.
.
.
As I peruse the literature of the “politically correct” I have noticed a pattern or a set of “rules” that I find interesting and very disturbing. The first rule seems to be that disparaging remarks and discriminating actions about race can only be made by those of the same race unless the race mocked is “white.” Evidently the theory behind this rule is that since “whites” are not oppressed, they are fair game for racial slurs, negative racial comparisons and disparate treatment. The second rule is that all religions EXCEPT Christianity (and DEFINATELY include Mormon – the most intolerant of all Christians) are tolerant. The third rule is that since men have been in positions of power for so long that any sexist actions taken against men are not really sexist and are OK – “women’s forums,” and “women’s societies” GOOD – any male forum is socially unacceptable and BAD. The fourth rule seems to speak more for the perpetuators of the “politically correct” – liberal urbanites – than any other rational basis – any jokes and disparaging remarks about fat people or those from the South are OK. Since I belong to four of those five groups, I have a problem with this set of rules.
I have laid out my beliefs about racism repeatedly on this site. First, I still offer a substantial reward to anyone that can accurately define which race any particular person belongs to. If you believe the science, all men migrated out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. These migrations resulted in people populating all four corners of the globe – with different population segments moving to different places at different times. In this country there has been a long history of racism against just about everyone from the Irish and Italian immigrants to the African American and Chinese slaves. Treating people differently because of race or skin color is simply wrong and unacceptable. I don’t create exceptions to that rule, but the politically correct have carved out an exception for “whites” (whatever that means) – I find that every bit as reprehensible as any other form of racism. I also reject the argument that a “race” (whatever that means) must be oppressed to be subject to racism – distinguishing based on race is racism, PERIOD.
Second, this great country was founded on the concept that everyone was free to pursue their own beliefs. What we would view as subtle differences in Christian beliefs had subjected large groups of people to discriminatory actions including criminal prosecution. The concept behind the founding of the US is that we would tolerate these differences in beliefs and allow everyone to pursue happiness in their own way. The politically correct find it perfectly acceptable to bang on Christians as “intolerant” because of perceived views on gay marriage, abortion and similar topics. Ironically, in attacking these Christian beliefs, the politically correct are demonstrating that self same intolerance they so condemn – the right of those Christian’s to have their own beliefs and values.
Men and women should be treated equally – PERIOD. While there were long periods of American history in which women had to fight just to be taken seriously as a political or professional force, disparate treatment like that should not be tolerated today. The scores of successful women in every industry has created a broad spectrum of role models and evidences that virtually all systematic resistance to women as equals has been eradicated. the politically correct will howl “but there aren’t as many women ________ as there are men _________.” To the extent that disparity is the result of sexism, I would support corrective action. However, while these statements are frequently made anecdotally when I have seen them first hand there are other environmental factors in play such as “why would ANYONE (male or female) want to take on the stress of that job?”
Finally, the pure snarkiness of the politically correct comes out in the unabashed attack on Southerners and the fat. My unproven theory on this is that the urban liberal creating the “rules” of political correctness cannot relate to the obese or those from the South and feels that discrimination on these groups that “can’t control themselves” is OK. Yet another example of the hypocrisy of the politically correct.
The answer to all of these issues is simple – treat each person equally. Not to hard to comprehend if your real agenda is equality and not self-promotion of your own little petty form of censorship.
“Not to hard to comprehend if your real agenda is equality and not self-promotion of your own little petty form of censorship.”…….. Hmmmmm
Are you paying attention Gilbert, the moralist?
Just make sure that you do not push accidentally wrong button and twit a photo of your erection deformed underwear to all……. that is if you can have one.
As GW informs us, “this great country was founded on the concept that everyone was free to pursue their own beliefs.” It’s actually more complicated than that, but then why does a certain party like to use its core members’ beliefs to shove legislation down the throats of everyone else? You know, regarding reproductive choice, gay and lesbian rights, teaching of mytholology as fact, having religious dogma put on the walls of government buildings, etc. Care to address that, Mr. W?
