There are good reasons why I don't use words like "progressive" and "pro-choice". I even bristle when I hear other people use them, particularly when they should know better.
Words have power. They aren't always letters strung together without meaning. To simply use words without thinking is to waste the gift and ability of language. That is why it is important to speak plainly or -if we must be the sophisticates- use words that carry not only the import of our meaning but the truth of it, as well.
When we use words like "progressive" in the Western contemporary sense, we mean someone whose political or social views are considered forward-moving but in actuality are better termed as liberal. Things like anti-racism and feminism are considered embodiments of this political movement (why such things are seen as akin only to one and not the other will be discussed later).
So, then, how are these things "progressive"?
(Sidebar: trust me- those are the least offensive tweets.)
Follow the links for the whole story on both. These tweets are drenched in the kind of regressive hatred so-called progressives claim to eschew and not indulge in. Yet, there they are. The death threats and the bigotry (Stir-fry noodle? Aryan? Really? So unimaginative, but then again, if you're a bigot, you already are). In the twenty-first century, why would anyone be allowed to savage women and racial minorities that way? Aren't such things "regressive", morally and socially? I wonder if, at any point, this ever dawns on these people. It's all crazy- Amanda Marcotte crazy (here's an extra bit of crazy).
It isn't just arrogant to suggest or state outright that virtues of gender and racial equality exist solely in one political group (in this case the group that would call itself "progressive") but an outright lie. What makes this lie more pernicious is that the sort of behaviour that would tolerate vitriolic race and woman hatred is justified. If someone gets angry, well, just resort to ugliness. No one who calls himself a good parent or teacher would tolerate that from a wayward child but in adults still obsessed with no personal responsibility and lots of self-entitlement, the sky's the limit. Will Stephen Hanks ever apologise for his rancid abuse of a young woman? Will Ness Zolanski ever have an awakening and realise that Asian hatred belongs in the past? Let's wait and see.
Another reason why one should not capitulate to the ease of certain words or terms is because of control. For so-called progressives, there is a need to physically and culturally control aspects of others' lives, including debates (if this seems like a generalisation, just exercise your freedom of speech and see what happens). By choosing the words and framing the arguments, "progressives" (READ: liberals) claim the issue at hand is theirs. No. The debate is open. We believe either people have opinions and can express them freely or we don't. By controlling the words and distorting them in their favour, liberals seek the home-field advantage. By saying they are "progressive" or forward-thinking, "compassionate", ect., liberals appear to the outsider as one who has taken the higher ground in the argument. Spewing out racist epithets is hardly the higher ground but the sludge from the very bottom of the sewer (see above).
One debate where liberals would rather certain parties never speak is abortion. I feel that abortion is such a political monolith for those who support it (heretofore called pro-abortion or pro-abortionists) that the perimeters of the debate must be so restricted that only a handful can comment on it. Why pro-abortionists can be called such is articulated here:
Indeed.
Who has consistently battled defunding abortions (which, apparently, are not men's business), parental consent laws, ultrasound viewings and pro-life demonstrations? I don't think it was the pro-life side, which has always maintained what biology and common decency have laid out for us- that human gametes, once joined, are a human being in growth and, as such, must be cared for and protected. Where is the "choice" in anything if a pregnant woman has no access to full medical facts, or for compulsory funding of abortion when- by their own admission- pro-abortionists insist such a thing is elective (choice, after all)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that pro-abortion people support abortion and are, therefore, pro-abortion?
Another reason why "progressives" and "pro-choicers" should not be called such is for the pure fact that calling them what they truly are- liberals and pro-abortionists- fries them. It angers them. I've seen people go red over stuff like this. But why should I coax their ego? Why should people who are blatantly racist and stand for the state-funded elimination of offspring be called something softer so as not to appear unappealing or even monstrous? You are what you are if you attack young women, hate Asians and defend a form of genocide.
Own your stance. If there is nothing wrong with it, you would have stood by your principles.
Even if your principles are antediluvian and just plain wrong.
Words have power. They aren't always letters strung together without meaning. To simply use words without thinking is to waste the gift and ability of language. That is why it is important to speak plainly or -if we must be the sophisticates- use words that carry not only the import of our meaning but the truth of it, as well.
When we use words like "progressive" in the Western contemporary sense, we mean someone whose political or social views are considered forward-moving but in actuality are better termed as liberal. Things like anti-racism and feminism are considered embodiments of this political movement (why such things are seen as akin only to one and not the other will be discussed later).
So, then, how are these things "progressive"?
(Sidebar: trust me- those are the least offensive tweets.)
Follow the links for the whole story on both. These tweets are drenched in the kind of regressive hatred so-called progressives claim to eschew and not indulge in. Yet, there they are. The death threats and the bigotry (Stir-fry noodle? Aryan? Really? So unimaginative, but then again, if you're a bigot, you already are). In the twenty-first century, why would anyone be allowed to savage women and racial minorities that way? Aren't such things "regressive", morally and socially? I wonder if, at any point, this ever dawns on these people. It's all crazy- Amanda Marcotte crazy (here's an extra bit of crazy).
It isn't just arrogant to suggest or state outright that virtues of gender and racial equality exist solely in one political group (in this case the group that would call itself "progressive") but an outright lie. What makes this lie more pernicious is that the sort of behaviour that would tolerate vitriolic race and woman hatred is justified. If someone gets angry, well, just resort to ugliness. No one who calls himself a good parent or teacher would tolerate that from a wayward child but in adults still obsessed with no personal responsibility and lots of self-entitlement, the sky's the limit. Will Stephen Hanks ever apologise for his rancid abuse of a young woman? Will Ness Zolanski ever have an awakening and realise that Asian hatred belongs in the past? Let's wait and see.
Another reason why one should not capitulate to the ease of certain words or terms is because of control. For so-called progressives, there is a need to physically and culturally control aspects of others' lives, including debates (if this seems like a generalisation, just exercise your freedom of speech and see what happens). By choosing the words and framing the arguments, "progressives" (READ: liberals) claim the issue at hand is theirs. No. The debate is open. We believe either people have opinions and can express them freely or we don't. By controlling the words and distorting them in their favour, liberals seek the home-field advantage. By saying they are "progressive" or forward-thinking, "compassionate", ect., liberals appear to the outsider as one who has taken the higher ground in the argument. Spewing out racist epithets is hardly the higher ground but the sludge from the very bottom of the sewer (see above).
One debate where liberals would rather certain parties never speak is abortion. I feel that abortion is such a political monolith for those who support it (heretofore called pro-abortion or pro-abortionists) that the perimeters of the debate must be so restricted that only a handful can comment on it. Why pro-abortionists can be called such is articulated here:
Now, would you oppose a law requiring that a pregnant woman see ultrasound images of her fetus before she gets an abortion? Or let's make the law weaker: it merely requires that she be given the option of seeing those images. If you oppose such laws, then how are you pro-choice rather than pro-abortion? Again, is it because you think that many women would be swayed from having an abortion? But then either you are imposing your views on them (because you have decided in advance what sorts of considerations they should take to be important), or you are pro-abortion rather than pro-choice (because you think that the most important thing is that the women get abortions, not that they choose to get them on the proper ground).
And why isn't your position manipulative and deceitful? In general it is deceitful to withhold information from someone, if you know that, if you released it, the other person would act very differently. For example, if I am a physician and I know that a certain operation has some chance of causing paralysis, and I know that my patient may very well not agree to have the operation, if he knows this, and I don't tell him, then I have deceived and manipulated him. And this seems to be how pro-choice people act, who are opposed to informed consent.
Indeed.
Who has consistently battled defunding abortions (which, apparently, are not men's business), parental consent laws, ultrasound viewings and pro-life demonstrations? I don't think it was the pro-life side, which has always maintained what biology and common decency have laid out for us- that human gametes, once joined, are a human being in growth and, as such, must be cared for and protected. Where is the "choice" in anything if a pregnant woman has no access to full medical facts, or for compulsory funding of abortion when- by their own admission- pro-abortionists insist such a thing is elective (choice, after all)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that pro-abortion people support abortion and are, therefore, pro-abortion?
Another reason why "progressives" and "pro-choicers" should not be called such is for the pure fact that calling them what they truly are- liberals and pro-abortionists- fries them. It angers them. I've seen people go red over stuff like this. But why should I coax their ego? Why should people who are blatantly racist and stand for the state-funded elimination of offspring be called something softer so as not to appear unappealing or even monstrous? You are what you are if you attack young women, hate Asians and defend a form of genocide.
Own your stance. If there is nothing wrong with it, you would have stood by your principles.
Even if your principles are antediluvian and just plain wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment