Those who have conversations with leftists lately find themselves increasingly seeing a bigotry. The tendency to bigotry is not made explicit in the field of opinions – apparently on the left they are those with a more open mind – but in the reaction you always get when you criticize, and in the tendency to schism and ostracism.
But before assigning responsibilities to the right or left understood as guilty of this trend, one thing must be understood: the bigot exists. Millions exist, and will probably continue to exist. The real problem, if anything, is "where do they spend the winter?".
Like any nomadic population, bigots migrate from the place where they manage to express less their desire to condemn someone to the areas where they can express it better. To express this trend, the bigot needs some specific conditions.
- Easy criminalization of others' behavior.
If you want to drop a bomb on someone's house, or want to burn it for witchcraft, or you want to ostracize it, one of the excuses you can choose to attack him is to have committed some horrendous crime. Since you will be called to justify your animosity, you must somehow "prove" that the person you invoke divine lightning on has committed hideous crimes.
Then you can do one simple thing: magnify a trivial problem. An easy way is the language police, for example to say "if you define my dog as rocky rather than the dutiful sour, you have committed a horrendous crime, which we will call cinidapidary acidulization, which is a horrendous crime. Your PhSplaining is a terrible thing that offends all the dogs, all the librarians and lesbian butchers of Ghana. We cannot allow this crime to go unpunished. To death! "
This tendency is already present in the world of American feminism with the tendency to write "man-" in front of something to demonize it. So if a woman occupies two places with a Gucci handbag (I guess they also bring oxygen from home, given the size) that's okay, while if a man does not keep his legs closed for anatomical reasons quite obvious it is "man-spreading". Interesting how, if an overweight woman occupies two places, then nothing can be said not to do "nbody shaming".
To this it is possible to add a "catch-22" effect, that is to create TWO opposing rules that actually see you guilty. So if a new colleague comes and I explain things to her, I'm doing mansplaining. But if I don't, then I am denying mentoring, which will then make me guilty of his gender gap. One way or another, I'll be guilty.
In the same way, it is possible to build a series of rules that are violated, so that to belong to the community you have to violate its own rules, and be easily attackable. For example, on American campuses there is a duty to accept anyone, including transsexuals, with all the baggage of requests regarding their being women. But we must also understand that the feminists TERF intend to exclude them later. Both are ascribed to the "left", and Willie the Coyote's rule applies: until someone decides to take you out, you can live in contradiction. When someone wants to kill you, if you call transes women then you will have TERFs on them, and if you don't do it then you will have transfects on you.
This situation is very attractive to the bigot, because it allows him the defenseless trial he loves so much. Consequently, many bigots are migrating from right to left: the right, in fact, is very fragmented and it is difficult for an authority recognized by each group to exist. As a result, the excommunications have little effect: even if you manage to free someone from the Nazis of Illinois, they will end up in the Suprematists of Massachusetts. On the left, an excommunication is still a slander, as in the old days.
Here we are at the second point:
- Centralized and recognized authority.
The problem that bigots are having in the state on the right is that one of their favorite old authorities, the Church, has come into conflict on the issue of migrants with Trump and generally the sovereigns. Moreover, the panorama is fragmented and the different positions contrast. In this case, you can "expel from the right" who is against divorce, and find that this enters a group of islamophobes who claim the rights of western women against sharia. And it will still be on the right. You can name those who dislike Putin, and this will go away in some group of American ultranationalists who consider Russia to be the good old "evil empire". Furthermore, the position of the Alt Right towards Israel goes from the full support of the more Trumpian Alt Right, to the strong anti-Semitism of some fringes. An excommunication would result in a migration from one fringe to another.
The result of this piecemeal Alt-Right is that excommunications lose authority, and especially lose effects. The bigoted, on the other hand, likes to say "in the name of the ONLY Big X, NO ONE speaks to you anymore, nobody marries you anymore, nobody does business with you, etc.". But this system on the right does not work: the galaxy of different groups does not allow anyone to do it.
