The anti-woke warriors used to defend free speech. Now they make McCarthyism look progressive | Arwa Mahdawi

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"The Anti-Woke Movement's Shift from Free Speech Advocates to Censors"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.2
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The article discusses the evolving narrative of the anti-woke movement, which has shifted from a stance of defending free speech to one of actively silencing dissenting voices. Initially, figures like Bari Weiss depicted the anti-woke crowd as brave defenders against an intolerant left, positioning themselves as marginalized truth-tellers. However, with the resurgence of Donald Trump and the consolidation of their power, these so-called free speech advocates have begun to display hypocrisy by attempting to cancel individuals who oppose their views. This shift has sparked discussions within conservative circles about the authenticity of their previous claims regarding cancel culture and free speech, revealing an identity crisis among some members of the anti-woke media ecosystem as they grapple with their current alignment with extreme right ideologies.

Moreover, the article highlights specific instances of this newfound intolerance, including the targeting of PBS employees focused on diversity and inclusion, and the actions of organizations like Canary Mission, which compile lists of pro-Palestinian activists. The right's campaign against individuals like Ms. Rachel, a children's entertainer, exemplifies the extreme lengths to which they will go to silence voices that challenge their narratives. Accurso's advocacy for Palestinian children has drawn severe backlash, showcasing a culture where dissent is increasingly met with threats of deportation and accusations of antisemitism. The author argues that this new era of censorship and intolerance may render even the historical McCarthyism seem progressive, as the anti-woke movement increasingly prioritizes suppression over the free exchange of ideas while paradoxically claiming to uphold the principles of free speech.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a critical view of the so-called "anti-woke" movement, which has evolved over the years from portraying itself as a defender of free speech to a group accused of hypocrisy and authoritarianism. This shift in narrative raises questions about the true motivations and implications of their actions.

Branding Issues and Hypocrisy

The piece highlights the branding problems faced by anti-woke advocates who once styled themselves as champions of free speech but are now seen as engaging in cancel culture against those who oppose their views. The author suggests that these individuals, who have gained significant platforms, are now exhibiting behaviors that contradict their previous claims about protecting free speech.

Identity Crisis Among Anti-Woke Figures

There is an emerging identity crisis within certain factions of the anti-woke media ecosystem. This is evident through commentary from libertarian journalist Michael Moynihan, who indicates that some figures have transitioned into mere supporters of right-wing populism, losing their original purpose. This self-awareness among some conservatives suggests a potential shift in the broader anti-woke narrative.

Historical Context of Free Speech

By referencing past incidents of conservatives being 'canceled' for controversial statements, the article underscores the irony of current anti-woke proponents engaging in similar tactics against their ideological opponents. This juxtaposition raises questions about the consistency of their principles regarding free speech and accountability.

Impact on Society and Politics

The article implies that the evolving dynamics of the anti-woke movement could have significant ramifications for societal discourse and political landscapes. By calling attention to their hypocrisy, it encourages readers to reconsider the implications of supporting movements that may contradict their stated values.

Demographics and Support Base

This analysis likely resonates more with liberal audiences who are critical of the anti-woke narrative. It seeks to engage those who value genuine free speech over the selective application of such principles, potentially alienating more conservative readers who may view the article as an attack.

Market Influence

While the article primarily focuses on social and political commentary, the implications of these discussions could influence market sentiments, particularly in sectors related to media and technology. Companies tied to the anti-woke narrative may face scrutiny and shifts in public perception, impacting their stock performance.

Global Context and Relevance

The concerns raised in this article tie into broader global discussions about free speech, censorship, and the rise of populism. As societies grapple with these issues, the article serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in advocating for free expression in an increasingly polarized environment.

The writing style appears to be influenced by contemporary journalistic practices, potentially enhanced by AI tools that focus on crafting persuasive narratives. These tools may help shape the tone and direction of the argument, emphasizing key themes such as hypocrisy and identity crisis.