Ahhh yes, the poor,poor,poor white man, will his suffering ever end? If only all those nasty liberal elites would just shut the f**k up, everything would be fine.
Jesus, what a boatload of crap.
“The first rule seems to be that disparaging remarks and discriminating actions about race can only be made by those of the same race unless the race mocked is “white.” Evidently the theory behind this rule is that since “whites” are not oppressed, they are fair game for racial slurs, negative racial comparisons and disparate treatment.”
It took a 2 second google search to find these quotes;
Limbaugh; Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
Limbaugh on Obama: “We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black”
Jesse Lee Peterson: “I think we all agree that Barack Obama was elected by, mostly by black racists and white guilty people.”
Savage: Obama is “biggest liar in the history of the presidency,” and he’s “getting away with it… because he’s a man of color”
Bay Buchanan on “quota queen” Sotomayor: “Her whole life was dedicated to demanding special privileges”
Pat Buchanan: “This has been a country built, basically, by white folks”
O’Reilly tease: “[S]hould white Americans be concerned about Judge Sotomayor?”
Quinn to “race-baiting” African-American “ingrates”: “get on your knees” and “kiss the American dirt” because slavery brought them to U.S.
Savage declares: “The white Christian heterosexual married male is the epitome of everything right with America”
************************
“The politically correct find it perfectly acceptable to bang on Christians as “intolerant” because of perceived views on gay marriage, abortion and similar topics.”
Similar topics like religious tolerance?
Geoff, do you EVEN read this blog???
It was just back in February that right here in Orange County we had a beautiful display of hostility towards muslims; The Video Everyone is Talking About – Islamophobes Go Wild in Yorba Linda!
Boo hoo, the poor misunderstood and maligned christians.
***********************
Sexism is still alive and well, again I give you right-wingers;
Quinn calls Pelosi “Bolshevik Bitch with a Mallet”
Limbaugh: If Pelosi “wants fewer births, I have the way to do this and it won’t require any contraception: You simply put pictures of Nancy Pelosi … in every cheap motel room. … That will keep birthrates down because that picture will keep a lot of things down”
Limbaugh airs clip of Hillary Clinton, asks his listeners, “Doesn’t that remind you of your first, and maybe your second, both, your ex-wives?”
Limbaugh on Pelosi: “The third person in line for the presidency in this country is a complete airhead”
Limbaugh: “[Granholm’s] a ditz. Pelosi is a ditz. Obama is a menace and a danger.”
Savage claims that “as a result of women on Naval ships,” they have become “floating brothels”
Limbaugh: Hillary Clinton wasn’t let into Marines because “they didn’t have uniforms or boots big enough to fit that butt and those ankles”
Quinn on Pelosi: “This bitch is trying to get us to lose the war!”
Ingraham: “Nancy Pelosi basically did everything except sell her own body” to pass health care reform bill
Beck on Landrieu: “We’re with a high-class prostitute”
Echoing Beck, Limbaugh claims Landrieu “may be the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution”
*********************
“Finally, the pure snarkiness of the politically correct comes out in the unabashed attack on Southerners and the fat. My unproven theory on this is that the urban liberal creating the “rules” of political correctness cannot relate to the obese or those from the South and feels that discrimination on these groups that “can’t control themselves” is OK.”
Ever hear of Michael Moore? The right-wing is constantly attacking him for his weight, Glenn Beck even sells a t-shirt that says; Michael Moore is fat!
Every region suffers from stereotypes, here’s California’s;
San Francisco – Gays. Goths. Hippies. Communists. Satanists.
San Diego – Sailors. Hookers. Wetbacks. Transients. The clap.
Humboldt County – Potheads. Pot farms. Pot cults. Totally POT.
High Desert – Meth labs. Tweakers. Extraterrestrials. UFO cults.
Orange County – Megachurches. Republicanoids. Plastic lawns.
Silicon Valley – Geeks. Nerds. Stoics. Robots. Zombies. DEVO.
Santa Barbara – Birkenstocks. Nature freaks. New Agers. Snobs.
