Recognizing insanity shouldn’t be that difficult, or impeded by political orientation. Yet as the Rachel Dolezal fiasco proves, it can be. (Now that we know that she previously claimed to be discriminated against because she was white, and heard her tell Matt Lauer that a black man was her father because she thought of him as her father, will all the loyal left culture warriors who chose to die on that silly hill after I warned them that they would regret it learn anything? I doubt it.)
Now, in the interest of improving everyone’s non-partisan wacko-detection and rejection skills, I offer these two examples, one from the left, and one from the right. If either seems reasonable to you, you flunk.
First, from the right, we have…
The Pledge in Solidarity To Defend Marriage
The creation of anti-gay pastor Rick Scarborough, this embarrassment to history, common sense and Republicans is a petition that asserts—what, defiance? Civil war?—if the U.S. Supreme Court does as it is expected to do and declares that the U.S. government may not discriminate against gays by preventing them from marrying. The document argues in part,
To the members of the Supreme Court I say: There are tens of thousands of people of faith, in fact, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, whose faith and conscience will not allow them to respect any decision that fundamentally rejects their God, His Word and the natural order. If a majority of the court redefines marriage, thousands of Christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has jurisdiction over their lives.
In the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, we will view any attempt to enforce such a ruling as unjust, and our duty to the Constitution, more importantly, our duty to our God, will force us to disrespect it.
We will obey God rather than man.
The petition amusingly evokes Martin Luther King, who, if memory serves, was interested in extending the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all, and not, as the signatories would prefer, limiting them, It already has over 50,000 supporters including Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, who thereby disqualify themselves from serious consideration for president by announcing their intention of disregarding the Supreme Court, Tom DeLay, and the Duggars. They are all free to find a theocracy somewhere and live in it, and also to try to find any mention of God whatsoever in the eventual decision, or a single word that actually infringes on anyone’s free exercise of religion.
Quite apart from being hysterical in its self-glorifying assumption of mistaken virtue, the pledge shows how utterly warped the values of some neolithic conservatives are, essentially placing their ability to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of God (who is also probably embarrassed by this, if He is worthy of the name) above all other existential issues that are crucial to whether the United States thrives and survives, or whether it joins Ancient Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union in the ash heap of failed governmental experiments.
And now, the left steps up with this…
The University of California’s New Faculty Training Guide
The University of California’s new faculty training guide decrees that phrases including “America is the land of opportunity” and “America is a melting pot” are “micro-aggressions” that may disturb some minority students and thus should be avoided. After all, says the school, they could be interpreted as “denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history,” by suggesting that they should “assimilate to the dominant culture”—as, in fact, they should. This cultural suicide now being endorsed across the entire 200,000-student University of California system through“faculty leadership seminars” that supposedly aim to “enhance department and campus climate toward inclusive excellence.”
The guide also condemns statements that support the following sentiments:
- “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
- “Affirmative action is racist.”
- “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
- “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
- “I don’t believe in race.”
- “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”
Which of these examples of ideology gone haywire is worse? As far as craziness and irrationality goes, it is a dead heat: nuts is nuts. In ethics as well, it’s a flat-footed tie: who can choose whether it is worse to advocate denying equal rights to gays, or to attempt to constrict free thought and speech in order to destroy the linear constant of civilization we refer to as “culture”?
Nonetheless, there is a winner. The antigay petition is just a scream of ignorance in the dark, empty grandstanding by the politicians involved, and doomed to failure. Of course it is ugly and irresponsible, but it also the last gasp of a reactionary group that has already lost. The University of California, however, is a school, and is actively and successfully engaged in indoctrination. It’s insanity and restriction of rights is ascendant, and that makes it the far more dangerous phenomenon.
__________________________
Sources: Fox, The Frisky, Mediaite
Ethics Alarms 
As we know, there is no guarantee that any civilization will last forever. Things go wrong… as we can see now… almost every day… The examples you cite illustrate the ideological dangers the American civilization presently face. It is left up to the remaining non-deranged and non-ideologues to hopefully salvage the American culture. But I wonder: are there enough of them left?
Ancient Greece and Rome are probably not good examples to use there, since both had issues with homosexuality and moral rot. Not that the two were necessarily tied to each other, but their mention opens the door to that kind of criticism. I for one don’t believe it’s an existential threat, but I do believe it will simply become the next Roe v. Wade and a permanent sore spot. What COULD be an existential or at least transformational issue is the way it’s going to become a lever to advance limitation of “hate speech” and freedom of faith.
