You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
Social media is not a neutral information pipeline. It is a distribution system for identity scripts, status incentives, and institutional messaging aimed at children and adolescents.
The internet matters, but the internet is not the first mover. The first mover is often the institution. Child-facing media packages contested identity-adjacent material in a glowing register—creativity, confidence, self-expression, empowerment—then platforms do what platforms do: amplify, repeat, and reward.
That sequence matters. Parents know the internet is porous and chaotic. Institutional children’s programming arrives pre-approved. It signals safety. It signals legitimacy. By the time a clip hits the feed, it is not just content. It is content stamped with adult authority.
Criticism of this pattern is routinely framed as hostility to “queer youth.” That framing is too convenient. The stronger criticism is about frameworks.
Some strands of queer activism are not simply asking for tolerance or protection from abuse. They are explicitly suspicious of norms as such, and in some cases treat norm disruption as a political good. Adults can debate that project in adult spaces. The problem begins when a norm-disruptive framework is repackaged as child guidance and presented as developmental common sense.
Developmental psychology matters here as a guardrail. Piaget’s core point still stands: children do not think like adults; reasoning develops in stages. Erikson likewise treats identity formation as developmental, social, and staged. Children and early adolescents are especially sensitive to imitation, belonging, prestige, and adult cues. That does not mean they lack an inner life. It means adults should not hand them high-status identity templates and call it pure self-discovery.
The question is not whether vulnerable youth exist. They do. The question is whether activist frameworks built to challenge adult social norms should be translated into child-facing institutional messaging as if they were straightforwardly age-appropriate. On that question, skepticism is not cruelty. It is adult judgment.
Public argument usually collapses here. One side calls it moral panic. The other calls it recruitment. Both are lazy.
Children are impressionable. Social learning is real. Status-seeking is real. Identity experimentation is real. None of that requires conspiracy thinking. It also does not justify a cartoon model of causation where one video produces one outcome. The serious concern is cumulative: repeated exposure, emotional framing, peer reinforcement, institutional endorsement, and algorithmic repetition shape what children perceive as admirable, normal, and socially rewarded.
That concern becomes more serious when the surrounding issue can become clinical. Once clinical pathways enter the picture, the adult burden of care rises. “Let kids explore” is not a sufficient standard when the surrounding culture is supplying scripts, rewards, and institutional validation at scale.
The evidence conversation has to stay honest. Research on social media and transgender or gender-diverse youth supports a mixed picture: online spaces can correlate with distress, discrimination, and problematic use, while also providing support, connection, and relief from offline isolation. Used carelessly, that literature gets abused in both directions—either as proof of “brainwashing” or as proof that social influence is irrelevant.
The more useful point is simpler: institutions increasingly present contested identity material to children in the language of celebration before they provide any framework for developmental caution. The sequencing is wrong. The tone is wrong. The confidence is often ahead of the evidence.
A sane standard is still available. Some online spaces help marginalized youth. Some online dynamics intensify confusion, distress, and imitation. Institutions should not present complex identity performance to children as if there are no downstream risks, tradeoffs, or developmental questions.
That is not cruelty. It is adult supervision.
The deeper problem is cultural, not merely digital. We outsource moral formation to feeds, then act surprised when children absorb what the feed rewards. Social media amplifies. Schools legitimize. Media narrates. Government ratifies. Then the shift is described as organic.
It is not fully organic. It is curated.
That does not mean every child in these spaces is inauthentic. It means authenticity itself is now being shaped inside an environment saturated with scripts, incentives, and prestige signals children are poorly equipped to evaluate critically.
If standards do not return, institutions will keep mistaking early exposure for compassion, and children will keep paying for adult vanity dressed up as progress.
References
-
Piaget, Jean, and Bärbel Inhelder. The Psychology of the Child.
-
Erikson, Erik H. Identity: Youth and Crisis.
-
Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford University Press, 1995.
-
Keenan, H., and Lil Miss Hot Mess. “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood.” Curriculum Inquiry (2021). DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621.
-
CBC Kids News / Drag Kids segment (2017, resurfaced clip).
This is a common activist argument. It often arrives pre-loaded with moral certainty, as if the analogy itself settles the question. That should set off your spider-senses immediately: when moral certitude and ideological correctness are doing the work, argumentative rigour usually is not.
The claim is familiar. Left-handedness once looked rare because it was stigmatized and suppressed; stigma eased, reported rates rose. Therefore, the rise in transgender identification among youth should be read the same way.
The analogy is rhetorically useful. It is also weak.
It forces two different kinds of phenomena into one moral script. Left-handedness is a motor preference: early-emerging, directly observable, and generally stable across the life course. Childhood transgender identification is not that. It involves self-interpretation, language, social meaning, and developmental concepts that mature unevenly. Whatever one’s broader politics, these are not the same kind of thing. Treating them as equivalent does not clarify the issue. It pre-loads the conclusion.
The first failure is developmental. Handedness does not require a child to grasp an abstract social category. A child reaches for a spoon, a crayon, a ball. The preference is visible in action. Gender identity claims are different. They depend on how a child understands sex categories, role expectations, persistence over time, and what it means to “be” a boy or girl beyond clothing, imitation, or preference. That is a heavier cognitive task. Piaget and Kohlberg do not settle today’s policy disputes, but they do establish a relevant caution: young children often reason concretely, and stable identity concepts develop in stages. A child can show a hand preference before the child can fully articulate an abstract identity claim in a mature sense.
