When did the fight for justice start sounding like a script?
In a time when elections are polarizing, campus debates are heated, and social media platforms are drawing new lines around ‘acceptable’ speech, the stakes feel especially high.
Let’s take a quick step back.
So what exactly is ‘identity politics’? It’s the idea that people’s political beliefs and goals are shaped by their social identity—things like race, gender, sexuality, religion. At its best, it gives voice to those who’ve been ignored. At its worst? It becomes a scoreboard of grievances and a filter through which everything must pass.
At first, identity politics was a lifeline—a way to name injustice, rally communities, and demand visibility. But now? Now it feels like a maze of unspoken rules, shifting language, and reputational landmines. A tool of liberation repurposed into a tool of control?
Let’s ask what few dare to: Is identity politics helping us talk—or stopping us from thinking out loud?
The Rise of a New Orthodoxy
Douglas Murray’s The Madness of Crowds doesn’t tiptoe. He claims we’ve traded one orthodoxy for another. Where religion once governed our moral code, identity categories—once meant to describe and empower—are now sometimes used to define the boundaries of what can be said, thought, or remembered in public discourse. And here’s the kicker—this new order didn’t come through law, but through cultural force. Social media trials. Academic silencing. Workplace purges.
Accountability or Compliance?
Yes, some voices were long suppressed. Yes, we needed correction. But now? Many whisper their doubts, afraid of being labeled. Accountability? Or fear-based compliance? When speaking openly becomes a reputational risk, what happens to honest disagreement?
Think of the authors, comedians, or scientists who’ve been exiled from polite conversation for asking the wrong questions. Not because they broke a law—but because they stepped outside the script.
Critics call it cancel culture. Defenders call it justice. But what if it’s both—and more?
What if we’re protecting dignity by undermining dialogue? What if we’re defending identity at the expense of individuality? What if we’ve mistaken control for care?
The price of free speech is that we sometimes hear things we’d rather not—but the cost of silence is far greater.
— Paraphrased from Douglas Murray
Power Behind the Curtain
This isn’t just about speech. It’s about the architecture of public life.
- Tech giants decide what gets heard.
- Universities reward ideological loyalty.
- Governments inch toward ‘safety’ laws that chill dissent.
And meanwhile, nuance is vanishing. We’re either with “them” or “us.” There’s no room for the undecided—or the curious.
What if the real danger isn’t division, but the illusion of unity enforced by silence?
The Critical Mindshift
Identity matters. History matters. Harm matters. But when rules are unwritten, and the line between respect and repression is constantly moving, even the well-intentioned are left guessing.
Maybe it’s this: We can defend dignity without dismantling dissent. We can hold space for trauma and still make room for tough questions. We can fight injustice without demanding ideological purity.
And maybe—just maybe—the moment we stop asking “What if?” is the moment identity stops empowering and starts imprisoning.
Final Questions
So ask yourself: Are we building bridges—or enforcing boundaries? Who decides what’s acceptable to say—and why? What happens when silence feels safer than speech?
Let’s not wait for permission to ask better questions. Let’s give each other room to speak—and space to think.
When people stop speaking freely, they don’t become more tolerant—they just become more afraid.
— Critical Mindshift
Further Reading
Want to explore the deeper questions behind identity, speech, and power? Start here:
The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray
A controversial yet compelling look at how modern identity movements may be trading justice for dogma. Murray’s critique of cultural orthodoxy helps frame the questions this article asks.
Reframing vs. Fact-Checking: When Defending Consensus Becomes Misinformation
Can we have open dialogue if the boundaries of “truth” are controlled? This piece explores how narratives are shaped and who gets to decide what’s safe to say.
How Does Google Decide What’s ‘True’? Exploring Algorithms and Credibility
When algorithms become gatekeepers of public discourse, are we still deciding what matters—or are we being fed consensus?
Who Watches the Digital Watchmen? The Dangers of Private Tech in Public Governance
Private platforms now shape what’s visible and what’s silenced. This article asks: is this governance by proxy, or something more dystopian?
Healthy Living: Metaphors We Eat By? – Present Tense
This article examines how metaphors related to healthy eating influence public health discourse and individual perceptions, providing insight into how language shapes our understanding of health and wellness.
Image Acknowledgement
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers on Unsplash for providing beautiful, free-to-use images. The image on this page is by Owl Illustration Agency. Check out their work here: https://unsplash.com/@owl_illustration/illustrations.