Oxnard – Chicano gang bangers. Drug dealers. Parolees.
Oakland – Crime. Rap. Ghetto. Welfare. Crack. Probation.
Los Angeles – Surfers. Stars. Botox. Boobs. Fake tans. Riots.
Hollywood – Heroin. Homeless. Hookers. Has-beens. Hype.
Malibu – Bleach blonde beach bimbos. Rehab. Mudslides. Fires.
Beverly Hills – Fakers. Wannabes. Iranians. McMansions. Suicide.
South Central – Crips. Bloods. Weaves. Guns. Liquor stores.
Sierras – Unibombers. Rednecks. Snow. Rust. White trash.
Central Valley – Dirt. Dust. Valley Fever. Bankruptcy. Stench.
San Fernando Valley – Porn. Gangs. Valley Girls. 7-Elevens.
Inland Empire – Indian casinos. Foreclosures. Earthquakes.
**************************
“First, I still offer a substantial reward to anyone that can accurately define which race any particular person belongs to. ……… I also reject the argument that a “race” (whatever that means) must be oppressed to be subject to racism – distinguishing based on race is racism, PERIOD.”
That has to be the most idiotic statement of all, the “were all one race”, canard, of course YOU can’t define “race” because YOU’RE NOT A PERSON OF COLOR!!!!!! Your color determines “race” in this country and to try and deny it is pure bull crap!
Ask yourself this, how did they determine who could or couldn’t drink at the WHITES ONLY drinking fountain?
Poor Geoffy, nobody knows the trouble he’s seen and felt and suffered all at the hands of the mean, liberal, politically correct elite.
Thanks for thoroughly making my points with your forceful politically correct censorship. Now please go back to writing editorials to the Register about Bin Laden.
Geoff,
Please explain exactly how you’ve been censored.
You wrote a post complaining about the slings-and-arrows you have suffered by being a fat, white, christian male and laid the blame on politically correct, urban, liberal elites, I merely refuted your assertion.
It seems to me that you are still free to respond and defend your position, perhaps the problem is, is that you don’t understand the meaning of the word censorship.
Don’t feel too embarrassed by your lack of knowledge, I’m sure just like racism, sexism and religious intolerance you’ve never REALLY experienced it.
You didn’t refute any of his assertions. Simply throwing up isolated comments from some on the right and claiming victory has nothing to do with Geoff’s points (unless you are agreeing with the comments that you quote). Of course some on the right stereotype those on the left, and vice versa. That does not mean that his points are not valid. But don’t feel too bad about your lack of knowledge about how to validly debate, I’m sure you’ve never really had to engage in one before in your circle of lefty friends.
I take it you’re, among other things, agreeing that anonster somehow “censored” Geoff with her comment?
How many times a day do you and Geoff get oppressed as white men, and censored too?
Newbie,
Like all the conservatives on this blog you have trouble with READING COMPREHENSION, otherwise you would have picked up on Geoff’s assertion that only fat, white, christian males and southerners are fair game for ridicule and disparaging remarks and that this ridicule and disparagement comes from liberal, politically correct elites.
I provided numerous examples of right-wingers ridiculing and making disparaging comments about blacks and hispanics, women, muslims and fat people. I also showed that stereotypes are not limited to the south.
I find it amusing that both you and Geoff would rather attack me personally than defend Geoff’s post, which means only one thing, that his post is just a bunch of indefensible crapolla and shameful whining.