That difference changes what counts as evidence. Handedness does not need interpretive reinforcement to remain legible. It persists without adults affirming a narrative about the child’s inner state. Childhood gender self-description does not operate that way. It unfolds inside a social field: family language, peer dynamics, institutional scripts, online models, and adult interpretation. Saying that does not make every case shallow or insincere. It does mean the left-handedness analogy smuggles in false simplicity by equating a physical preference with a socially mediated self-concept.
The second failure is pattern. The rise in reported left-handedness is commonly explained, in large part, by declining suppression and changing norms around forcing children to write with the right hand. The increase was broad and gradual. It was not driven by intense peer clustering in narrow demographic bands. Recent increases in transgender identification among youth have shown a different profile, including marked concentration in particular age and sex cohorts in some settings. That pattern is harder to explain by destigmatization alone. At minimum, it supports a mixed account in which social influence, peer effects, and online environments may contribute in some cases. That is not proof of a single-cause “contagion” model for every child. It is enough to show that the left-handedness analogy is doing more moral work than explanatory work.
The third failure is stability. Handedness, once established, is typically stable and does not initiate a pathway of medical intervention. Childhood gender distress is more variable. Longitudinal studies from earlier clinic-referred cohorts often found that many children presenting with gender dysphoria did not continue to identify as transgender in adulthood, especially after puberty. Those findings need careful handling. They come from older cohorts, older diagnostic frameworks, and a literature now heavily contested on definitions and generalizability. Even with those caveats, the central point remains: childhood gender distress has historically shown developmental fluidity in a way handedness does not. That alone should make the analogy suspect.
The practical asymmetry is harder to ignore. If society was wrong to suppress left-handedness, the correction was simple: stop forcing children to switch hands. No endocrine pathway. No fertility implications. No irreversible surgeries. No high-stakes clinical decisions under uncertainty. Pediatric gender care is not identical in stakes or consequences. That does not answer every clinical question. It does mean “this is just like left-handedness” is not an argument. It is a reassurance strategy.
A more honest framing is available. Stigma can affect disclosure and prevalence reporting without making every rise in identification analogous to left-handedness. Some young people experience deep and persistent gender distress. Childhood identity development is also shaped by cognition, peers, institutions, and timing. Those claims can coexist. Compassion does not require category collapse.
The left-handedness comparison survives because it is emotionally efficient. It offers a ready-made progress narrative and casts skeptics as yesterday’s moral failures. Efficient is not the same thing as accurate. If the aim is responsible care for vulnerable young people, the first obligation is conceptual hygiene: use comparisons that illuminate developmental reality, not analogies that flatten it.
References
- Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford University Press.
- Gilbert, A. N., & Wysocki, C. J. (1992). Hand preference and age in the United States. Neuropsychologia, 30(7), 601–608.
- Steensma, T. D., Biemond, R., de Boer, F., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2011). Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(4), 499–516.
- Singh, D., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2021). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 632784.
- Cass, H. (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (Final Report).
The most important part of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10) is not the political noise around it. It is a short passage in page 19 paragraph 55. [attributed as paragraph 19, originally].
That passage matters because it appears to recode a contested idea as a condition of basic civic recognition. In plain terms, it moves from “do not discriminate against people” toward “you must affirm a specific theory to count as accepting them.”
This primer focuses on that point only. It does not attempt to relitigate the entire case.
The tribunal’s decision was issued February 18, 2026, indexed as 2026 BCHRT 49.
What this article argues in one paragraph
TL;DR: The BCHRT can punish discrimination without requiring Canadians to affirm a contested theory of sex and gender as the price of being considered non-discriminatory. Paragraph 19 matters because it blurs that line: it treats disagreement with a conceptual framework as “existential denial” of a person. That is a legal and civic problem, even for people who support anti-discrimination protections.
What this critique is not saying
Before the legal and logical analysis, a boundary line.
This critique is not saying:
- LGBTQ teachers cannot suffer real harm from public rhetoric.
- Human rights law cannot address discriminatory publications or poisoned work environments.
- Every criticism of SOGI, gender identity policy, or youth transition debates is lawful.
- Barry Neufeld’s rhetoric was prudent, fair, or wise.
The tribunal found multiple contraventions under the Code, including ss. 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), and 13, and the decision contains detailed findings about workplace impact and discriminatory effects.
This primer makes a narrower claim:
Page 19 paragraph 55 uses an analogy that collapses the distinction between recognizing a person and affirming a contested ideological premise.
That distinction matters for free expression, legal clarity, and public trust.
The passage that changes the frame
Here is the core language from parge 19, paragraph 55 (including the definitional lead-in):
“Transpeople are, by definition, people ‘whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth’…”
“If a person elects not to ‘believe’ that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not ‘believe’ in transpeople. This is a form of existential denial…”
“A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian. However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth.”
This is the paragraph Canadians should read for themselves.
The issue is not whether one can be civil. The issue is whether civil recognition is being redefined as mandatory assent to a disputed concept.
The core problem: equivocation on “accept” and “believe”
The tribunal’s analogy uses accept and believe as if they do the same work in both examples. They do not.