On the left, however, it still works, especially in the far left. The positions are practically homogeneous: everyone thinks badly about Israel, everyone thinks the same thing about Putin, etc. Homologation provides formidable power to excommunications and anathemas, because we know that if we excommunicate someone for not being leftist enough, the excommunication will be valid everywhere.
This is due to a phenomenon known as "maximalism", which we could translate into "the majority takes everything". Although this does not translate into any unity of purpose or any common strategy, (because there is always someone fighting to be the new majority) all the leftist groups have one thing in common: witch hunting . As long as someone points your finger at you shouting "fascist", or any other label, and immediately a universal excommunication is triggered.
This obviously attracts bigots of all kinds. Turning to the left, they receive immense power.
- A race of perpetual purity.
Even in the world of bigots, there is careerism. This is why there must never be too many people in the queue, and therefore a certain turnover is needed. As the leader tries to hold onto an armchair, the result is that an efficient and recognized leadership elimination mechanism is needed.
This mechanism is the race of purity, which results in what Nenni described as "there is always a purer purer that purges you". The purity contest consists of a series of aesthetic requirements that are increasingly difficult to comply with consistently. To give an example from earth to earth: once upon a time, for a leftist leader it was enough to say "homosexuals" to indicate the whole community, and it ended there. Later, due to the principle that makes the escort better than the bagascia, it was decided to use the Anglo-Saxon "gay". And in many circles, "homosexual" became "medicalizing", that is, too scientific, something reminiscent of medical language. So TROUBLE not to say "gay". From "gay" you moved to LGBT, and if you said only "gay" you had to answer that you canceled trans, bisexual and lesbian. Now you should say LGBTQQIA2 +. which doesn't even have that consoling sound that "I know," CGIL, CISL and UIL ", or" from a in with on for between ".
By this I mean that the race for purity requires increasingly harsh tests, for the simple reason that it must provide turnover to an evolving ruling class. But this is very attractive for those with a bigoted mentality, because it provides endless opportunities to slam ANYONE on the dock. Music for their ears.
- Denial of reality.
Those who try to stay in touch with reality will always find it difficult to support positions that deny it. This is because even language has the task of describing reality. So if an ideology denies reality it is always very easy to catch the foul the poor man who continues to speak as if reality existed. Let's take an example: if the party decides that Vladimir Luxuria is a woman like all the others, it probably means that she has the same rights, or that she should have them. But if she asks me to believe that she really is a woman like all the others, the problem becomes different. Not so much for chromosomes (even one in a thousand of women have XY chromosomes, because a certain SRY has not activated. But they don't know it and they don't notice it in general.), But because in any case his personal story has peculiarities that divide Vladimir Luxuria from women in the traditional sense.
Now, at that point someone could tell me to talk about Vladimir Luxuria's menstrual cycle. In this case, to do such a thing I have to get out of reality. By concentrating, I can also make a short presentation (no more than 4-5 slides, otherwise the managers don't understand it) on the cycle of Vladimir Luxuria. But in daily life, when I return to reality, in speech I will never be able to refer to this physical non-event.
And it is at that moment that the bigot arrives and accuses me of having done "misgendering" of Vladimir Luxuria: as Monty Python wrote, even if he does not have a menstrual cycle, it is his right to have it.
Denial of reality works very well: in the USSR it is doing well, in the GDR it was doing better, North Korea is a country full of equality, all genders can have the menstrual cycle, etc. The faithful are asked to believe it, and for a few minutes, in particular moments, it is possible to pretend.
But when you go back to the newspaper, it is not possible to talk about this and sooner or later the joke about the Trabant will run away. And just at that moment comes the bigot who accuses me of doubting the advanced technologies of the People of the GDR. How dare I?
Ultimately, the movement of bigots is already underway. Let me be clear: the bigot is not a left or right concept. The bigot is a concept that adapts to any context. There is also the ecological bigot, the vegan bigot, the liberal bigot, etc.
He is a bigoted one who flaunts the purity of high ideals only for the pleasure he feels in someone else's inquisition.
It doesn't matter WHAT ideals they are.
For this reason, the bigot easily moves from right to left: he doesn't care how high the ideals he has to be in order to judge and condemn someone else. The important thing is that visible orgasm that he feels in putting someone on the dock.