I’ve been thinking about Andrew Scheer and the dust-up around his less than instantaneous condemnation of a man who mentioned Pizzagate in a question to him last week. (Put short, the questioner mentioned Pizzagate, and Mr. Scheer did not immediately CONDEMN him for spreading such VICIOUS LIES!) I have a theory as a result.
All this virtue signaling and policing of language is not Progressives creating an ‘in group’. It’s about determining who should be ostracized. Not inclusion…exclusion. That’s why there is no antonym to ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘misogynist’ or any other term they slap on any heretic. To be labelled one or more of them is to be branded for out-group treatment, ultimately, ostracization (these days, a form of exile but within your own nation, where you lose your job, are publicly shamed, and made to recant).
It’s worse these days as no one is at the reigns of what will get you ostracized. And so we have the current out of control purity spirals where the definition of the above terms expands with every perceived offence. (At least in the past, you could count on a good religion to set some limits on what got you exiled or burned at the stake.) Heck, it’s almost like not engaging in holiness spirals is itself a ground for ostracization.
Am I condemned because I don’t care that some guy says ‘Pizzagate’? Or am I condemned because I don’t show the appropriate offence at what someone else has labelled as ‘outgroup’ identification language?