First, my piece clearly states that racism in any form is unnacceptable. Instead of addressing my arguments you change the subject completely by quoting a number of comments that appear to be racist and by implication accusing me of racism. Instead of addressing my argument that Christians are treated with intolerance, you change the subject by pointing to the actions of a few folks, implying that all Christians are intolerent. Instead of addressing my argument that both genders should be treated the same, you change the subject by pulling out arguably sexist remarks, implying that I am sexist. Instead of addressing my argument that the “politically correct” have made the obese and Southerners “fair game” you instead change the subject by invoking a whole new series of stereotypes – the use of any of those stereotypes by anyone on the right would be lept upon by the poltically correct as evidence of bias and discrimination. Finally, instead of addressing my argument that racism and sexism are unacceptable regardless of the target, you change the subject by claiming that because I am “white” (whatever that means) I can’t possibly have suffered – you appear to be making my point by arguing without substance that it is impossible for white males to be subject to racism or sexism (Reginald Denny might also quibble with this). Instead of addressing the fact that “race” is impossible to define, you say simply that “your skin color determines your race in this country.” If we use your argument, then Michael Jackson is white and George Hamilton is of color. How much melanin makes someone “black,” “brown,” “yellow” or “red.” Is someone from spain “latino?” How many generations back can you have a connection and be considered “of that color?” As soon as you move away from simply saying racism and sexism in any shape and form is unnacceptable you are thrown into a cauldron of ridiculous issues. Of course there were “whites only” driniking fountains (and bus seats and diners and hotels) – all of those were and are despicable – you again change the subject and make it sound like I am arguing that there has never been racism.
You mode of attack is more than simply “disagreeing” as claimed by brother Vern. You accuse me of being racist, sexist, intolerent, thin skinned and ingnorant without ever addressing the substance of my post. For many people, that kind of an attack would succesfully shut them up for fear of further frothing at the mouth irrational attacks.
Geoff,
I never implied that you were racist, sexist or in any other way intolerant. I simply pointed out that YOUR assertion that there is a set of “rules” that makes it acceptable for fat, white, christian males and southerners fair game for ridicule and discrimination and that liberal elites are to blame is laughable, as there are so many examples of OTHER GROUPS being subjected to ridicule, discrimination and stereotypes all the time (proof that it is acceptable; Rush Limbaugh is still on the air).
You want to deny race and color;
“If we use your argument, then Michael Jackson is white and George Hamilton is of color. How much melanin makes someone “black,” “brown,” “yellow” or “red.” Is someone from spain “latino?” How many generations back can you have a connection and be considered “of that color?”
Yet you didn’t answer my question;
How did they determine who could or couldn’t drink at the WHITES ONLY drinking fountain?
People of color know.
I would agree with you that any form of racism, sexism or religious intolerance is unacceptable, but your whining over little slights in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence of REAL WIDE SPREAD discrimination that minorities face everyday in this country does indeed make you look thin-skinned and ignorant.
Anonster. I surely should refrain from jumping in on this debate. However, having lived at a time where I personally experienced Jim Crow in Augusta, Georgia in the ’50s let me provide the following history link.
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm
Or from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
I am struggling to figure out if I am being unclear on intentionally misunderstood. I believe that racism and sexism are wrong and unacceptable – period. I do not make any exceptions for the left or the right on this. I still have never heard a cogent argument on why it is OK to exhibit bias and prejudice against any race or gender – simply folks trying to avoid answering that question because it doesn’t suit their needs.
Again, are you talking about something real or theoretical? WHAT are your great examples of “bias” and “prejudice” against white people, or men, or Christians?
I’m surprised you haven’t even offered up a goofy ANECDOTE, so we can laugh about how rare and petty it is, compared to what black people, Latinos, women, Muslims or atheists have to put up with all the time.
Fine. I agree with you theoretically – bias and prejudice against ANYBODY is wrong. It’s just that it’s so rare and harmless with whites, males, and Christians, that it’s just not a problem I take seriously. And when I hear a white Christian man that does fret a lot about all the bias and prejudice directed against him … I wonder about his psychology.
Vern, I think you and Annonster have both demonstrated that regardless of the anecdote, you will find it petty and unimportant if it punishes someone you don’t view as a minority. If you are in the political trenches everyday you see people using their heritage as a sharpened weapon – one local political official has actually created an accent where none had existed before she went into politics. I guess that you won’t be troubled by “Latino Merchants Societies” or “Women’s Business Networks” even though those would be viewed as racist and sexist if if were a white men’s group. I guess you have no problem with universities that make admissions choices selecting one candidate over another based solely on race. I guess you have no problem with contracts being given to “Minority Owned Business Enterprises” where one race cannot recieve that contract. You find them petty, I find them offensive and Un American.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re all speaking different languages. At no point did anonster imply Geoff was a racist. I believe him that he’s not, and I’m guessing he disapproves of all the racist comments anonster listed.
