Except that the usual ilk, supposedly promoting this so called "awareness", invariably places accusatory labels on people, their worldviews, and thoughts, not in an effort to scientifically classify them or innocently "deconstruct" them to help civil society at large, but to aggressively impose their own worldview and assumptions without any real discussion or debate about the real underlying assumptions they base those labels on. How exactly does one prove that one is not a misogynist, or whatever implicit or explicit label they are directly making or insinuating? The truth of the supposed conclusion has already been assumed, and that is called "Circular Reasoning".

You want to assert that something is "riddled with old-fashionned prejudices, racism, misrepresentation, or sexism" without proving that actually was the intent. The burden of proof is on you, but is fairly typical with this mindset, it most likely will be invariably dismissed with assertions of "privilege" and supposed systemic oppression and discrimination. You want to pretend that the social pressure you would like immediately imposed on whatever worldview, speech, or thoughts you dislike, wouldn't eventually be totalitarian in nature and aggressively refocus on new "solutions" once more "subtle" grasping for power over the ideas and lives of others fails to reach the conclusion you desire. Based on what exactly? Your good intentions?


I think that this is naive and ignorant, at best. The idea that nothing more will ever be intended other than what you consider to be minor attempts at control for your desired end. The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) draft Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance recently debated in the Civil Liberties committee of the European Parliament specifically states "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups. ". It then goes on to comprehensively list out guidelines for the surveillance, monitoring, prosecution, and punishment of “abuses” of “freedom of expression.” This is a clear and concrete move to restrict freedom of speech/expression once a "disadvantaged group" of people feels they have been hurt by "intolerant speech". The normal burden of proof in these potential legal cases is reversed, "special protection" is given these "disadvantaged groups" and the supposed perpetrator of the supposed "intolerant speech" would have to prove that he didn't commit the offense instead of having an assumption of innocence. For juveniles, they will be "required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance”, so, a re-education camp.

If this is codified into law, just how long do you think it will take for some aggressive pressure group with an extremely radical agenda to use this to push against and control whatever they dislike? Legal actions have already been directed at movies, books, and public displays of freedom of expression, how long until it is games? Oh, all because of well-intentioned efforts to protect some group from what they consider to be "hate" or "intolerant" speech or expression, of course. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. I prefer actual freedom of expression and speech though. Freedom and liberty, including unpleasant intolerance, over the tyranny of political correctness and identity politics.