There was something that I heard this week that I’ve been thinking about, and expanding. I’m going to credit Andrew Klavan with what I heard, because I think it was him, although I couldn’t track it down. I re-listened to Tuesday’s show, and didn’t find it; maybe it was in Wednesday’s.
Anyway, what I think he said was that, only a non-racist
culture would care whether you thought they were racist. In other words, the
very fact that we find racism to be offensive, and to be called racist is
damaging to our reputations, is because—We Are Not Racist.
If it were socially acceptable to be racist, it wouldn’t be possible to shame us for being racists. It has been half a century since Jim Crow laws were outlawed—and they were outlawed because most of the country recognized them as repugnant.
 |
| Vivian Malone registers as student at University of Alabama, 1963 image from Wikipedia |
There has been so little actual racism in this country that
those who race-bait, who make a living from stirring up race-based hatred, need
to redefine racism. And lately it has meant, if you’re born white, then you’re
racist in your DNA and should be ashamed and bow down to the black race.
Think about that for a moment. You’re inferior because you’re
born with a certain level of melanin in your skin, which you cannot alter. That’s
actual racism.
How does that conversation go between a regular white person
and a black supremacist?
White person: But, if I’m racist because I’m born that
way and I can’t change it, then what do you want me to do about it?
Black supremacist: Bow down to the black person. Stop
in the street and lick their boots, and apologize for your racism.
White person: But you just said I had no control over “being”
racist, so what actions of mine am I apologizing for?
Black supremacist: Being white. You’re disgusting
because you’re white. You’re inferior because you’re white.
White person: OK, I get it now. The color of my skin
makes me an inferior, subordinate human being.
Black supremacist: Exactly.
Not that you could actually experience such a calm and
reasoned conversation with someone who hates you because of your skin color.
But you see the point.
So, if you fall for that accusation, and bow to the accusers
in some misguided attempt to demonstrate that you are not racist—to avoid being
one of those uppity white people who don’t know their place in the presence of
their betters—what you’re doing is encouraging actual racism.
We’ve seen this somewhere in history before.
Racism is not the only area in which this shaming-the-innocent
strategy takes place.
It’s a practice of manipulative abusers to make the abused
feel like they are guilty—and are therefore required to change to earn the
approval of the abuser. But, why does the abused value the approval of the
abuser? Good question. Probably takes therapy to resolve.
But in day-to-day life, let’s assume you can see clearly
enough not to value the opinion of someone who is attempting to manipulate you.
Let’s take a look at some scenarios and imagine how some of the “reasonable”
conversations would go, and maybe get some enlightenment from the thought
exercise.
Economic Equality
image found here
Socialist scold: You have no sense of justice if you
think it’s OK for some CEO to make $5 million a year while his line workers are
making $40 thousand a year.
Income earner: Really? So, let me get this straight.
Those line workers accepted the job for $40 thousand a year, but they were
worth much much more? Why did they accept those terms?
Socialist scold: Because they didn’t have a choice?
Income earner: They didn’t? So you’re saying, they got
the business degree, and the experience to run a company, and were willing to
take on the risk, but they were, at that point, prevented from doing anything
but taking a $40 thousand a year line worker job? How could such an injustice
happen?
Socialist scold: Well, it wasn’t like that. It was
just the systemic unfairness of it all.
Income earner: So a line worker should be paid more
than the value he brings in for the company, and the CEO should be paid less
than the value he brings in for the company—because that would mean everybody got
treated fairly?
Socialist scold: Right.
Income earner: I get it now. Fairness is getting more
than you deserve if you’re a person You favor, but fairness is getting
less than you deserve if you’re a person You don’t favor.
Socialist scold: Exactly.
Climate Change
Greta Thunberg
image credit: Aaron Schwartz, found here
Climate scold: You hate the world and want to kill
everybody if you don’t agree with the “climate science consensus” that says we
need to totally eliminate fossil fuels. You climate denier! Get with the
program and get behind the Green New Deal!
