The Differently-Minded

A few days ago, I posted on social media warning how uncritically we in Slovenia have adopted and started using the term “differently-minded.” On social networks and even in some media, the phrase has become a kind of universal excuse to cover all sorts of indecencies—from paramilitary training in the woods to intolerance, hatred, and racism toward certain individuals and groups. Overnight, ideas, phenomena, and discourses that once would have deserved the harshest social condemnation have become completely normal and legitimate. Racism, antisemitism, homophobia? “People just have different opinions.”

To illustrate the problem, I used a provocative analogy: calling a fascistoid racist merely “differently-minded” is like saying a pedophile is just “differently-sensitive.”

After the post, I received a wave of offended and outraged responses: why was I attacking and insulting the differently-minded? These reactions puzzled me. Many of those who reacted strongly are people I often disagree with—but I would never consider them fascistoid racists. If anything, I was defending the integrity and reputation of those who genuinely identify as differently-minded—at least those who don’t harbor sympathies for fascism and racism. They, of all people, should be upset that such filth is being smuggled into public acceptability under their flag. After all, am I not differently-minded myself, since I often think differently from those who got their knickers in a twist because of my post?

But it turns out things aren’t that simple. My naïve understanding of the term “differently-minded” was based on the belief that it simply meant thinking differently from someone else. In a democracy, that’s not just useful—it’s vital. A society where everyone thinks the same doesn’t exist; uniformity of thought is only possible through force.

In my well-meaning naïveté, I was willing to believe that those who reacted so intensely misunderstood me, but acted out of a sincere desire to defend my right to disagree with them. As noble as such an interpretation would be, I’m afraid that’s not what happened. Being “differently-minded” is apparently not just about thinking differently—it’s about thinking differently in a very specific way.

In fact, it seems that “Differently-Minded” (capital D and M) is a proper noun, almost a brand. It’s less about promoting open dialogue between opposing views, and more about forming a resistance movement aimed at liberating the public sphere from the constraints of civilization’s core values—values upon which Western democracies, and Europe in particular, built their social, political, and economic systems after the trauma of World War II.

European integration is based on respect for human rights. The Differently-Minded don’t particularly care for human rights—except maybe their own. Nor are they big fans of political freedoms, except for freedom of speech, which they interpret very differently from how it’s defined and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. For them, freedom of speech is mostly a weapon—used to undermine and cancel out other Convention-protected rights and freedoms. This is explicitly forbidden by Article 17 of the Convention, but who cares about details when you’re on a mission to liberate the nation from humanism, solidarity, and the dignity of the person?

In the ideological worldview of the Differently-Minded, freedom of speech becomes the right to intolerance and hate—but even this “right” is one-way only. While they loudly defend their right to express hatred, they’re quick to be offended if they feel someone is being intolerant toward them. By trivializing hatred, the Differently-Minded also endanger themselves. No matter how convinced they are of their own cultural, racial, or religious superiority, in a world based on hate, there’s always a bigger bully ready to send them to the back of the bus.

In the Differently-Minded world, there’s only us and them. They try to disguise this polarization as a left–right divide, which is not only laughable but also quite awkward for the right. On the “other” side—those who think differently in a different way—you’ll find supporters of human rights, political freedoms, humanism, and solidarity of all political stripes and ideological origins. Far from a politically homogeneous group. But the Differently-Minded still label them all as far-left radicals. Like all revolutionaries, they ignore facts that don’t support their ideology.

One of the more absurd (and common) claims is that defending human rights is a leftist conspiracy—a view sometimes even espoused by those who identify as Christian democrats or conservatives. This is especially ironic, since the modern concept of human rights in Europe was largely shaped by Christian Democratic politicians. Why some are so eager to disown the proud heritage of the political tradition they claim to represent is beyond me. Then again, maybe I don’t get it—because I’m not Differently-Minded.

The key difference between the Differently-Minded and the merely-minded lies in their concept of freedom. The Differently-Minded argue that promoting absolute freedom of speech, including the right to spread and legitimize hate, expands the space of freedom. In their worldview, any criticism or condemnation directed at them (but not at those they despise) is an attack on liberty. In their society, freedom is measured by the unchecked dominance of the majority over minorities and individuals.

In contrast, liberal democracy guarantees freedom based on human and social rights and political liberties available to all members of society—not just to ethnic, racial, or religious majorities, or those in positions of political and economic power. Of course, liberal democracy isn’t always consistent or successful in this, and that very inconsistency has helped fuel the rise of nationalist populism. The question is: how do we fix these failures? History teaches us what happens when we try to “correct” the weaknesses of a liberal democracy with authoritarianism in the name of “the people.”

This fundamental difference in how freedom is understood imposes a particular responsibility on liberal democracy, especially when it comes to freedom of speech, which is essential for the functioning of democracy. Without it, there can be no social progress or effective protection against abuses of power.

With the recent, long-overdue efforts to align Slovenia’s handling of hate speech with European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, it’s important to remember that most of the indecencies now being disguised as “differently-mindedness” should be addressed not through repression, but through public debate, social argument, and political response. A healthy democracy must be able to defend itself—its survival cannot depend solely on prosecutors. In contrast, a society that tolerates or is built on intolerance, discrimination, and hatred cannot afford such open debate without countering it—because it wouldn’t survive it.

In the world of the Differently-Minded, there is no room for those who think differently.