William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
Most brilliant column I've read in a LOOOOOOONG time.
EQUALITY RUN AMOK
September 21, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In a recent column [August 21, 2004] I made an
observation about the vocal "gay community" that may bear
amplification.
On the one hand, these advocates tell us -- us
presumptive "straights" -- that people's "sexual
orientation" should be of no concern to us.
Then they turn around and tell us that their
"orientation" is the most important thing in the world to
them -- the very source of their "identity" and a matter
of "pride."
So it should matter to us not at all, though it
means everything to them. But isn't what a man considers
an all-important fact about himself something other
people should take into account when dealing with him?
Serious Christians consider their religion the most
important thing in their lives, the defining fact of
their existence. They don't say non-Christians should
regard this as a trivial fact about them. That would be
nonsense.
Furthermore, the "gays" (as distinct from quiet
homosexuals) make demands on the rest of us that require
us to take notice of them -- such as their current clamor
for redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, a
change whose ramifications, for all of us, would be vast
and unpredictable. We are still supposed to regard their
"orientation" as insignificant to us?
Such minorities -- "gays" being only one example --
want it both ways. They complain about the way they're
perceived, as if they'd prefer to be invisible; then they
try to create new, highly visible, and of course totally
favorable perceptions of themselves. They want to
supplant "negative stereotypes" with what they call
"positive images," which are usually far more unrealistic
than the old stereotypes.
The "color-blind" liberalism of the last generation
insisted that ethnic differences shouldn't matter. The
"civil rights" era taught us, with endless and eloquent
propaganda, that "race" was an utterly unscientific
concept, even though it was transpiring that racial
distinctions weren't just social conventions; some
diseases struck blacks but not whites, Jews but not
non-Jews. All the neat little lessons about "skin color"
were ignoring deep mysteries of human nature.
Other complications arose too, making these subjects
hopelessly confusing to anyone who had believed the
propaganda. Dissent -- mere critical analysis of minority
claims -- was presumed to spring from bigotry, a
presumption that made public discussion almost futile.
"Affirmative action" and Zionism made you wonder what the
slogans of "democracy" and "equality" really meant. Were
some groups exempt from the principle of equal rights and
equal treatment under the law? What about the idea that
"double standards" were bad?
Then there was sex -- or rather, as it was now often
called, "gender." The two sexes had always been regarded
as pretty obviously different -- seriously different. But
suddenly they weren't. The feminism of the last
generation all but denied "la difference." At least when
"la difference" was to the disadvantage of women; when
equality worked against women, it was another story.
Police, the military, and other institutions lowered
their standards so men wouldn't monopolize the jobs.
Far from simplifying everything, as "progressive"
rhetoric had promised, equality created a chaos of new
rules, laws, and anomalous exceptions, as when
"transsexuals" got into the act. (Only a liberal can
believe that a man becomes a woman by having himself
surgically mutilated -- as if sex is defined by genitalia
alone.)
It was often apparent that what "minorities" were
after was not equality, but privileged treatment. Or, in
a word, power.
The blandly abstract language of equality usually
conceals specific interests. "Civil rights," it's now
clear to everyone, means certain black interests; nobody
takes it to mean anything else. When whites hear about a
new "civil-rights measure," they don't imagine it means
their rights are going to be protected; on the contrary,
they know instantly that it means further violations of
their privacy, freedom of association, property rights,
access to jobs, and so forth.
"Sexual orientation" likewise means certain
homosexual interests; it doesn't cover, say, guys with a
thing for blondes, even if this happens to be a source of
"identity" and "pride" for them; the government doesn't
yet cater to the "blonde-loving community."
The seemingly universal principle nearly always
turns out to mean what's good for very specific groups.
The seemingly simple principle can wind up bringing havoc
to law and clear thought. One superfluous principle,
however noble or innocuous it sounds, can eventually
undermine an entire way of life.
EQUALITY RUN AMOK
September 21, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In a recent column [August 21, 2004] I made an
observation about the vocal "gay community" that may bear
amplification.
On the one hand, these advocates tell us -- us
presumptive "straights" -- that people's "sexual
orientation" should be of no concern to us.
Then they turn around and tell us that their
"orientation" is the most important thing in the world to
them -- the very source of their "identity" and a matter
of "pride."
So it should matter to us not at all, though it
means everything to them. But isn't what a man considers
an all-important fact about himself something other
people should take into account when dealing with him?
Serious Christians consider their religion the most
important thing in their lives, the defining fact of
their existence. They don't say non-Christians should
regard this as a trivial fact about them. That would be
nonsense.
Furthermore, the "gays" (as distinct from quiet
homosexuals) make demands on the rest of us that require
us to take notice of them -- such as their current clamor
for redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, a
change whose ramifications, for all of us, would be vast
and unpredictable. We are still supposed to regard their
"orientation" as insignificant to us?
Such minorities -- "gays" being only one example --
want it both ways. They complain about the way they're
perceived, as if they'd prefer to be invisible; then they
try to create new, highly visible, and of course totally
favorable perceptions of themselves. They want to
supplant "negative stereotypes" with what they call
"positive images," which are usually far more unrealistic
than the old stereotypes.
The "color-blind" liberalism of the last generation
insisted that ethnic differences shouldn't matter. The
"civil rights" era taught us, with endless and eloquent
propaganda, that "race" was an utterly unscientific
concept, even though it was transpiring that racial
distinctions weren't just social conventions; some
diseases struck blacks but not whites, Jews but not
non-Jews. All the neat little lessons about "skin color"
were ignoring deep mysteries of human nature.
Other complications arose too, making these subjects
hopelessly confusing to anyone who had believed the
propaganda. Dissent -- mere critical analysis of minority
claims -- was presumed to spring from bigotry, a
presumption that made public discussion almost futile.
"Affirmative action" and Zionism made you wonder what the
slogans of "democracy" and "equality" really meant. Were
some groups exempt from the principle of equal rights and
equal treatment under the law? What about the idea that
"double standards" were bad?
Then there was sex -- or rather, as it was now often
called, "gender." The two sexes had always been regarded
as pretty obviously different -- seriously different. But
suddenly they weren't. The feminism of the last
generation all but denied "la difference." At least when
"la difference" was to the disadvantage of women; when
equality worked against women, it was another story.
Police, the military, and other institutions lowered
their standards so men wouldn't monopolize the jobs.
Far from simplifying everything, as "progressive"
rhetoric had promised, equality created a chaos of new
rules, laws, and anomalous exceptions, as when
"transsexuals" got into the act. (Only a liberal can
believe that a man becomes a woman by having himself
surgically mutilated -- as if sex is defined by genitalia
alone.)
It was often apparent that what "minorities" were
after was not equality, but privileged treatment. Or, in
a word, power.
The blandly abstract language of equality usually
conceals specific interests. "Civil rights," it's now
clear to everyone, means certain black interests; nobody
takes it to mean anything else. When whites hear about a
new "civil-rights measure," they don't imagine it means
their rights are going to be protected; on the contrary,
they know instantly that it means further violations of
their privacy, freedom of association, property rights,
access to jobs, and so forth.
"Sexual orientation" likewise means certain
homosexual interests; it doesn't cover, say, guys with a
thing for blondes, even if this happens to be a source of
"identity" and "pride" for them; the government doesn't
yet cater to the "blonde-loving community."
The seemingly universal principle nearly always
turns out to mean what's good for very specific groups.
The seemingly simple principle can wind up bringing havoc
to law and clear thought. One superfluous principle,
however noble or innocuous it sounds, can eventually
undermine an entire way of life.
I never claimed otherwise, or said anything to imply it, so your "counterargument" is easily recognized as a strawman.