Rational human: So, I’m in denial if I notice that all
the things in the Green New Deal will cause worldwide devastation, economic
deprivation, starvation, and all? I hate the world if I don’t think all
buildings need to be torn down or retrofitted? And all our cars and other
transportation should be electric? And I shouldn’t notice that electric cars
actually use more energy and create more waste than gasoline-powered cars? Am I
on the right track now?
Climate scold: You’re getting there.
Rational human: And I shouldn’t notice that natural
gas from fracking is responsible for most of the improvement in air standards
over the past decade?
Climate scold: Fracking is evil! Say it after me: Fracking.
Is. Evil.
Rational human: OK, then. What about nuclear, because,
if you’re looking for a clean and safe energy source…
Climate scold: How dare you! No nuclear! Do you want
to kill us all?
Rational human: No, I don’t actually want to kill us
all.
Climate scold: Then stop being a science denier, and
stop using anything but renewables.
Rational human: Like wind? I shouldn’t notice they
cause a tremendous amount of waste and kill birds and don’t produce reliable
steady energy?
Climate scold: Stop denying science!
Rational human: Sorry. What was I thinking?
Climate scold: Don’t bother thinking; we’ve done that
for you. Just stop being evil and stupid and hating the planet.
Rational human: I think I get what you’re saying now.
Same-Sex Marriage
image from here
Woke scold: You’re intolerant if you don’t approve of
gay marriage.
Decent person: I’ve been intolerant? In what way?
Woke scold: You have to approve of gay marriage and the
gay lifestyle. You have to stop shoving your beliefs down the throat of others
with different beliefs.
Decent person: Pardon me? How was I doing that?
Woke scold: By believing in traditional marriage, for one.
You want to exclude gays from privileges everyone else has.
Decent person: Really? Were gays prevented from marrying
an unmarried person of the opposite sex who was not a close relative—which is
what the law has been for heterosexuals?
Woke scold: Don’t be obtuse. You know what I mean. You
prevented them from marrying the person of their choice.
Decent person: Well, if you mean I was a not changing
the definition of marriage to something that it never was, so that it would
include their choice, then I guess that’s accurate. But then, if marriage is
just a declaration of current sexual partnership, with no permanence, exclusivity,
or procreative possibility—so, something other than marriage—wouldn’t it be
better to just come up with some other name for what they want, rather than pretend
marriage has suddenly become something different?
Woke scold: You’re just homophobic?
Decent person: I need you to help me understand. What
do you mean by that?
Woke scold: You’re against gays. You’re so evil that
you’d probably kill them if you thought you could get away with it.
Decent person: I’m sad you think I’m a murderous
insane person for believing what people have believed for all the millennia of
recorded history. But, what is it, again, I need to do to gain your approval?
Woke scold: Give up your stupid religious beliefs and
support everything the LGBTQ+ community wants. And if you don’t, you should not
be allowed to work or function in society; you should be cancelled.
Decent person: So, I should stop believing what I believe,
and allow the LGBTQ+ agenda to be shoved down my throat, so I don’t get accused
of shoving my beliefs down someone else’s throat?
Woke scold: Exactly.
Transphobia
The last one touched on the T in LGBTQ+, but let’s take that
one separately.
Woke scold: You’re cruel and hurtful if you don’t
accept what a trans person says they are.
Rational human: Oh, my! So, help me understand. Even
if I’m compassionate toward them, and respectful and courteous, I’m still cruel
if I don’t actually believe a person’s biological sex can be changed?
Woke scold: Imagine what they’re going through. All the
ways this world rejects them and tries to tell them they’re not who they
identify as. And all you need to do is admit that they’re no longer a woman
when they have become a man, or no longer a man when they’ve become a woman—oh,
and you need to refer to them with the pronouns of their choice, even if it’s a
neutral made up pronoun like ze or zer.
Rational human: So, should I be OK with allowing them
to go into whatever private space they want, including showing their, um, male
genitalia in a locker room with other females whom the former male is still
attracted to?
