Permalink Reply by jay H 23 hours ago
Years ago, I considered myself a liberal. Over the years, however, I pretty much hit the wall on my 'open mindedness.' Like the old adage, 'don't be so open minded your brains fall out', it got to the point that complete idiocy was being sold as 'modern thinking'. That's when I jumped ship.
One problem is whatever definition of liberal you are using. The classic liberal of the late 19th century is more like the libertarian of today: individual freedom and personal responsibility with minimum government intervention. Over the years the term has taken on (particularly in the US) the 'progressive' mantra, where the state cares and guides (and effectively controls) the individual. The modern liberal concept is moving farther away from actual freedom and responsibility and becoming more the statist world envisioned by Bismark.
Back in the 60s when I was young, the cry was for free speech, and freedom. Yet now it's 'liberal' colleges that are imposing speech codes, 'safe zones', re-education of dissenters. Contrary positions are quickly defined as 'hate speech' or speech that causes distress for certain classes. Just look at the Tim Hunt fiasco: there are things that 'cannot be said' without mobs demanding your head. (Now the new buzz term 'microagression' seeks to even further shut down any expression that is not currently correct (google it if you haven't encountered this madness)
It's the lefties who 'selflessly' declare that they would 'gladly' pay more taxes for government service (as if we need that) but there generosity is with other people's money (including, unfortunately their and everyone else's descendant's money).. they want us all to pay. I am reminded of the definition of American liberalism as 'ideas so good that participation is mandatory'.
It's the liberals who typically play the race card, and if it doesn't fit, redefine racism, or sexism, or classism to bring it to the discussion. It's the liberals who give us all a lecture on 'correct pronouns' when dealing with people like Jenner. Funny that when a surgically modified man with delusions dresses up as a sexual caricature of woman, even a lot of feminists are anxious to go along with this charade. [Make no mistake, he is certainly free to follow whatever fantasy he wants, just don't expect everyone to buy in]. Kind of odd, though when Rachel Dolzal decided to change races, the crowd pretty much lynched her. How is one different from another.
[A few years ago, at a local humanist group meeting, two elderly women argued loudly and almost came to physical blows. One had been a lifelong communist sympathizer hunted by the FBI in the US, the other had fled the communist government of Hungary. That was an evening]
Jay H. claims to be a former liberal. He disagrees with colleges that have safe zones and impose speech codes and attempt to educate prejudiced dissenters. He doesn't like it when liberals pay the race card and he claims that Bruce Jenner is a "surgically-modified man with 'delusions' and dresses in the 'sexual caricature' of a woman, that a lot of feminists are anxious to go along with this 'charade' and that Jenner can follow whatever 'fantasy' he wants, but that he shouldn't everyone to buy in. He compares it to when Rachel Dolzal wanted to "change races" and how the crowd "pretty much lynched her". He asks how is one different from another? Jay H. is an ex-Jehovah's Witness. I suppose he really do too much questioning in regards to the conservative view of morality that he was raised with, which is common amongst Jehovah's Witnesses. You can take the boy out of the Kingdom Hall, but you cannot take the Kingdom Hall out of the boy, I guess you could say. Gender identity and racial identity are two different things, Jay H. Gender identity is also psychological, it does not just involve with physical appearance of the person's perceived gender identity. Are you sure that you're that your not deluded, instead of Bruce Jenner over your own identity? How do you know that Jenner is living in a "fantasy" or that is attempts to live life as a woman is nothing more than a "charade".
I doubt that Jenner is living a charade or in a "fantasy", I think he identifies with womanhood. Do you know Bruce's mindset, Jay H.? Do you know what issues prompted Rachel Dolzal to possibly bleach her skin? You don't like it when liberals suggest using correct pronouns when dealing with people like Jenner. Racial identity deals with the a person's skin color, their outward appearance. Not all people of color believe or think the same things. We do not all behave in the same way. Not all women act the same either. I think feminists who are prejudiced towards transgendered persons are just helping to increase sexist and misogynistic attitudes, as well as reinforce them, which doesn't much help women who want to achieve equality and appreciation for who they are.
Could Rachel Dolzal have wanted to look different in skin tone, because she was filled with self-hatred due to society's bigoted attitude towards racial minorities? I suspect that Jay H. doesn't understand much about racial or transgendered issues, which shows you how ignorant he may be. I once had some conversations with him on "AtheistNexus.org", back when I was a member of the forum. He does seem to be quite ignorant in some ways. Not to stereotype, but if he wants to play the game of looking for a "justifiable" reason to be prejudiced that may not be questioned, then why doesn't Jay H. go back to the Jehovah's Witnesses. JW's use passages from the Bible to support their prejudices and biased attitudes towards LGBT people, ex-JW's and even towards religious non-JW's, whether they are Christians or non-Christians. It applies to non-JW's who are spiritual-but-not-religious or even nonreligious entirely.
I'm a liberal person, but I have limits on as to how liberal I am going to be. People have the right to free speech. People can call me a "nigger" (I am black) or a "kyke-sympathizer" (due to my interest in secular Jewish culture) to my face, but don't expect your views of racial superiority to go unchallenged. I wonder how Jay H. would like it if it were permissible for a religious person to publicly and constantly accuse all atheists of being "immoral hedonists who only want the privilege to sin" and for people on campus to be able to refuse to let atheistic members of the college participate in any campus activities? Jay H. can say what he likes about Bruce Jenner, Rachel Dolzal, transgender people and racial minorities, but provide medical and scientific evidence for your claims, and expect to be challenged if someone sees a flaw in your arguments, Jay.