Some of the “microaggressions” they list in the training guide are obviously prejudiced, some of them are just foolish, ignorant, or immature depending on actual context, but some of them are actually positive things! Asking people to teach you about their native language, or asking to hear what others think… Are they saying that we should not force others to fit in, but at the same time we can’t learn more about them so we can better deal with them not fitting in? First we don’t ask them to learn the language of the land, and now we can’t ask them to teach us theirs? Sounds like liberals are trying to create a fractured world.
Also, I find the “Color Blindness” section highly ironic: not-racist is the new racist, apparently. Furthermore, as someone who deconstructs emotions, the denial of the significance of a person’s experiences is kind of important to me, at least when they start claiming that their own feelings mean that other people owe them something. Instead of making self-defeating rules to avoid offending people with “microaggressions” I would much prefer it if the university had the people who feel they are being “microaggressed” upon learn some of my skills and push back against what they don’t like, gently but firmly taking apart the foolish notions of those who actually overstep.
Or, instead of itemizing all of this, couldn’t we just give people lessons in general respect? Not that I’d trust this university to give such lessons, but that’s the tack I think we should be taking.
Finally, I object to the term “White.” I prefer “person of pallor.”
If you decide not to “see” a person’s race or color (or whatever), it’s now considered cruel, because you are taking away that person’s ability to draw attention to his or her minority status.
We’re all so prosperous and pampered in this modern age that very few of us ever get to experience genuine hardship and diversity. So we have taken to inventing our own hardships in order to appear less boring and privileged– in the form of micro-aggressions, male gazes, not being referred to by our preferred pronoun, etc. None of these things are actual hardships, and would be overlooked or just eye-rolled if perpetrated upon anyone going through serious emotional or physical pain. But they serve a selfish purpose for those who can claim to be “enduring” them.
What’s scarier: We also want to be proud of every possible thing that we could conceivably boast about, most of which we either had no part in bringing about, or which involved no effort at all on our part. Being born somewhere, growing up somewhere, being of a particular color or national origin, being gay, bi, trans, having whatever sexual fetish, being fat, being autistic, smoking weed, being a nerd, being a fan of some TV show. If you’ve already decided to be prideful about something, at least be prideful about some sort of accomplishment of yours. Those are just…random things that you are/like.
Mixing legitimate points with specious ones is sinister…it blurs the lines between logical and absurd.
They start off with perfectly reasonable admonishments against complementing the English of native born citizens to lure you in, but by the time you get to the bottom of the page, your brain is mush…
List of banned sentiments:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
–Well, obviously a UC educator would sneak that one in.
“Affirmative action is racist.”
–Well what is it then? Color-blind? That’s not allowed either!
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
–The University of California wants you to know that some of you out there are too stupid to ever succeed. So don’t try too hard.
“When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
–What if you are actually color blind and this is literally true?
“I don’t believe in race.”
-Anthropologists have already confirmed ‘race’ to be a construct and not a real thing. So…a university condemning science?
“Gender plays no part in who we hire.”
–Since they probably wouldn’t be okay with “bros before hos” either…then…what’s left besides “we favor women just because?”
Janet Napolitano, head of the University of California system. Former DOJ employee, governor of Arizona and former Obama cabinet member. You go girl. Ugh.
They’re both bad but I think the UC thing is much worse. Hyper Christians are generally regarded as nuts. Academics should be but aren’t yet. Ergo, the academics are the bigger threat and, as a result, worse.
The list of micro aggressions is breath taking. But they’re coming to Democratic Party platform near you soon. I bet our President firmly believes every single one of them is absolutely false and corrosive.
Jack, I think you are underestimating the power of that pledge and over-inflating the likely impacts of that guide. We’ll see.
Well, I hope I’m right about the pledge and wrong about the guide. Worst case, the stupid pledge has the power to eliminate any effective organized political opposition to those who want to gut the First Amendment and install an incompetent, authoritarian, wasteful crypto-socialist, isolationist, alternate-universe version of the US that will cripple the culture and constrict the nation’s growth, prosperity and value to the world.
“Of course, that’s a worst case scenario…”
Worst case, the stupid pledge has the power to eliminate any effective organized political opposition to those who want to gut the First Amendment and install an incompetent, authoritarian, wasteful crypto-socialist, isolationist, alternate-universe version of the US that will cripple the culture and constrict the nation’s growth, prosperity and value to the world.
