I think that humans [along with most living creatures] naturally take one of [only] three available options in relation to an attitude or a noun: 1) they like it, 2) they are indifferent towards it, and 3) they dislike it. These options do not intersect. It does not cease to cause preoccupation and some amazement that in some of current value rhetoric going on in our societies, the last of those options seems to have been discretely taken away from us, leaving us with either liking something, or being indifferent to it.
This is a true erosion of an otherwise healthy and strong democracy; one should be allowed to dislike something without fear of persecution (let alone prosecution), and without being labeled or socially tagged in some negative way.
For example, as happens in this clip, someone gets ‘shut down’ simply because they offer or represent an opinion and/or a point of view that some percentage of the population will find unpleasant. This is unacceptable. Either we all get to express ourselves or no one does, no exceptions. If a person has anti-Semitic sentiments, that’s fine.
Being party Jewish myself does not blind me to the highly-questionable policy that Israel has implemented towards Palestine. People who express opinions contrary to Jews, or Muslims, etc, should be free to do so without fear of labeling or any other kind of offensive reaction, especially not of the violent kind. But, currently, the least hint of criticism of any group will immediately beget one some derogatory labeling (‘anti-whatever’ or ‘whatever-phone’, etc.) This is not acceptable behavior in a democracy, and not even decent and normal human behavior, regardless of political affiliation or model.
In France and Germany (at least), for example, it is currently unlawful to question that the holocaust ever took place. One can end up fined and imprisoned for expressing such a comment/point of view. I find this completely unacceptable. I also find it quite remarkable that these bills were at some point passed and established as laws of the land in otherwise free democracies. If someone wants to question - hopefully with good-quality argumentation - that the holocaust did not happen, they should not only be fully allowed to express those ideas, but encouraged to do so. It is through debate and conversation among opposing views that we strengthen our societies and create new things, not the other way around. This current cancel ‘culture’ (which is not a culture at all, but the very opposite) only serves to weaken and artificially divide our societies.
In the U.S., under the shield of the 1st Amendment, it is not unlawful to question the holocaust (for example), although there is still a heavy penalty to be paid if one wishes to do it: immediate labeling as ‘anti-Semite’ for starters (at any rate, a more precise term would be ‘anti-Jewish’, because the Semites conform an ethnically and religiously diverse group of peoples, namely those who spoke the Semitic language, which included Jews and Arabs, among others) and quite a bit of hatred to follow, which is also unacceptable behavior.