In a diverse world, no one is allowed to speak because their speech offends someone

Hear, hear. From On College Campuses, The Danger Of Playing It Safe With Ideas by Wendy Kaminer.

Outside our circles of intimates, freedom requires a willingness to hear and tolerate wildly divergent, dissenting ideas as well as insults. If we have a right not to be offended, then we have no right to give offense. That means we have no reliable, predictable right to speak, because in diverse societies there are no universal opinions or beliefs that are universally inoffensive. If we have a legal right to feel emotionally safe and un-offended, we have a legal obligation to keep silent, which we violate at our peril. Emotionally safe societies are dangerous places for people who speak.

This is the inherent contradiction within postmodernism/critical theory and highlights its totalitarianism. This is part of the rhetorical effectiveness of postmodernism. Classical liberals are committed to natural rights, including free speech. It is expected that all individuals are entitled to their speech regardless of how repugnant it might be. Consequently, classical liberals are committed to hearing out the postmodernist/critical theory words attacking the belief systems of classical liberals.

Postmodernist/critical theorists, on the other hand, have no such imperative. They have no commitment to free speech and they would very much like for everyone who is not a postmodernist/critical theorist to shut up.

This asymmetry hobbles classical liberals.

On the other hand, as Kaminer is pointing out, the postmodernist/critical theorist position is logically and inherently contradictory. Only if there is no variation in opinion among individuals can it work. Postmodernism is a totalitarian ideology predicated upon all individuals thinking the same, speaking the same, sharing the same goals, sharing the same opinions, sharing the same understanding of the world. For all that postmodernist wield the stick of diversity against classical liberals, it is their ideology which is the least accommodating of diversity. In fact, were there to be any diversity of thought within the utopian postmodernist world, it would collapse into a quivering heap of emotionalism.

The contradiction Kaminer points out also illustrates the bigotry of postmodernism as it exists today. Postmodernists sustain in their minds a pyramid of victimhood depending on race, religion, sex, orientation, age, ethnicity, regionalism, etc. Those designated as preferred groups are allowed to dictate to everyone else. Not based on logic or evidence but based on pre-emptive right founded in the bigotry of the ideology.

Claiming that others are not allowed to say anything offensive can only work if the accuser is granted special privilege. If the principle is applied to everyone (as the universalism of classical liberalism requires), it founders for the very reasons articulated by Kaminer.

If each finds what the other says offensive, then each must remain silent. An absurdity inherent in postmodernist theory but absent from classical liberalism. The classical liberal recognizes the universalism of humanity, acknowledges the natural rights of everyone and expects all disputes to be resolved through evidence, cooperation and compromise. Postmodernism lacks such seamless logic and struggles with its inherent contradictions.

It is a wonder to me that classical liberals, in being shouted down, do not point out the asymmetry of postmodernism, its bigotry, totalitarianism and inherent failure.