Nobody is saying that Geoff is Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or any of these other racist scumbags. I do think he’s got this weird need to believe that he’s as victimized as any minority, and I saw in a recent study that that’s more and more common among white people – probably to be expected whenever the economy sucks. But Geoff should be smarter than that.
Geoff,
Don’t pretend that the your post didn’t say the following;
“As I peruse the literature of the “politically correct” I have noticed a pattern or a set of “rules” that I find interesting and very disturbing. The first rule seems to be that disparaging remarks and discriminating actions about race can ONLY be made by those of the same race unless the race mocked is “white.” ”
There is NO mistaking your meaning, I gave you multiple examples of blacks being disparaged by whites, thus destroying your little mythology about “politically correct” elites being the real racists.
I am so sorry that you are having trouble communicating. My post said that the “poltically correct” find no problem with racist attacks on “whites.” I did not say that the poltically correct were the ONLY racists, only that their acceptance and toleration of discrimination based on skin color is racist. Please let me know if I need to use shorter words.
Again, to be clear: By “racist attacks on whites” you’re referring to, quote:
“Latino Merchants Societies” or “Women’s Business Networks” … universities that make admissions choices selecting one candidate over another based solely on race… contracts being given to “Minority Owned Business Enterprises”
LOL. Right, there may be good arguments for or against those things but you’re right, I do not find those to be “troubling” “racist attacks on whites.”
Do I have to go get Francisco again to explain these “networks” and “societies” to you? You could probably join most of them if you wanted to.
No, you can “explain” all you want. There were lots of “networks” and “societies” that many thought had good reason to exist – sometimes the women or the jews could come as long as they used the side entrance.
Geoff,
Sorry, but I have a much broader interpretation of who the “politically correct” are, my definition includes everyone, as everyone has their sacred cows.
Why I remember a certain fat, southern, white, christian male that “politically correct” conservatives used to refer to as “Bubba”, and they made fun of his big,fat, white thighs whenever he went jogging and I, as a “politically correct” liberal, always found that offensive. Go figure.
Censorship? Wha…..
Now, disagreeing with somebody here is censorship? And you also want us to believe you suffer oppression?
“NOW WE SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM…”
Attacking fat white males? Do not speak about my friend Sean Mill that way.
Are you. You know the rules yet are picking on a former member of our team who may not even be reading this post. Knock it off. Thank you!
OK, OK, can we have any EXAMPLES of these horrible attacks that white men have to put up with? Or Christians?
Are you talking about movie titles like “White Men Can’t Jump?”
It’s all fair game when it come to white walmart shoppin’ fatty racist Repuglicans.
I ‘m quoting Louis C.K. the fat,white,Christian male comedian’s ideas, but they apply perfectly in this case: Go back a hundred years in time, or two hundred years, or 500 years — one is better off being a white guy than a black guy, (or a white woman or an Indian, Mexican, Musselman, Chinese….)
What’s the worst thing you can be called? Honky? Cracker? Oooooooh! A land-owning person who can vote! Ouch!
Umm, GW, I’m still hoping for some sort of response regarding Christian legislation. Your guy Santorum is now talking out loud about how we need to be governed by “God’s laws.” That scares the hell out of me–please tell me why it shouldn’t.
Geoff,
Do you really think you have any journalistic credibility left after the way you had to re-edit your Serra Catholic story?
That’s ok Mr. Johnson, you have no credibility (journalistic or otherwise) at all as you cowardly refuse to provide a picture of the poster Geoff refers to in his other story, preferring to instead abandon that post altogether and put up a complete non-sequitor (that makes no sense on top of that – what “re-edit”?) on this thread.