In summary, the article critiques the transformation of the anti-woke movement and its implications for free speech and societal values. The author’s use of pointed language and historical references serves to highlight the contradictions within this movement, aiming to prompt reflection among readers about the authenticity of the anti-woke claims.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Thoughts and non-denominational prayers to all the anti-woke warriors out there. It may seem as though everything is going their way now Donald Trump is back with a vengeance, but the poor things have run into a bit of a branding problem. For years, the anti-woke crowd positioned themselves as fearless free thinkers taking on the intolerant left. The journalist Bari Weiss wrote a fawningNew York Times piece in 2018describing rightwing voices such as Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens as “renegades of the intellectual dark web” (IDW).

Now, however, the people who used to position themselves as oppressed truth-tellers operating in what Weiss’s article called an “era of That Which Cannot Be Said”, have a state-sanctioned microphone. They’ve won. But in winning they’ve made it difficult to continue the charade that they give a damn about “cancel culture”. Look around: some of these self-styled free speech warriors are doing everything they can to ruin the lives of everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with them.

Most conservatives don’t seem to mind that their hypocrisy is now on full display. But, according to a recentpiece on the news site Semafor,a handful of people within the anti-woke media ecosystem are starting to have something of an identity crisis. “One didn’t have to be especially prescient to spot those ‘anti-woke’ types who would just slowly become Maga flunkies,” said the libertarian journalist Michael Moynihan, who had a short stint at Weiss’s publication the Free Press before becoming disillusioned.

Remember when the right railed against people losing jobs for old comments they’d made? In 2018, for example, the Atlantic fired the conservative columnist Kevin Williamson after the backlash about a 2014 podcast appearance in which the 60-year-old had suggested women should face hanging forhaving an abortion. Cue a million furious tweets from the “renegades of the IDW” about how, as Ben Shapiro put it on X, “virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the Left’s interests”.

Now, however, there’s no denying that virtually everyone is vulnerable if they run afoul of the right’s interests. Semafor’s piece notes that “One [Free Press]investigationthat exposed two low-profile employees at PBS who had focused on diversity and got them fired rubbed even some of its allies the wrong way”.

At least the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) employees at PBS “only” got fired.Canary Missionand Betar US, twopro-Israel groups, have been compiling “deportation” lists of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses and sharing them with the Trump administration. Betar US has also warned that it is going toexpand its focusbeyond immigrants to naturalised US citizens.

These organisations are just a couple of cogs in a massive dissent-crushing machine. The Christian nationalist Heritage Foundation, which spearheaded Project 2025, is behind a dystopian plan calledProject Estherthat cynically weaponises very real concerns about antisemitism to shut down criticism of Israel and quash pro-Palestinian activism. And you can bet these censorious projects won’t end with Palestinians: at the rate we’re going, pro-choice sentiment will soon be considered “anti-Christian” and anyone espousing it will get deported. If that sounds far-fetched, let me remind you that last month theveterans affairs departmentordered staff to report their colleagues for “anti-Christian bias”.

Drunk on their power to deport and defame, some on the right have officially lost the plot. For months a number of conservative voices have been engaged on a mission to cancelMs Rachel, a children’s entertainer whose real name is Rachel Accurso. If you have small children, Ms Rachel needs no introduction. For everyone else, she wears a pink headband and sings songs such as Icky Sticky Bubble Gum. Ms Rachel’s videos have always been gently inclusive: she incorporates sign language and she has frequently had Jules Hoffman, anon-binary musician, on her show. On herpersonal social mediashe has also advocated for issues such as paid family leave.

The right tried to cancel Ms Rachel over Hoffman’sgender identity back in 2023.Now they’re trying to cancel the beloved star again; this time for the “crime” of speaking up about Palestinian kids and featuring athree-year-old double amputee from Gazain a video. The fact Accurso ishumanising Palestinianchildren is driving some rightwing voices so berserk that they’re smearingher as antisemitic, asking the US attorney general for an investigation, and spreading the ridiculous and completely baseless lie (which the New York Times bizarrelychose to amplify) that she is being funded by Hamas.

Welcome to our “new era of That Which Cannot Be Said”: one that may make McCarthyism seem progressive. It would seem the new renegades of the intellectual dark web are those of us who think you shouldn’t bomb starving babies in their sleep just because they are Palestinian.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian