At this point, it is crucial to make a few facts absolutely clear. The worst accusation that can be made about someone who engages in political debate and discussion in this country is that he or she is a racist. This is not a disagreement, even a vehement one, about a specific view on a specific subject: it is, and is meant to be, an attack on the person as a person. If the accusation is believed, it means the accused is profoundly, unforgivably immoral and loathsome. It further means that nothing the person might say is to be treated with any degree of seriousness. The accusation of racism is designed to shut the person up, to shut him down, to obliterate him entirely and to eliminate him from all consideration. The purpose is the total and absolute destruction of the person so accused.Fortunately, it actually is possible to live a life that does not obsess over being accepted by, you know, "everyone". (How useful in a world where, to avoid being called a racist, you have to keep agreeing to more and more outrageous crap.)
For me, I'd rather attempt to think and risk being wrong, than accept and follow and simply assume I am right because the crowd I am following shops at the right store*.
It's sort of funny that some people are still terrified of the term, given that nowadays, the term racist apparently applies equally to noose-hanging hate-crime perpetrators on the one hand, and any white person still in possession of a 401k on the other.
How could so many supposedly educated people not know how to cope with a rather "high school clique"-level ad hom attack?
Well, gee, let's think about this.
Maybe the problem is that some people operate from a "high school clique" mindset. Apparently some people really believe that if someone has the wrong attitude, has the wrong opinions, or thinks the wrong way, it's perfectly legitimate to shut the person up, shut him down, obliterate him entirely and eliminate him from all consideration.
After all, that person has been deemed loathsome, and some people apparently think that loathsome people don't deserve things like courtesy, consideration, or to have their argument heard and judged on its merits.
(Just imagine: if you judged an argument on its merits, you might actually find yourself agreeing with someone outside of your clique. And that would be - well, you'd practically be a Republican then!! if that happened!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!)
Maybe that's the problem people on the political fringes have to begin with: they are too hung up judging others' character to recognize that their excesses in judgment isn't doing a damned thing to make the world a better place. It's just polarizing. It makes the mood and tone of the discourse uglier, not more civil. It's not thoughtful and it's not constructive and it isn't necessary on the path to a larger goal. It's just all about comforting the liberal's own anxious self-esteem. Yes I am a good person. Yes I am too better than them. No it is not my fault the world is so ugly and hurtful and just plain mean.....
Think about this:
nothing the person might say is to be treated with any degree of seriousness.
total and absolute destruction of the person so accused
eliminate him from all consideration
That's the essence of dehumanization.
And all of this on hearsay, on someone's say-so - oh, maybe supported with some flimsy evidence, possibly some flawed logic and some hardcore jumping to conclusions.
This sort of "moral superiority" is why we have to have it written down that all people are supposed to have the right to a fair trial. Combine it with groupthink and it is why, ever since Plato, people have been arguing that democracy is dangerous.
I mean, does "racism" have levels? Is Obama's Typical White Grandma really the moral equivalent of Edgar Ray Killen or Sam Bowers?
Apparently, at those trendy little tables in the cafe, the price of nonconformity is harsh indeed. Maybe this is why elections never seem to go the way far-lefties think it ought to?
It's like the left wing embodiment of everything they ever hated about Fox News: it's a world where only people who already agree with you are worth talking to - or at.
The reality is that there is life outside of Starbuck's where people can disagree and it's considered rude to assume that anyone who does not agree with you must be a hood-wearing villain out to lynch someone. Most people can in fact differentiate between levels of awfulness, and recognize that there is a difference between asking one of those questions you're "not supposed to ask" (because "everyone says") vs. doing something really awful.
And by the way, if there's no realistic way to pass a law against doing a thing, you are not the Worst Person In The World for doing it**. Period.
In this case, rich people are just throwing a tantrum in the name of black people, using inflamed rhetoric to push the notion that you must fall in and submit to a seriously scary candidate-messiah or else you are guilty of being what makes the world ugly***.
There's a game being played and it has nothing to do with leveling the playing field for black people. It has to do with control by name calling. It has to do with demanding obedience or else they question your credentials as a Real Liberal.
And GOD FORBID anyone should lose their status as a Real Liberal. What on earth is left after you lose that?
Maybe next week they'll accuse you of having cooties.
______________________________________________
* Whole Foods, isn't it?
**And, no, Keith Olbermann really isn't where anyone ought to be looking for moral guidance. On anything. Just forget the whole "worst person in the world" crap? Please? You didn't vote the right way on Proposition Whatever on the local school ballot so now you are the moral equivalent of some genocidal leader? You said something I don't like so now you're the moral equivalent of the worstest criminal in American history?
Because it's like a living, breathing, sucking, slurping embodiment of the essence of that which inspired Godwin to come up with his famous Law. It isn't the name "Hitler" that has the magic in it. It's the idea of being totally incapable of differentiating a dropful from a truckload.
*** as absurd as peddling the belief that somehow the world can be made free of ugliness if you just reduce truth itself to a yes or no multiple-choice exam. (Be careful: do not ask why, if all it takes to solve the world's problems is a few obvious big words delivered from your armchair, if it's that easy, why someone else didn't do it already. The minute you make that connection, you're on your way toward the middle of the spectrum - next thing you know, you'll be driving a Buick and talking about goiters and then it's all over.)
Or the belief that you can be the change the world needs by just voting for the smooth-talking candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment