The problem with this essay is a fact that Brooks completely elides, namely that "call-out culture" only exists because the existing institutions that were supp

The problem with this essay is a fact that Brooks completely elides, namely that "call-out culture" only exists because the existing institutions that were supposed to be dispensing justice were completely failing to do so for this category of offenses. The Harvey Weinsteins among us could go merrily through life abusing dozens of women, and those women had no legal, social or cultural channels open to them to seek redress. All those channels were in fact lined up against them -- coming forward in such cases would just mean that the woman would be put on trial, both figuratively in the court of public opinion and sometimes even literally, as the abuser's lawyers could drag them into court for defamation or libel/slander. Not to mention that the victim would frequently become unemployable as other powerful people closed ranks to defend their friend, the abuser. I don't disagree with Brooks that what has emerged is basically vigilante justice, and vigilante justice is by its nature coarse and indiscriminate. We don't want a society where vigilantes are roaming around dispensing justice. But when large numbers of people who have suffered wrongs have no institutional channels through which they can seek justice, the emergence of those vigilantes is inevitable. People will only suffer in silence for so long. Brooks' solution is that we should "embrace rule of law," but by that he seems to mean the laws as they stand today, and what that misses is that those laws are not protecting half the population from systemic abuse. If he wants people to respect the laws, the laws need to change so that people who don't have a way to seek justice in our system today can have one tomorrow. That would be good for everybody (except the abusers, at least). But here, Brooks is conspicuously silent. He has lots of things to say about how we should all respect the law, but offers no suggestions on how to make the law worthy of respect. So for the abused, his "solution" boils down to: accept your fate. The problem isn't that you were abused, it's that you spoke up about it. Be quiet, sit down, shut up and contemplate the Majesty of the Law. The irony of which is that Brooks' approach only guarantees the further flourishing of the vigilantes. When people can't look to the law to protect them, they inevitably look elsewhere. By his own logic, he, of all people, should be clamoring for the system to change so it protects those who are not protected today. That would be an actual effective way to foster respect for the law. Otherwise you're just telling the prey to have more respect for their predators.