Christianity example
In the Christianity example, “accept that another person is Christian” usually means:
- acknowledging a descriptive fact about that person’s profession of faith,
- recognizing what they claim to believe,
- without requiring your own doctrinal agreement.
You can think Christianity is false and still accurately say, “Yes, that person is Christian.”
That is descriptive recognition.
Transgender example (as framed in para. 55)
In the tribunal’s wording, “accept that a person is transgender” is not left at description. It is tied to a required premise:
- that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, and
- that this premise must be accepted in order to count as accepting the person at all.
That is not merely descriptive recognition. It is affirmation of a contested theory built into the definition.
That is the logical shift.
Why this matters legally and civically
A liberal legal order normally distinguishes between:
- Recognition of persons
- Protection from discrimination
- Compelled assent to contested beliefs
Paragraph 55 blurs those lines.
A person can acknowledge all of the following without contradiction:
- that someone identifies as transgender,
- that the person may experience distress, dysphoria, or social vulnerability,
- that harassment or discrimination against them is wrong,
while still disputing:
- whether sex is best described as “assigned” rather than observed,
- whether gender identity should override sex in all legal contexts,
- whether specific policies (sports, prisons, shelters, schools) should follow from that framework.
If disagreement on those latter questions is relabeled as “existential denial,” the public is no longer being asked to tolerate persons. It is being asked to affirm a framework.
That is the warning.
A concrete example most readers can use
Here is the distinction in everyday terms.
A teacher, coach, employer, or colleague can:
- treat a transgender person courteously,
- avoid harassment,
- maintain ordinary workplace civility,
- refrain from discriminatory conduct,
without conceding that sex categories disappear in every policy context.
For example, a person may choose to use a student’s preferred name in daily interaction and still argue that elite female sports should remain sex-based. A person may reject insults and harassment and still dispute whether “sex assigned at birth” is the best scientific language.
That is not incoherence. That is how pluralist societies work.
Paragraph 19 pressures this distinction by framing conceptual dissent as equivalent to non-recognition of the person.
The definitional trap in paragraph 55
Paragraph 19 does something subtle but powerful.
It defines “transpeople” using a specific conceptual framework (“gender identity” versus “sex assigned at birth”), then treats non-acceptance of that framework as non-acceptance of trans people themselves.
That is a question-begging structure:
- Premise (built into the definition): trans identity necessarily means gender identity distinct from sex assigned at birth.
- Conclusion: if you reject that premise, you deny trans people.
But the premise is precisely what is contested in public debate.
A tribunal can rule against discriminatory conduct. It can interpret the Code. It can assess workplace effects. But once it turns a contested framework into the test of whether one “accepts” a class of persons at all, it risks moving from adjudication into ideological gatekeeping.
Context matters, but it does not fix the analogy
To be fair to the decision, the tribunal is not writing in a vacuum.
The reasons frame Mr. Neufeld’s rhetoric as part of a broader pattern of statements the tribunal found denigrating, inflammatory, and connected to the work environment of LGBTQ teachers. The tribunal also found a direct connection between his public rhetoric and a school climate that felt unsafe to many LGBTQ teachers.
That context may explain the tribunal’s forceful language.
It does not solve the logic problem in paragraph 19.
Even in hard cases, legal reasoning should preserve key distinctions:
- personhood vs. theory,
- conduct vs. belief,
- discrimination vs. disagreement.
When those lines blur, institutions may satisfy partisans while losing credibility with ordinary readers who can still detect the category error.
Remedies matter too (and should be stated plainly)
This was not a symbolic ruling.
The tribunal ordered multiple remedies, including a cease-and-refrain order, $442.00 to Teacher C for lost wages/expenses, and a $750,000 global award for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect to be paid to the CTA for equal distribution to class members. It also ordered interest on monetary amounts as specified.
The tribunal also states that the dignity award is compensatory and “not punitive.”
Readers can disagree about the amount. They should still understand that paragraph 19 sits inside a decision with real legal and financial consequences.
Why Canadians should pay attention
Most Canadians will never read a tribunal decision. They will hear summaries.
That is why paragraph page 19 paragraph 55 deserves attention.
If public institutions begin treating disagreement with a contested theory as “existential denial,” the zone of legitimate disagreement shrinks by definition. The public is no longer told only, “Do not discriminate.” It is told, in effect, “Affirm this framework, or your dissent may be treated as denial of persons.”
That is not a stable basis for pluralism.
A rights-respecting society needs a better rule:
- protect people from discrimination,
- punish actual harassment and unlawful conduct,
- preserve space for lawful disagreement on contested concepts.
Paragraph 55, as written, weakens that line.
Glossary for readers
Page 19, Paragraph 55
A specific paragraph in the tribunal’s reasons that contains the Christianity analogy and the “existential denial” language. This primer focuses on that paragraph.
“Existential denial”
The tribunal’s phrase in para. 19 for refusing to “believe” that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, which it links to not “believing in transpeople.”
Section 7(1)(a) (BC Human Rights Code)
A Code provision dealing with discriminatory publications (as applied by the tribunal in this case).
Section 7(1)(b) (BC Human Rights Code)
A Code provision dealing with publications likely to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt (the tribunal found some publications met this threshold).
Section 13 (BC Human Rights Code)
A Code provision dealing with discrimination in employment, including discriminatory work environments (the tribunal found a poisoned work environment for the class of LGBTQ teachers).
“Poisoned work environment”
A human rights / employment law concept referring to a workplace atmosphere made discriminatory through conduct, speech, or conditions connected to protected grounds.
SOGI 1 2 3
Resources discussed in the decision in connection with BC public education and inclusion policies; the tribunal notes they are resources and addresses their role in the factual background. (See source map below.)
Source map so readers can verify for themselves
Use this map to read the decision directly and check each claim the PDF is available here.
Case identification and issuance
- Paras. 1–3 (intro/citation/date/caption)
- Verified from the front matter: issued February 18, 2026, indexed as 2026 BCHRT 49.
Overview of findings and what was decided
- Paras. 4–6 (high-level findings; which Code sections were violated)
- Tribunal later reiterates finding the complaint justified in part and violations of ss. 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), and 13.
Freedom of expression framework / limits
- Paras. 8–10 (overview-level framing)
- Also see Part VII heading “Freedom of expression and its limits” in the table of contents.
SOGI factual background
- Paras. 13–15 (background on SOGI 1 2 3 in public education)
- See TOC references to “SOGI 1 2 3 in public education” and Neufeld’s response.
The key analogy and “existential denial”
- Para. 19 (full lead-in + Christianity analogy + “existential denial” language)
This is the central paragraph for the primer.
Tribunal’s “veneer of reasonableness” concern
- Para. 55 (same paragraph; immediate context of the analogy)
Workplace impact evidence / climate findings
- Paras. 38 onward (teacher evidence and climate effects)
- Example evidence and findings on climate and workplace effects are reflected in the teacher testimony excerpts and the tribunal’s acceptance of a direct connection to unsafe school climate.
s. 13 conclusion (employment discrimination)
- Para. 82 (and surrounding paras.) / section conclusion in Part V-C
- Tribunal concludes violation of s. 13 for the class.
Remedies overview (s. 37(2))
- Paras. 99 onward (remedies discussion starts in the remedies part)
- Includes declaration, cease/refrain order, expenses, dignity award, and interest.
Cease and refrain order
- Remedies section, Part A (paras. around 100–101)
- “We order him to cease the contravention and refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention…”
Training remedy requested but declined
- Part B (ameliorative steps) (paras. around 102)
- Tribunal says it was not persuaded mandatory training would have a beneficial effect in this case.
Teacher C expenses ($442)
- Part C (expenses incurred) (paras. around 103)
- Tribunal orders $442.00 to Teacher C.
Dignity award ($750,000 global)
- Part D (compensation for injury to dignity…) (paras. around 104–111)
- Tribunal says the purpose is compensatory, not punitive; later orders $750,000 to the CTA for equal distribution to class members.
Interest orders
- Part E (Interest) (paras. around 112)
- Tribunal orders interest as set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
On February 10, 2026, Tumbler Ridge, B.C. (population ~2,400) was hit with a catastrophe it will carry for decades. RCMP have confirmed eight victims: five students aged 12–13, one education assistant (39), and—before the school attack—the shooter’s mother (39) and 11-year-old half-brother. The perpetrator, 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar, then died by suicide.
Name the dead, because that’s the baseline for honest coverage. Abel Mwansa (12). Ezekiel Schofield (13). Kylie Smith (12). Zoey Benoit (12). Ticaria Lampert (12). Shannda Aviugana-Durand (39). Jennifer Jacobs (39). Emmett Jacobs (11). The family tributes are almost unbearable. Ticaria’s mother called her “my Tiki torch… a blazing light in the darkness.” Kylie’s father pleaded with the world to “hold your kids tight.” This is a tight community. The loss isn’t “eight fatalities.” It’s eight holes in a town where most people can point to the exact place those kids used to stand.
Now the media problem: within days, a noticeable slice of Canadian coverage pivoted to managing the public’s reaction to the shooter’s transgender identification. Global News ran a segment framed around “misinformation about trans people” being fueled by the shooting. The Tyee published an opinion piece warning that suffering “should never be weaponized,” focused less on the dead children than on backlash narratives. Even wire coverage foregrounded the shooter’s identity and used female pronouns while naming victims in the same breath—an editorial decision that tells you what frame is being protected.
Let me be precise about the critique, because this is where defenders hide behind a strawman. Nobody reasonable is arguing that “all trans people are responsible” for anything. The question is simpler: why was the instinct—right after slaughtered children—to warn Canadians about transphobia and “disinformation” rather than interrogate the failure chain that got us here? Reporting has already described a history of serious mental health issues and police encounters connected to the shooter, including firearm-related interactions. What interventions happened? What warnings were missed? How did access to weapons occur? Those are the adult questions. “Don’t be mean online” is not an answer to a mass killing.
This is what ideological capture looks like in practice: a hierarchy of empathy enforced by institutions. The victims are mourned, yes—but the “secondary story” rapidly becomes protecting a narrative category from reputational harm. That is not compassion. It’s brand management, and it trains the public to understand tragedy through approved lenses: some facts are treated as volatile, some questions as taboo, and anyone who notices patterns is pre-emptively suspected of malice.
Tumbler Ridge deserves better than that. Journalism’s first duty in a massacre is not to pre-scold the audience. It is to tell the truth, foreground the human cost, and pursue the causal chain without fear or favour. Start with the dead kids. Keep them at the center. And then do the hard work—because if the press won’t, the vacuum gets filled by cynics, activists, and conspiracy merchants. That isn’t “safety.” It’s surrender.
References
- RCMP victim identifications & family statements: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740
- CNN victim profiles: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/13/americas/victims-tumbler-ridge-shooting-intl
- Global News on “misinformation”: https://globalnews.ca/news/11667066/tumbler-ridge-shooting-misinformation-trans-people/
- The Tyee op-ed: https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2026/02/12/Suffering-Should-Never-Be-Weaponized-Tumbler-Ridge-Tragedy/
- BBC/RCMP timeline: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e98w35qyjo
Modern North American politics is increasingly conducted as if the other side is not an opponent but a threat. Not “wrong,” but illegitimate. Not “mistaken,” but dangerous. Once that framing takes hold, everything downstream gets harder: legislating, compromising, trusting institutions, even sharing a country.
There’s a name for this move, and it’s older than social media: the friend–enemy distinction associated with the German jurist Carl Schmitt. Use it carefully. Attribute it correctly. Treat it as a warning label, not a blueprint.
The Schmitt paragraph (correct attribution without laundering)
In The Concept of the Political (first as an essay in 1927; expanded as a book in 1932), Carl Schmitt argued that what is distinctively political is not morality, economics, or aesthetics, but the capacity to sort human beings into friends and enemies—public groupings that can reach the highest intensity and, in the extreme case, make violence thinkable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Schmitt is a morally compromised figure: he joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and wrote in support of the regime, which makes him “radioactive” as an authority. (Wikipedia) That’s precisely why the concept should be handled as a diagnostic for a recurring political pattern—not as an endorsement of Schmitt’s politics, and not as a permission slip to treat fellow citizens as foes.
That’s the frame. Now the point: you can reject Schmitt’s politics and still find his definition useful for recognizing when a society is sliding from politics-as-bargaining into politics-as-threat-management.
1) What the friend–enemy distinction is (and isn’t)
Schmitt’s core claim is often quoted badly. The clean version is this:
- It’s public, not personal. “Enemy” is not your private dislike. It’s a public adversary, a category applied at the level of groups. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- It’s about intensity and stakes. The distinction becomes political when disagreement is framed as a contest over a community’s existence or way of life—when coercion becomes not just imaginable but morally narratable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- It’s not reducible to morality. In Schmitt’s framing, you can judge an enemy morally good and still treat them as an enemy; the political is not the same thing as ethics. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So the friend–enemy distinction is less a philosophy lesson than a switch. When it flips on, political disagreement stops being about what we should do and becomes about who is allowed to be “us.”
2) The observable move: how to spot it in the wild
You’re watching friend–enemy politics when rhetoric shifts from:
- “Their plan won’t work” → “They cannot be permitted to govern.”
- “We’ll reverse this policy later” → “If they win, the country is finished.”
- “We can bargain on X” → “Any compromise is betrayal.”
- “Institutions are imperfect” → “Institutions are legitimate only when they deliver our outcomes.”
Here’s the part that matters: this is not just “heated language.” It’s a legitimacy test. The argument isn’t “our side has better ideas.” It’s “the other side is outside the moral community.”
What it sounds like now (no special villains required)
Over the last decade, ordinary campaign language has absorbed a new register: catastrophe certainty. You hear it when routine electoral competition is narrated as a point of no return not “we’ll reverse their policy,” but “if they win, the country is over.” You hear it when every institution that fails to deliver your preferred outcome becomes not merely flawed but captured—courts, schools, public health bodies, legacy media, election administration. Once those are recast as enemy infrastructure, the next step is predictable: treating compromise as collaboration.
That’s the Schmittian escalator: it turns normal democratic rivalry into a kind of internal cold war.
3) Why this maps onto polarization in the U.S. (with verifiable anchors)
American public opinion data increasingly fits the emotional profile you would expect in a friend–enemy environment: high frustration, high anger, low confidence, and pervasive negativity toward the opposing party.
Pew Research Center (survey fielded Sept. 22–28, 2025) reports that roughly half of U.S. adults say each party makes them feel angry (Democratic Party 50%, Republican Party 49%), and large majorities say each makes them feel frustrated (Democratic Party 75%, Republican Party 64%). (Pew Research Center) Pew also reports that majorities view both parties as too extreme (GOP 61%, Democrats 57%). (Pew Research Center)
That doesn’t “prove Schmitt.” It shows a climate where it’s easy for elites and activists to plausibly say: “The other side isn’t just wrong; they’re dangerous.”
Political science has a name for the emotional side of this: affective polarization which is the tendency for partisans to dislike and distrust the out-party as a social group. Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes argue that affect increasingly operates through social identity dynamics rather than ideological distance alone. (Political Communication Lab)
Affective polarization supplies the fuel. Friend–enemy rhetoric supplies the spark.
4) Why Canada is not “the same,” but not immune
Canada has its own stresses: regional tensions, institutional distrust, culture-war imports, and an online ecosystem shared with the U.S. but it is still a mistake to claim Canada is simply America north.
A careful comparative point looks like this: research summarized by UBC Magazine reports Canadians show moderate affective polarization and lower levels of deeper hostility (political sectarianism) than Americans; divisions exist, but they are less intense, and fewer people treat the other side as morally beyond the pale. (UBC Alumni Magazine)
A note on insulation (not immunity) 🧯
Canada also has some built-in insulation: parliamentary governance can make politics feel less like a single, winner-take-all presidency; multi-party dynamics can prevent a total two-tribe monopoly; party discipline can concentrate bargaining inside caucuses rather than turning every vote into a public loyalty test. None of that makes Canada immune especially in a shared online ecosystem with American media incentives but it helps explain why Canadian polarization can be real without being identical.
5) Why identity politics dovetails so easily (even when it starts as justice) 🧩
“Identity politics” is a term that gets used as a slur, so define it cleanly. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes identity politics as political activity and theorizing rooted in shared experiences of injustice among members of particular social groups, often aiming to secure political freedom for a marginalized constituency. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
That definition is not inherently friend–enemy. You can organize around group experiences without treating dissenters as enemies.
So why the dovetail?
Because identity politics—left and right—naturally foregrounds group boundaries: who counts, who belongs, who’s harmed, who threatens, who is owed what. Schmitt’s point is that any distinction ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, and ideological can become politically decisive if it becomes a marker of collective identity with enough intensity. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Now add moralization. Finkel and colleagues define political sectarianism as “the tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another.” (Political Communication Lab) Once politics is moralized at the identity level, compromise starts to look like apostasy: you don’t bargain with evil; you resist it.
Here’s the dovetail in one line:
Identity makes the boundary salient; moralization makes it sacred; friend–enemy logic makes it coercive.
The accelerant: attention economics
The friend–enemy move also fits the modern information economy. Outrage travels; nuance doesn’t. Platforms and partisan media ecosystems reward content that converts complexity into moral clarity so we get villains, victims, emergencies, and betrayal. That incentive structure doesn’t invent the friend–enemy distinction, but it mass-produces it, because existential framing is the most reliable way to keep attention and discipline the in-group.
6) The cost: why friend–enemy politics jams the machinery of governance
When politics is friend–enemy:
- Compromise becomes betrayal.
Not merely “a bad deal,” but disloyalty to the tribe. - Institutions become contested terrain.
Courts, legislatures, bureaucracies, and media are judged not by process but by whether they serve “us.” Legitimacy becomes outcome-dependent. - Policy friction skyrockets.
Even mutually beneficial reforms become hard because the other side’s win is treated as loss of status or existential risk. - Moderation gets punished.
The moderate’s basic civic move—“I’ll grant you partial legitimacy and bargain” gets rebranded as weakness or collaboration.
The social cost (quiet, cumulative, real)
The damage isn’t confined to legislatures. Friend–enemy framing erodes social trust: people self-censor at work, avoid neighbours, and retreat into curated friend-only spaces. Institutions become identity badges your media, your university, your charities, your professional associations until public life resembles a network of gated communities with competing moral jurisdictions.
7) The steelman (and the answer)
Steelman: sometimes the other side really is dangerous. Sometimes a movement is openly anti-democratic, violent, or committed to permanent domination. In those cases, “enemy” language can feel like moral clarity.
Answer: danger exists. But friend–enemy framing is cheap to claim and expensive to live under. The burden of proof has to be high, because once you normalize existential threat talk, you train citizens to treat routine democratic alternation as intolerable. You also incentivize mirroring: nobody wants to be the only player insisting it’s “just politics” while being branded a threat.
Friend–enemy politics is a ratchet. It rarely turns only one way.
8) A short field guide: “know it when you see it”
You’re in friend–enemy territory when you hear:
- “They’re illegitimate.”
- “If they win, the country is over.”
- “Neutrality is complicity.”
- “Compromise is betrayal.”
- “The system is rigged—unless we win.”
- “Your neighbour’s vote is violence / treason / conquest.”
And you’re watching it spread when those claims expand outward to tag neutral institutions and ordinary citizens: not just the party but anyone who isn’t for us is with them.
9) The exit ramp: moderation without naïveté
This is not a call for civility theatre. It’s a call for civic hygiene.
A workable politics of moderation has one core rule:
Treat opponents as lawful rivals unless and until they clearly demonstrate otherwise and even then, be precise.
Practically, that means:
- Argue policy in terms of tradeoffs, constraints, second-order effects (the language of governing, not excommunication).
- Reserve “enemy” language for genuinely exceptional cases, and specify evidence and predictions that could, in principle, be falsified.
- Defend institutional legitimacy as a process, not a scoreboard.
If you can’t do that, you don’t just intensify conflict you corrode the shared premise that makes democratic disagreement possible: that losing an election is not losing the country.
Closing: the consequence if we don’t name it
Schmitt’s concept is dangerous partly because it’s accurate as a description of how politics can harden. Once a society trains itself to see politics as friend versus enemy, it will eventually demand enemy-handling tools: purges, blacklists, emergency powers, legitimacy tests, permanent distrust. The policy state becomes brittle; the civic culture becomes suspicious; moderation becomes a vice.
The friend–enemy distinction is not merely an idea. It’s a habit of mind. And habits, unlike ideologies, don’t require formal assent. They spread by imitation.
