robbie Medwed is an Atlanta-based LGBTQ activist and writer and proudly lives in a bubble where racism and bigotry aren’t allowed. Follow him on Twitter: @rjmedwed

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Ethics Committee Reveals Latest Republican to Come Under Review: Report

Published

on

The House Ethics Committee has reportedly announced that U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is facing a review by the Office of Congressional Conduct.

The origin of the review was not been disclosed. Under committee rules, officials are prohibited from stating whether the matter constitutes a formal investigation or identifying its underlying cause. The Committee only stated that there is a “matter regarding Representative Nancy Mace.”

“The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee,” the Ethics Committee statement reads. It was posted to social media by congressional journalist Jamie Dupree.

The statement also says the committee will “announce its course of action in this matter on or before March 2, 2026.”

Congresswoman Mace is currently running for governor of South Carolina.

Earlier this month Mace warned that Republicans may lose control of the House, saying they have not “done enough” and could “do a lot more” to implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, The Hill reported.

 

Image via Shutterstock 

Continue Reading

News

Republican Vows to Block Trump’s Greenland Push

Published

on

A prominent Republican lawmaker is vowing to thwart any attempt by President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland through force or financial means.

Speaking from Copenhagen as part of a bipartisan delegation of U.S. congressional lawmakers, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), told reporters it is “an important message for the people of the Kingdom of Denmark to understand” that the United States has “three separate but equal branches” of government.

Reminding them that under the U.S. Constitution it is Congress that controls spending, Senator Murkowski, who has broken ranks and stood up to President Trump at times, said, “In Congress, we have tools at our disposal under our constitutional authority that speaks specifically to the power of the purse through appropriations.”

She noted also that “Congress has a role. Certainly, when it comes to spending authorities, the Congress has a role in basically helping to facilitate the message that comes from our constituents, to be reflected in whether it’s legislation or appropriations, or actions or measures, that can indicate, again, the will of the Congress.”

READ MORE: Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota

The “vast majority” of Americans do not support the acquisition of Greenland, Senator Murkowski added, noting that “some 75 percent will say we do not think that that is a good idea.”

“Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset,” Murkowski also told reporters.

Politico reported that U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) “also took part in the visit by House and Senate lawmakers,” and “said he would push ahead with legislation to curb Trump’s power to act unilaterally.”

He also denied President Trump’s claims that Greenland is necessary to be owned by the U.S. for national security reasons.

“Are there real, pressing threats to the security of Greenland from China and Russia?” Coons said. “No, not today.”

READ MORE: With Shutdown Looming and Crises Growing Trump Heads Off for Long Mar-a-Lago Weekend

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Dangles Another Insurrection Act Threat for Minnesota

Published

on

Just one day after threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota, which would allow him to unleash domestic military forces onto American streets, President Donald Trump once again on Friday hinted he would do so while suggesting he may be “forced” to take action.

Trump targeted Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, claiming they “don’t know what to do” after he deployed roughly 3,000 federal troops to the city.

“In Minnesota,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “the Troublemakers, Agitators, and Insurrectionists are, in many cases, highly paid professionals.”

“The Governor and Mayor don’t know what to do, they have totally lost control, and our currently being rendered, USELESS! If, and when, I am forced to act, it will be solved, QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY!”

The Guardian labeled Trump’s claims that protesters are paid as baseless.

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: “Note that the Trump admin hasn’t yet been able to produce evidence of a SINGLE ‘paid protestor.’ They’ve had total control of the FBI and the DOJ and ICE HSI and yet despite all of that, they can’t even find ONE person who they can accuse of being paid to protest.”

Separately, The Steady State, a group of over 365 former national security officials, while not referring to Trump’s remarks from Friday morning, noted that the Insurrection Act is “an extraordinary power meant for true emergencies, not a shield for unconstitutional policing. Using it to silence dissent or justify unlawful paramilitary activity at the hand of ICE undermines the rule of law.”

READ MORE: With Shutdown Looming and Crises Growing Trump Heads Off for Long Mar-a-Lago Weekend

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.