“Of course, that’s a worst case scenario…”
Also:
Worst case, the stupid guide has the power to eliminate any effective organized political opposition to those who want to gut the First Amendment and install an incompetent, authoritarian, wasteful crypto-socialist, isolationist, alternate-universe version of the US that will cripple the culture and constrict the nation’s growth, prosperity and value to the world.
“Of course, that’s a worst case scenario…”
You do know where the quote comes from, right? Hint: It’s one of my favorite sequels.
You guys (Jack and Tex) – you’re just trying to confuse me, aren’t you?
I was going to let someone else jump in, but since nobody has…
“The destruction might be very localized, limited merely to our own galaxy.”
“Well, that’s a relief.”
Any excuse will do when you are planning macro aggression. Surely all these microagressions deserve to be put down aggressively.
If taken seriously, the UCLA “Tool” could certainly put a chill on any scholarship happening at UCLA. Apparently, one is at risk of committing microaggressions if he states his beliefs, questions the credibility of students’ stories, or even states known facts. This does not bode well for open communication and the pursuit of knowledge and truth. (He’s even committing a microaggression is he uses the pronoun “he” to refer to all people as I have done here…bad me.) Perhaps the most startling revelation is that aggression can be unintentional.
Sorry for not adding much to the discussion, but I had to express my outrage.
I thought with the way it was worded (“statements that support the following sentiments”) that those were some sample quotes by Jack to make the guide seem more extreme than it was, but those are REAL EXAMPLES?
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” is BAD?
How can it be bad? Surely it’s the whole IDEAL we’re supposed to be striving for?
The statement doesn’t reinforce the “Myth” of meritocracy, it’s expressing a desire that it be LESS of a myth and more of a reality!
Both the pledge and the UC guide are responses to historical, present, and projected or anticipated aggressions, and reflect aspirations to remedy those aggressions’ undesired impacts.
It could also be said that both the pledge and the guide are blueprints for perpetrating as well as for countering future aggressions.
The pledge is issue-specific, and is pertinent to a narrow set of suggested, proposed or encouraged actions. It exhorts its adherents – seemingly presumed to be a “minority group” – to a uniformity of particular thought and action. A reasonable person can conclude that the pledge is built in part on a foundation of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us,” to name one attitudinal, conceptual, or perceptual cornerstone. The pledge is an unabashed call for specific discrimination, in response to a specific change to a specific definition and projected resultant cultural practices. Not ironically, the pledge is a response to an apparent nascent consensus regarding other, projected specific discrimination that is viewed (or expected to be viewed) by pledge originators (and intended pledge adherents) as unjustly alienating. Adhering to the pledge is no easy or certain path to fulfilling its apparent intentions. However, the prospects for the extinction of the thought that the pledge promotes are also nil.
Compared to the pledge, the guide is markedly broader in its intended pertinence. While intended to guide a minority group initially, it presumes no boundary in applicability to others. One might even characterize the guide as akin to an epistle: Its intention is to address a large and diverse set of issues, and to prescribe corresponding responses to them – first, acted out by a specific, “exemplar” group, followed by identical responses “downstream,” until the responses become virtually universal practices. The guide prescribes so much action (or so much avoidance action), a reasonable person can conclude that striving to fulfill the intentions of the guide will inevitably result in conflicting, even contradictory (if not chaotic) and mutually defeating strivings. The guide is destined to do what much leftist policy has done: namely, invalidate itself, particularly by increasing the very thing (“microaggressions”) it purportedly is intended to diminish.
The pledge and the guide, while comparable to an extent, are absolutely unequal in their insidiousness and potential for harm.
The pledge is essentially inward-looking (toward enlisting a “faithful remnant” of those who would take it up). Practically, it secures a permanently besieged state for its adherents – the end of which state, its originators somehow fancy that the pledge would enable, however “microincrementally.” Even if it “worked” to any extent, it would be too little, too late.
In contrast, the guide clearly is outreach- and expansion-focused. As such, it is only “V1” of the “thoughtware” for facilitating ever more heavy-handed tyranny and tyrants – with ever more numerous tools and stooges to command. The guide is designed for a protracted culture war. The problem with that kind of warfare is that its end result is everyone’s being virtually destroyed.
The examples of failed societies you mention, Jack, ALL failed from the onset of decadence. A salient feature of decadence is the attempt to put unnatural passions on a plane above the clearly perceived natural order of things… or God’s will, if you wish. In our times, political demagogues are actually using this (on a false basis of “fairness” or “civil rights”) as a stepping stone to permanent political dominance. Thus, this is not only a social and religious issue, but an important political one, as it may well decide whether our nation survives as a free nation or has any right to.