The minimum defensive act is to recognize the move when it’s being done to you, and when you’re tempted to do it back. 🧭
Glossary
Affective polarization — Dislike, distrust, and social hostility toward supporters of the opposing party, treated as a group identity rather than merely a set of policy positions. (Political Communication Lab)
Catastrophe register / no-return framing — A rhetorical mode that describes ordinary electoral competition as an existential point of no return (“if they win, the country is over”).
Friend–enemy distinction (Schmitt) — The claim that the political is defined by the capacity to distinguish friend from enemy in a public sense, with sufficient intensity that coercion or violence becomes thinkable in extreme cases. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Identity politics — Political activity and theorizing grounded in shared experiences of injustice among members of particular social groups, typically aimed at securing political freedom for a marginalized constituency. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Legitimacy denial — Treating the opposing side as outside the set of lawful rivals who may govern; shifting from “they’re wrong” to “they must not rule.”
Political sectarianism — “The tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another,” borrowing the metaphor of religious sects rather than mere teams. (Political Communication Lab)
Process legitimacy — The idea that institutions are legitimate because procedures are lawful, stable, and fairly applied—not because they produce outcomes you like.
Citations (Sources)
- Carl Schmitt (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), overview of Schmitt and the friend–enemy distinction. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- Background note on The Concept of the Political and Schmitt’s Nazi Party membership (reference context). (Wikipedia)
- Pew Research Center (Oct 30, 2025), party feelings: anger/frustration measures. (Pew Research Center)
- Pew Research Center (Oct 30, 2025), views of both parties: “too extreme” findings. (Pew Research Center)
- UBC Magazine (Dec 2, 2025), summary of Canadian polarization research and comparative claims. (UBC Alumni Magazine)
- Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes (2012), “Affect, Not Ideology,” on affective polarization as social identity. (Political Communication Lab)
- Finkel et al. (Science, 2020), “Political sectarianism in America,” definition and framework. (Political Communication Lab)
- Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), definition and scope. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
This meme only “works” if you stop letting equality smuggle itself in as a moral trump card.
Humans are born uneven. Not in worth—in capacity. Strength, IQ, impulse control, charm, health, family stability, appetite for risk, luck. You can pretend those differences don’t matter, but the moment people are allowed to act freely, they cash out into unequal outcomes. Some people build, some coast, some burn it all down. Freedom is a sorting machine.
So the first half is basically a description: if people are free, they will not end up equal. Not because someone rigged the game. Because the inputs aren’t equal and choices compound.
The second half is the warning: if you demand equality of outcomes, you don’t get it for free. You get it by force. There’s no other mechanism. Outcomes only converge when you stop people from doing the things that produce divergence: earning more, choosing differently, hiring freely, saying what they think, competing hard, associating with who they want, opting out. Equality-as-leveling needs an enforcer. And enforcers don’t show up with a gentle “please.” They show up with rules, penalties, and permission structures—what you’re allowed to do, to say, to keep.
That’s the core trade: freedom produces inequality; outcome equality requires coercion.
Now for the part people always dodge: there are different “equalities.” And conflating them is the whole scam.
- Equal dignity: every person counts as a person. That’s a moral claim. Compatible with freedom.
- Equality before the law: same rules, same due process, no caste exemptions. Also compatible with freedom—arguably required for it.
- Equality of outcomes: everyone ends up in roughly the same place. That’s the one that fights liberty, because it needs constant correction.
Most modern arguments cheat by pointing at the first two and then demanding the third. “If you deny outcome parity, you deny human worth.” No—what you’re denying is the claim that the state (or HR, or the university, or the tribunal) should get to manage adult lives until the spreadsheet looks morally satisfying.
You can have compassion without pretending outcomes should match. You can want upward mobility without confiscating difference. You can care about the bottom without pretending the top is illegitimate.
And yes: sometimes liberty creates ugly inequality. The honest response is to name the costs and argue about which constraints are justified—fraud laws, safety nets, antitrust, disability supports, basic education—without turning “equality” into a magic word that dissolves the question of coercion.
The meme’s point is simple and harsh: if you want equal outcomes, you’re volunteering everyone for supervision. And the people doing the supervising never start by supervising themselves.
A meme slid past my feed this week that’s basically a whole comment section compressed into one sentence:
“If you’re real quiet about Renée Good and Alex Pretti, but were really loud about Charlie Kirk—I see you. We all see you.”
You can feel what it’s trying to do. It’s not asking a question. It’s issuing a verdict — and inviting the crowd to clap. 👀
Before we get moral about it (or defensive about it), it helps to name what’s happening. This kind of meme is a conversational device. It’s a way of sorting people into “clean” and “suspect” without having to do the slow work of inquiry.
This post isn’t about denying hypocrisy exists. Selective empathy is real. It’s ugly. It’s also common — across every tribe that’s ever existed. The point here is narrower:
When we treat silence as proof of motive, we stop talking about what’s true and start talking about who’s safe.
And once the conversation becomes “who’s safe,” facts arrive late and leave early.
What the meme is actually doing
That one sentence performs four moves:
- An observable claim: “Some people were loud about X and quiet about Y.”
- A measurement dodge: “Loud” and “quiet” are undefined (posts? news coverage? your feed? my feed?).
