I can’t explain why this thing frustrates and infuriates me as much as it does.
The anger and vitriol that I feel towards this dishonest tactic (and those who use it) has only increased in recent years. The utter disgust and contempt that I extend in this direction is extreme and unwavering.
Maybe it’s because this tactic shuts down debate and dismantles honest discussion. Maybe it’s because I just have zero tolerance for pandering, opportunistic liars.
Either way, I acknowledge that bias and also that I have no fucking chill on this issue.
Issue
When someone accuses a person of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc… without evidence, in an effort to achieve political or social credibility and/or stifle discussion and debate.
Who the fuck cares?
Normal and decent people will do almost anything to avoid being called a “racist”. This is an understandable goal - as being an actual racist - is an awful and ugly thing. Discriminating against an individual or judging an individual based solely on their immutable characteristics is disturbing, uneducated, and frankly - just a bad idea that is harbored by low IQ morons.
However, what has occurred in recent years is that people who are not racist are often labeled as such - in an effort to dissuade curious people from researching, discussing, and debating certain topics. For example, this game is played when criminologists research the “black on black” crime rate and when fiscal conservatives explain that two hundred million dollars in reparations for every black person is not economically feasible.
If you simply ask the question - you are labeled a “racist”. No other evidence is needed to make the vicious claim. And, the more you push back with logic and reason - the more “racist” you must be.
Recently, a popular TV personality went through this and instead of issuing a meek apology - he fought back in an epic and inspiring way.
Dan Abrams FTW
Dan Abrams is a television host, legal commentator, and author. He is currently the host of the prime-time show Dan Abrams Live on NewsNation, On Patrol: Live on Reelz and The Dan Abrams Show: Where Politics Meets The Law on SiriusXM's P.O.T.U.S. channel and is also the Chief Legal Analyst of ABC News.
Full disclosure - I have followed Abrams for years and enjoy his work. He is politically center-left, very rational, pro-police, and always willing to have an honest debate. He both dislikes Donald Trump and despises “cancel culture”. I may not always agree with his opinions, but I appreciate that he curates thoughtful reasoning behind his takes.
You Can’t Say That!
The controversy for Abrams started last week when he asked a question on one of his shows where he specifically covers politics.
The question: Should the Democrats consider replacing Kamala Harris on the 2024 Presidential ticket?
Now, he asked this question on a channel titled “P.O.T.U.S” and Harris has an abysmal approval rating of 39%. Therefore, this was a very reasonable and legitimate question to ask. Also, he is not the only one asking this question in recent weeks/months.
The Backlash
After the segment a troll on Twitter said the following:
This tweet got 177k views and hundreds of comments in agreement. Instead of hiding from it, ignoring it, or apologizing - Abrams retweeted it, engaged, and fought back.
Won’t Back Down
On May 6th Abrams dedicated his entire Law and Crime podcast to debate and discuss this issue. He explained the controversy and gave reasons why he believed that the criticism of him was dishonest, cowardly, and utter bullshit. Abrams then invited callers on his show who agreed with the Tweet and disagreed with him. He debated multiple people who told him that he was a “racist” for even asking the question about Harris.
It would be pointless to rehash the entire episode - as the anger, frustration, and well-reasoned logic cannot be captured in anything other than the original audio (listen here).
What I will say is that it was an inspiring display of not backing down and telling the dishonest, woke, cancel-culture mob to Fuck Off. In an environment where the first instinct of people who have something to lose is often to apologize and grovel at the alter of insane critics - Abrams refused.
It was an important reminder that free speech and honest discussion cannot be silenced by awful assholes and race-baiters. We should not be meek about fighting back.
Final Thoughts
I still believe that everyone should be judged by the “content of their character” and not by the color of their skin. I believe that the goal of a “colorblind” society is the best way forward. A world where skin color is as important and relevant as eye color. No one has convinced me that a better paradigm exists.
I believe that everyone should be able to ask questions and partake in discussions on any topic. No one should be excluded from a debate because they are not the “right” age, race, sex, occupation, tax bracket, etc…. Debate and discussion are about exchanging and challenging ideas - not an event in the Oppression Olympics.
Criminologists should be able to study the “black on black” crime rate. A couple without children should be able to join discussions on school choice. Those who did not serve in the armed forces should be able to have a public opinion on the use of our military. People who never worked as police officers should be able to sit on police oversight commissions. And, anyone interested in politics should be able to ask if the Democrats should consider replacing an incredibly unpopular Vice President.
Cancel-culture and the embargo of suppressing discussion is the cancer. Free speech and more speech is the cure.
Excellent piece. I passed it along to Dan.