When Activism Excludes...
In recent years, movements like “woke” culture, certain racialist groups, and parts of LGBT activism have gained significant influence in our cultural and political conversations. These movements started from real struggles against discrimination and violence – causes that genuinely mattered. But somewhere along the way, many of them shifted from trying to persuade people to trying to force compliance. If you disagree, you're quickly labeled a racist, fascist, or transphobe. This all-or-nothing approach creates a new kind of exclusion that goes against the very values of openness and equality these movements claim to support.
One thing that bothers me about the these movements is how it uses “lived experience” or “place of speech” to shut down anyone who disagrees – especially if they're not from a historically marginalized group. What started as a way to lift up voices that weren't being heard has turned into a tool for silencing people. It reduces everyone to their race, gender, or sexual orientation, and suggests that white and straight people have no right to speak on certain topics. This comes dangerously close to reverse discrimination, where who you are matters more than what you're actually saying.
In some racialist circles, fighting racism has morphed into viewing everything through a racial lens. This leads to rhetoric that demonizes entire groups – whites, Europeans – and treats any attempt at neutrality as secretly supporting systemic racism. In certain academic and activist spaces, even talking about universal rights or legal equality gets dismissed as “oppressive” or “colonial.” This just deepens the divide and makes real conversation across racial lines nearly impossible. Fighting racism shouldn't mean creating new forms of collective guilt or stirring up resentment between groups.
There's also a growing expectation that goes beyond basic respect. It's not enough to treat LGBT individuals with dignity – which we absolutely should. There's pressure to adopt a whole worldview, use specific language, and accept certain theories about gender and identity without question. If you disagree with ideas like unlimited gender fluidity, or if you hold traditional or religious views on sexuality, you're immediately called intolerant. This creates an atmosphere where people are afraid to voice honest disagreement, even when they still respect everyone's dignity. Fighting intolerance by being intolerant of different views is deeply ironic.
I want to be clear: criticizing these excesses doesn't mean rejecting those people. The problem is when the pursuit of justice turns into moral authoritarianism and thought policing. Real resistance to intolerance has to include space for people who disagree. When we call everyone who thinks differently a “fascist,” we lose the ability to have meaningful conversations and just end up more polarized. In the name of inclusion, these movements often exclude. In the name of diversity, they demand conformity. And in the name of justice, they rush to judgment.
— Andre