- A motive leap: The difference is taken as evidence of moral defect.
- A social threat: “I see you. We all see you.” = reputational enforcement.
In other words: it skips the checkable part (#1) and jumps straight to the morally satisfying part (#3), backed by a crowd (#4).
If you want conversation instead of sorting, you reverse the order: connect → define → test → then (carefully) infer.
The best one-sentence reply is not a rebuttal
Before you ask any questions, you lower the temperature:
“All political violence and unjust killing is wrong. If selective empathy is happening, I agree it’s worth confronting.”
That sentence does two things: it refuses the tribal frame, and it makes your questions sound like inquiry rather than evasion.
Make the meme’s claim testable
Here are the three questions that turn heat into light:
- “When you say loud vs quiet, what counts as loud/quiet?”
- “Do you mean the same individuals, or the general vibe of your feed?”
- “On a 0–10, how sure are you it’s the same people — and what gets you to that number?”
If the conversation can’t answer those, it isn’t actually about truth. It’s about loyalty.
“Real conversations” in action (composites)
What follows are composites — not quotes — written to sound like the kinds of exchanges that reliably show up under posts like this. The point is not to win. The point is to keep two minds in the same room long enough to examine certainty.
Conversation A: The public comment (low bandwidth, high heat)
Them: “If you were loud about Kirk but quiet now, you’re telling on yourself.”
You: “I hear the frustration. Selective empathy is real, and it’s corrosive.”
Them: “Exactly. People only care about their team.”
You: “Can I ask one clarifying question — when you say ‘quiet’ and ‘loud,’ do you mean the same individuals, or the general vibe of your feed?”
Them: “Same individuals.”
You: “On a 0–10, how sure are you it’s the same individuals?”
Them: “Nine.”
You: “What gets you to 9?”
Them: “I saw them post about Kirk immediately.”
You: “Okay. What would move you to an 8? Would it matter if some of them simply never saw the other story, or didn’t know enough yet to comment?”
Them: “Maybe, but come on.”
You: “Fair. I’m not denying hypocrisy exists. I’m trying to separate ‘didn’t see / didn’t know’ from ‘doesn’t care.’ If we’re going to accuse motives, I want it to land on something we can actually verify.”
Notice the move: you don’t “defend the quiet.” You ask whether the accusation is evidence-based or feed-based.
Conversation B: The DM (relationship context)
Friend: “I’m sick of fake empathy.”
You: “I get that. Can I ask what you want to happen with a post like this — reflection, apology, pressure, unfriending?”
Friend: “I want people to admit they’re biased.”
You: “Okay. On a 0–10, how sure are you it’s bias rather than attention/algorithm/people being afraid to say the wrong thing?”
Friend: “Nine.”
You: “What’s the strongest thing that puts it at 9?”
Friend: “They posted about Kirk instantly.”
You: “That’s a real data point. Would you be willing to test one person you mean? If they genuinely didn’t see the other story, would you want to know that before concluding motive?”
Friend: “…Yeah.”
You: “That’s all I’m guarding: one small door for ‘maybe there’s another explanation’ before we turn silence into a moral indictment.”
This is the “impossible conversations” pivot: from verdict to conditions for revising certainty.
Conversation C: The trap (“You were loud about Kirk”)
Them: “Funny you’re talking now. You were loud about Kirk.”
You: “Fair question. What are you inferring from that?”
Them: “That your empathy is tribal.”
You: “I don’t want that to be true. My honest answer is: the Kirk story saturated my feed, so I reacted fast. I saw the other story later.”
Them: “Convenient.”
You: “Maybe. So let’s test it. If you saw me condemn violence consistently across cases, would that move your certainty down even one point?”
Them: “Possibly.”
You: “Then we’re not stuck. And I’ll take the lesson too: I should be slower to mind-read others, because I don’t want it done to me.”
You decline the moral cage match and offer a falsifiable check: consistency over time.
The hidden leap: silence equals motive
The meme’s real power comes from a hidden assumption: silence proves character.
Sometimes silence is cowardice. Sometimes it’s indifference. Sometimes it’s ignorance. Sometimes it’s grief in private. Sometimes it’s uncertainty. Sometimes it’s algorithmic — people genuinely did not see what you saw.
If you want to accuse motives, you can. But if you want to persuade people who don’t already agree with you, you need to do the hard part first: define what you’re measuring, and test whether your inference survives alternative explanations.
A few clarifications before the comments do what comments do
- “So you’re saying hypocrisy isn’t real?” No. I’m saying hypocrisy accusations land harder when they’re grounded rather than assumed.
- “So you’re saying violence isn’t political?” No. I’m saying political interpretation isn’t a substitute for checking claims.
- “So you’re tone-policing?” No. I’m trying to keep inquiry alive when the conversation is about to be sealed shut.
- “So this is manipulation?” Only if you use it to stall forever. The point is mutual standards and one testable claim. If we can’t do that, we exit.
Suggested reading
- How to Have Impossible Conversations — the toolkit behind the “connection → certainty → one claim” pattern
- The Righteous Mind — why moral intuitions lead and reasoning follows
- Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) — why doubling down feels like integrity
- Never Split the Difference — practical emotional-safety tactics
- How Minds Change — what actually shifts belief over time
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…