Woke scold: Of course. You shouldn’t even have to ask
that.
Rational human: Sorry. I’m still trying to get the
hang of waking up to being woke. So, what happens if the trans “woman” gets prostate
cancer? Is it illegal to treat for a male problem now that he—er, she—is no
longer male?
Woke scold: No, you’d just treat that particular woman
who happens to have a prostate.
Rational human: What if a trans “man” still has a
uterus and gets pregnant?
Woke scold: Then the world celebrates how great it is
that a man with a uterus gives birth. Not that this should be considered a rare
thing; some men have uteruses; some women have prostates, etc.
Rational human: Then, is it allowed to notice that a
trans “woman” still has a Y chromosome in every cell of their body?
Woke scold: Irrelevant.
Rational human: Oh. So, I should deny biology and just
go with whatever the person says on a given day?
Woke scold: Right. And if you don’t, you evil transphobe,
you shouldn’t be allowed to make a living, or have any free speech; you should
be cancelled.
Rational human: Because I’d be so intolerant?
Woke scold: Exactly.
Abortion
Let’s do one more.
 |
| ultrasound image, from here |
Feminist scold: If you don’t agree with abortion—paid for
by taxpayers—up to at least birth, then you hate women, and you’re anti-freedom
of choice.
Pro-lifer: I wouldn’t want to be hateful or
anti-freedom of choice. But it’s kind of an adjustment to killing babies.
Feminist scold: They’re not babies until they’re
outside the womb; up until then they’re just fetuses, which means they’re
nothing more than a clump of cells.
Pro-lifer: So they suddenly become a living human
being by crossing the birth canal?
Feminist scold: It becomes a baby when and if the
woman wants it to be a baby.
Pro-lifer: So, if the woman wants a baby, then it’s a
baby in the womb, but if she doesn’t want it, then she can decide it isn’t a
baby? At any point during gestation?
Feminist scold: At least that long; we should have a
conversation about what to do with one the woman decides she doesn’t want after
she sees it. I mean, what if it’s badly deformed, or has a disability, or the
wrong color eyes or something?
Pro-lifer: Um. Wrong color eyes?
Feminist scold: We need to stay open-minded; it’s the
woman’s decision, not yours.
Pro-lifer: So, just to be clear, it’s not a human life
when it’s a human embryo, or when it gets a heartbeat, or when it grows hair
and fingernails, or when it can feel pain, or when it is developed enough to be
viable outside the womb?
Feminist scold: Only if the woman says so.
Pro-lifer: The father of the baby doesn’t have any
input?
Feminist scold: How dare you! Of course not.
Pro-lifer: So, I hate women if I don’t want to pay for
a woman to kill her offspring? And I’m anti-choice if I would prefer to protect
life once it has begun, or—Baal[i]
forbid—consider giving the biological father any say?
Feminist scold: Now you’re getting it. And if you don’t
go along entirely, then you should be prevented from making a living, or
speaking your hateful, offensive words anywhere; you should be cancelled.
Pro-lifer: Because I’ve been so intolerant?
Feminist scold: Exactly.
For the sake of your sanity, ask yourself, do you really
care about getting the approval of someone who wants to bully you into shame
for believing these things?
·
Character matters much more than skin color, and
diversity of thought is more valuable than diversity of skin color. You’re not
racist if you believe this.
·
Science isn’t settled unless all the data is in,
and policy based on unsettled science is about power and politics. You’re not
anti-science, or anti-earth, if you believe this.
·
Marriage, with permanence, exclusivity, and the
possibility of offspring being raised by their own mother and father, is an
inherent good to society. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for
believing this.
·
Biological reality is more real than someone’s
mental image of themselves. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for believing
this.
·
A human life within the womb is not the same
person as the pregnant woman; her “choice” ended sometime before the beginning
of that second human life. You’re not anti-woman or anti-freedom of choice for
believing this.
My guess is, if you believe these things, you’re already a better human being than the manipulator trying to shame you for those beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment