Equality Uber Alles

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by William Joyce, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    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.
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I gotta admit there's a lot of truth there--see how it's sort middle of the road William?
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    What...? You can read!?!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Wow, Bully. That was devastating.
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    The idea that everyone is equal is rooted in the tragically flawed and hopelessly naive idea that, life is fair. It is not. If anything, it is indifferent. It is up to each of us to determine what we will get out of life, and then work towards that goal. Or one can simply sit and whine about how unfair life is. To this latter group I can but say, "Stop sniveling, , suck it up , deal with it." If you are unwilling to do this, don't expect those of us who make our own way in the world to pick you up, wipe your snotty noses, pat you on the butt and give you a lollipop.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Well, hell - that was one of the more lucid and reasonable posts I've read in a while!
     
  7. Platypus
    Offline

    Platypus Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    If the equality we're talking about is of opportunity and not outcome, I'd say rather the opposite is true. The idea that we need do nothing to ensure equality - and therefore that those who are most deserving reap the greatest rewards - is rooted in the tragically flawed and hopelessly naive idea that such equality exists and maintains itself naturally.
    ...and I reply that those who are rich having never demonstrated one whit of ability or capacity for hard work should not expect those of us who make our own way in the world to wipe their snotty noses or pay for their lollipops.
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    Re equality: Who are these "most deserving", for whom we must "ensure equality"? And, in that context, please define "equality". And, while you're at it, please define "ensure". And, just who constitutes this "we"?

    As to "the rich": If someone manages to build a better mousetrap, WTF business is it of mine whether or not he busted a sweat doing it? The problem with the politics of envy is that it celebrates the penalizing of others, even when that translates into no gain for oneself. Here's a quick refresher: Jealousy and spite are CHARACTER FLAWS.
     
  9. Platypus
    Offline

    Platypus Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Those whom a free and open market would reward - for hard work, innovation, etc.
    Please stop with the ridiculous attempts to waste my time and deplete my energy providing definitions that do not actually appear to be either germane or in dispute. I've seen that tactic used too many times before in my 20+ years of online conversations.
    As an architect at a high-tech startup, of course I agree that innovation deserves reward as well as hard work. ;) I never claimed otherwise, or said anything to imply it, so your "counterargument" is easily recognized as a strawman.
    Envy of whom? Myself? I am the rich, by virtue of my own intelligence and hard work after being born poor. I'm just not in denial about how that happened, or the prospects for it happening to others who possess just as much entrepreneurial merit as I do. I want the "next me" to have a fair shot at getting what they deserve too, instead of seeing their own just reward handed to someone who no true capitalist would say deserves it. In that regard I consider both welfare-state proponents and plutocrats guilty.
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    You've cetainly eaten up a lot of bandwidth, saying nothing. In the first place, you think me far too scheming and designing, Platypus. I've just posed a few simple questions - none of which, of course, you've answered. Again, who are these "deserving", for whom we must "ensure" "equality"? You say "those whom a free and open market would reward". That's no kind of answer. What are you implying here? Do we live in less than a free and open market? Are the "undeserving" making their fortunes on the backs of the "deserving"? Your cryptic generalities are basically saying nothing except that life ain't fair - and I thought we'd already established that.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

equality uber alles