Tag Archives: homophobia

Hypocrisy

masked-girl

Let me sketch a picture for you.

Women (and men) scream that it is a woman’s right to abort her baby – her body, her choice.

These same people often weep at the near extinction of many species of animals – whether by natural or unnatural causes – and weep about the destruction of forest life.

(I guess trees are more alive than an embryo?)

I hear varied arguments from pro-choice advocates. For a long time, the argument for it was that a fetus isn’t a baby until… some unspecified point. Abortions, advocates argued, are operations which simply remove “embryonic tissue.” Lately, though, the brunt of the arguments I hear are this: “my body, my choice” – which suggests that these women do recognize that they are killing living beings, but are loath to admit it.

But the law states that one who murders a pregnant woman is responsible for a double homicide. And the world wails when a pregnant woman in Gaza is killed in an IDF airstrike. Why specify that she is pregnant if it doesn’t mean anything? According to pro-choicers, she is just a woman with a growth in her body, perhaps equivalent to a tumor.

I would like to point out another deranged mentality.

People call for justice when Palestinians are injured and die. And yet they remain silent when innocent Israeli Jews are injured and die – or worse, justify it.

They hate imperialism of any variety, and yet fail to acknowledge that nearly every country on this planet has been conquered by foreign entities who are still present in those lands to this day.

(If you truly feel as though you are intruders on Native American soil, then leave.)

They demand strict gun controls, when most shootings happen in “gun free” zones.

(And a terror attack in San Bernardino becomes a narrative on gun control rather than terrorism, while the Planned Parenthood shooting is indicative of the radicalism of the right.)

They condemn racism but hate those who are white and “privileged.”

(Most politicians, both on the left and the right are “privileged” and yet nobody’s complaining about the vast wealth of these corrupt politicans.)

They claim to be open-minded, but scorn anyone who disagrees with them.

(They are accepting of everyone except those with different viewpoints.)

They eschew Islamophobia, homophobia, and most of the bad “isms,” but embrace anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.

(They embrace Islam, which has historically and consistently been oppressive to women and homosexuals, while hating Christianity, which has demonstrated far less intolerance and has generally conformed to modern ideals.)

They demand peace and spew hatred.

This is hypocrisy.

We are all guilty of it at times – it is only human.

But ask yourself…

Do you see your own hypocrisy?

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.” ~André Gide

Advertisements

BIGOT

zAwbnuC

One of my favorite books is 1984 by George Orwell. The story of 1984 is a paradigm of totalitarianism at its worst, based on Orwell’s observations of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Personally, I also see it as a reflection of true human nature under years of political and social duress, as well as an ominous prediction for the future – now present. There is a scene from 1984 in particular which I would like to reference as a guide for the rest of my post, in a memorable section from the “Two Minutes of Hate” program:

“The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp” (Orwell 18-19).

This is strongly reminiscent of our culture today, one that claims to hate intolerance and bigotry but is simultaneously guilty of it themselves. How many comments from otherwise seemingly intelligent people scream, “BIGOT! RACIST! HOMOPHOBE!”? Instead of engaging in intelligent and genuinely tolerant discourse with the victims of their fervent abuse, they trade carefully considered discussions for brief attacks on the person’s humanity. They accuse the one disagreeing with them to be “privileged bigoted racists” or some variation of that sort. And yet, by professing hatred for those who hold different opinions on a subject, they themselves are inherently guilty of the bigotry they apparently despise. After all, there is an ironic twist to the throwing of labels upon anyone who does not agree with you – you are guilty of those very behaviors of which you accuse someone. Isn’t the one who cries “intolerance” guilty of not tolerating those who disagree with him? Isn’t the one who screams “bigot” the one who is actually expressing his own bigotry?

To bolster this point, I would like to point out the definition(s) of a bigot:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

and

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Why have even the well-informed resorted to such language? Why has this kind of dialect become acceptable, even on national television? For many reasons. One of which, I think, is indicated very clearly in 1984. It’s popular. It gains support from like-minded peers. It removes the possibility of a real argument because when one is deliberately derogatory, he is expressing a boorish, childish sentiment to which one can only respond with a sigh and a meek attempt at actual conversation, which normally fails in the face of virulent, thoughtless diatribe. There is no process of reasoning in this immature, illogical mentality. It is the manifestation of our animalistic side, the one who wants to shout and call names and has no desire to listen to the mind’s reason. This is a very tempting side to revert to, but ultimately it is fruitless in the face of the rational mind.

There are very few cases in which I might say labelling someone is justified (though in general, I don’t believe that labelling people is a wise choice). In a case of extremes, such as a member of the KKK, I would agree that there is indeed bigotry present in the KKK member. However, this is an extreme case, and one that does not occur very often. Sadly, even with respect to the most well-thought out, descriptive articles on a certain subject – for instance, about the dangers of allowing Syrian refugees into countries – the exclamations of “bigot” and “Islamophobia” grow deafening.

I am all in favor of open and intellectually honest discussion about a subject, but the intellectual dishonesty and moral dementia of the modern thought process or lack thereof is astoundingly high. Here are a few examples of this insanity:

 

“When you’re labeled a racist, bigot, and Islamophobe for simply attempting to ensure the safety of the people in your state, rational debate is already lost and the terrorists have already won.” –Dumisani Washington