While some amount of political correctness is necessary (I am not arguing for ethnic slurs or anything), some of those people on the Left take it way too far.
The teacher of a philosophy class I took in college categorized everybody who didn't actively take up the cause of campaigning for greater
acceptance/rights/acknowledgment of nonwhites, women, and GLBT as racist, sexist, and homophobic. The reasoning was that 'the system' is biased
against these groups, and by not crusading, regardless of whether or not one holds a personal bias against any group,
one is not acting against that systemic bias, and is therefore supporting all of those -isms. She taught this as established fact- the idea that anybody that
doesn't champion certain causes (many of which, in America, have already achieved full legal equality, and are still pushing for more) is essentially the
enemy- and half the class immediately lapped it up. I was the only one who challenged this idea.
I am not racist, sexist, or homophobic- I dislike everybody equally, until individuals prove thmselves worth liking. I see the role of the government is to
ensure that everybody has the same rights under the law, and that any attempt to give extra rights to one side, or deprive one side of rights, should be
rectified, and the perpetrators punished. I wish that everybody in society was as tolerant of others as I am (the original meaning of 'tolerate'- put
up with, regardless of dislike). If they were, they might eventually stop disliking people who are different than themselves, and realize that people are
people, regardless of what the look like, which plumbing they have, or who they like to bugger.
And yes, I realize that my position can be interpreted as 'against' both sides of the traditional debate. That's kind of the point.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.
The teacher of a philosophy class I took in college categorized everybody who didn't actively take up the cause of campaigning for greater
acceptance/rights/acknowledgment of nonwhites, women, and GLBT as racist, sexist, and homophobic. The reasoning was that 'the system' is biased
against these groups, and by not crusading, regardless of whether or not one holds a personal bias against any group,
one is not acting against that systemic bias, and is therefore supporting all of those -isms. She taught this as established fact- the idea that anybody that
doesn't champion certain causes (many of which, in America, have already achieved full legal equality, and are still pushing for more) is essentially the
enemy- and half the class immediately lapped it up. I was the only one who challenged this idea.
I am not racist, sexist, or homophobic- I dislike everybody equally, until individuals prove thmselves worth liking. I see the role of the government is to
ensure that everybody has the same rights under the law, and that any attempt to give extra rights to one side, or deprive one side of rights, should be
rectified, and the perpetrators punished. I wish that everybody in society was as tolerant of others as I am (the original meaning of 'tolerate'- put
up with, regardless of dislike). If they were, they might eventually stop disliking people who are different than themselves, and realize that people are
people, regardless of what the look like, which plumbing they have, or who they like to bugger.
And yes, I realize that my position can be interpreted as 'against' both sides of the traditional debate. That's kind of the point.
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.
I've been writing a bit.