Cancelling non-racism

What's the difference between cancelling and censoring? Whatever became of free speech, the Bill of Rights? When did "to not be offended" become a right?

J K Rowling has been subjected to unfettered, unaddressed and unfettered hate speech, but it seems that when it comes from the Left, from the self-appointed victims and trolls of the progressive elements of the world, it's cancellation, but the media won't call it what bit is: hate, censorship.

When black football players are subjected to abuse, being held directly responsible -- perhaps 'accountable' -- for the loss if a championship, it's assumed to be, and often punished as 'racism,' just as any criticism of Barack Obama or Kamila Harris is described as racist. Yet this criticism clearly has nothing to do with race. As Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Recently I saw a Facebook post by a doctor, arguing that the removal of "racist" Dr. Seuss material can not be called "cancel culture," because, well obviously, it's racist and therefore can not be cancelled. Where is the ACLU on this? Unless the publishers of Dr. Seuss's material agreed to withdraw or revise material they deemed to be offensive, sorry folks, it's cancel culture when they burn your books or remove them from the library.

Part of the problem is how the media allow the Left to control and change the language to fit their purposes. When Wisconsin Governor Evers removed 'father' and 'other' from state-issued birth certificates, he is surrendering to the left language police. When I was required to submit my Loyola course materials to a policing committee for them to determine if my material satisfied their concept of 'diversity,' they were the language and thought police. When states make laws that say you MUST use the pronoun preferred by the person listening to you, this is police state language patrolling.

Perhaps the most egregious version of this illogic is the insistence by critical race theorists that unless you are 'anti-racist' (as defined by the anti-racist police censors, then you MUST be a racist. There is no such thing as being "non-racist," or "racist-free;" instead the CRT crowd insist that you are either in the specific space they define or you are a white supremacist outcast. And, of course, if you are white, it is incumbent upon you to "prove" your "anti-racist" bonafides. Guilty unless accepted as innocent by the self-appointed, unaccountable, no-logic-necessary, anti-racist language police.

In its hiring advertisement, Lawrence University in Appleton claims to be striving to be an anti-racist institution. By the logic of anyone who adopts the idea that, "If you're not an anti-racist, then you must be a racist," this claim implies that Lawrence may currently be a racist institution, or rather that Lawrence describes itself as currently not anti-racist, meaning that it is self-admittedly racist. Perhaps that is why schools like Lawrence spend millions of dollars on teaching their students to be "anti-racists," which means that the university assumes that the students are naturally racists in need of re-education, while also implying that the school offering the 'anti-racist education' is racist as well.

It's almost as bad to claim CRT as a 'theory,' given that an untested theory remains just that, a theory. It's not evidence. It's not law. It's not a fact, or necessarily any facts at all. There is a Law of Gravity, but there is but a theory of evolution. And it is imperative that any theory be tested for it's ability to explain life more than any other competing theory. Just describing a theory is pointless, unless you subject it to challenges or, as my academic training led me to believe about any theory was that a good theory is any theory that is good enough until another theory comes along.