Category Archives: Political Correctness

Profiling

Suppose you are alone in a dark alley at night. You see a group of men coming toward you in the darkness.

Imagine two possibilities:

  1. The men are carrying Bibles and you overhear conversations about a Bible study they have just left.
  2. The men are carrying alcoholic beverages and are talking loudly about how much they hate the police.

If your reaction would be identical regardless which of those two possibilities obtained, I congratulate you; you don’t profile people! You might get beaten and robbed in a situation you could have taken steps to avoid, but you’ll have thought the Right Thoughts. And these days, that’s all that matters.

I suspect, however, that your reaction would vary based on that extra information. In that case, you’ve committed the grievous modern sin of profiling. But you’ll probably make the right decision.

Fired for Love

There’s a billboard that’s been popping up with the words “Imagine being fired because of who you love”. It’s put together by a radical LGBT organization that can’t tolerate merely having their wills imposed on the entire country by a few lawyers, but needs everyone to affirm their decisions and enthusiastically support them. There’s nothing new about this totalitarian impulse at the heart of the LGBT movement. I’ve long viewed it as a sort of intellectual defense mechanism against the Holy Spirit and conscience; when condemned so profoundly and comprehensively, the reaction is to look for affirmation elsewhere, and if that affirmation isn’t easily found, it must be forced.

But this post isn’t about the totalitarian impulse. It’s about the billboard.

I immediately thought of two problems with using the bumper sticker slogan on the sign as some sort of profound insight.

First, I can imagine a pedophile, or a couple engaged in incest, or a rapist, all using this as a defense. After all, if it is wrong to be fired because of who you love full stop, then surely it would be wrong to be fired for raping a woman you “love”, or a child you “love”, or a sibling you “love”. An LGBT zealot might respond that in the case of rape, there is no consent, and “consent makes right”, but this is just another opportunity to remind the zealot that their own incoherent worldview undermines this. “Love is love”, they say, and who are we to judge how that is conveyed? Surely, people with healthy consciences would find it appropriate for a company to fire a pedophile who stalks children. But following the logic of the billboard, that would be wrong.

Second, there is no reason to think that “love” needs to be identified as marriage or sex. This has been another consistent problem for LGBT advocacy. In trying to justify same-sex acts, the zealots undermine any other form of love that isn’t sexual in nature. But why do this? Parents love their children. Best friends may love each other more deeply than any sexual relationship even if sexual acts would never cross either of their minds and there is no sexual attraction whatsoever. The fact is, the “discrimination” implicitly condemned by the billboard is not of love or even the object of that love. It’s the sexual acts and demand to be considered “married” (a term with virtually no meaning to most anymore) that are in question. It’s telling that euphemisms like “who you love” are employed. Even the organization that threw together the sign knows, deep down, that they can’t get away with being clear and precise. Their ideas are too bad and shallow for that, and they need all the cover they can get.

No one is getting fired for “who they love”, but it’s probably true that some religious organizations and small businesses run by Christians have policies that don’t allow overtly evil behaviors like same-sex acts to be thrust into the faces of those they serve. This organization, deeply dishonest as is typical of LGBT advocacy and liberalism in general, must craft emotional pleas, because their real message is totally unpalatable. Their true message is: “Our right to sexual pleasure trumps all other rights, and if you don’t celebrate us, we want you to suffer painful death.”

Always, always remember that.

Victimhood Privilege

I’ve found that one of the best ways to defeat bad ideas is to ask simple but important questions to those who hold them. For example, when dealing with someone who believes a woman can be trapped in a man’s body, I like to ask: “What is a man?” No transgender advocate can answer this without undermining their position, because their position is delicately balanced on the ambiguity of words.

What I call “victimhood privilege” is similar. Victimhood privilege is the set of benefits one receives from being a member of a culturally designated victim group. Same-sex attracted individuals, transgender people, darker skinned people, women, etc all qualify to varying degrees as members of victim groups because at some point in the real or imagined past, each group had members who, we are told, were victims because of their membership in those groups. We can go ahead for now and accept this reasoning for the sake of argument.

If you ask a liberal progressive “what makes someone a victim?” or “what does it mean to be oppressed?”, you won’t get clear answers. If you don’t obviously lead with the question, the best you can hope for is something ambiguous like “victims are people who are mistreated” or “oppression is when ‘the system’ works against you”. But ask them to be more specific, and the fun can really start.

For example, I’ve heard people offer the example that oppression might include being arrested for expressing yourself. But you can remind them that a Christian pastor was recently arrested for doing just this in a library where “drag queen story hour” was being performed at taxpayer expense, and they’ll quickly retract their example.

Or, you might hear that a form of oppression is when a college won’t let your student group meet. If you remind the person that the only groups that colleges prohibit these days are Christian or politically conservative groups, they’ll again retreat.

Another common example offered are bullying victims. People who have been pushed around with slurs or threats of violence. But again, all you need to do is remind the liberal progressive who offers this example that the clearest examples of bullying are LGBT activists who threaten Christian business owners with violence and fines and who slander them on social media.

Victimhood privilege, then, is not about being a victim at all. It’s about being a member of a group which is immune to criticism, getting all the benefits a true victim deserves while actually creating victims with extreme hatred. This should be obvious enough from the fact that so many people actively desire to be seen as victims. Real victims get sympathy to compensate for their situation, and people would rather not have the situation altogether, even if they lost the sympathy. But there are some real benefits to victimhood privilege that being a real victim doesn’t entail. And the clearest example is when these faux “victims”, like aggressive LGBT activists try to get people fired and ostracized (that is, made victims) simply for not being enthusiastic enough about the bizarre sexual proclivities of other people.