When It’s Time to “Pass The Mic”…

For those familiar with the social climate in this country, many have probably heard the Left’s phrase to “pass the mic”. In essence, it means to give a voice to others, namely minority groups and the “marginalized” and listen to their perspective and not presume to speak for them. Nor to dismiss and invalidate what their perceptions of what’s going on. On the most basic level, it seems like common sense courtesy as we all deserve the right to be heard and have our viewpoint taken into serious consideration too. Also, it brings up the argument that those who are impacted by issues have the most right and the most valid experience with the issues at hand. Indeed, in one sense it seems to make perfect sense, but sadly our world isn’t such a simplistic place, and there are in fact flaws to this ideology also.

See, while it is a noble idea, some of it is oversimplified, namely that it strongly implies that the only valid opinion comes from those who are in the “in group”, whatever it may be. Of course, being an insider into an issue is valuable and can give perspectives outsiders wouldn’t think of immediately or take for granted. However, outsider input is equally as valid and important, as the disadvantage of being an insider is losing the impartial perspective, free from the emotional baggage and bias of an outsider looking in. It is not dismissive to give the outsider a perspective into what you believe affects you, it just adds more objectivity into often emotionally volatile circumstances. Think back to a time you felt really strongly that there was a situation where something grossly unfair or unjust happened. It could be as simple as one department at work “always” gets more coffee, or you seem to be getting ticketed for some minor traffic incident while the guy going 100 mph gets a free pass for some examples. Now imagine this has been going on for a while and you have had time to build up a temper over it!

Answer honestly: Do you truly feel that you can be fully objective in analyzing the situation? Why do you think they have judges and juries to decide outcomes in civil and criminal cases? Why not just let the defendant and plaintiff hash it out? 😉 I think we all know the answer to that one! Thus the value of outsider input. No one thinks that you’re dismissing the perspective of either side when you bring in a jury to decide the verdict impartially.

Yes, I for one example, may be in the “majority” group, but my perspective is valid too. Which brings up perhaps an even more important point: True equality is not taking one’s voice to give to another, but ensuring everyone has an equally important voice. It’s not about what is taken away from the “majority”, but rather what is given to the “minority” that the majority already has. In this case being heard. Us having our voice isn’t mutually exclusive with you having yours. Why can’t both sides be heard? Just because there’s been a negative history in which you didn’t have the voice you deserved in society, and we did, that doesn’t mean that taking it away and turning the tables into reverse discrimination solves the problem. It only puts the shoe on the other foot, when we should just get rid of that ill-fitting shoe altogether and buy a new pair!

Aside from that, the past is past, we’re talking about the present. We can’t change or undo the wrongs from yesterday, or a year ago or a century ago, but we can change what happens today and in our future. Don’t bring up the past then stagnate there in bitterness and resentment instead of moving forward. It may not be what people want to hear, but the majority has the same right to be heard and have an opinion now just as much as back then. Claiming a monopoly on the “correct” opinion, or interpretation of the facts is not true equality! Nor is trying to “even the score” by taking our voice away when you can have yours along side us. Believe it or not, countless conservatives will listen to you. The reason why many don’t seem to be is that no one likes to feel alienated and demonized and that they personally are the sole problem. We want a dialogue, not a monologue to put it succinctly.

However I will admit that there is some merit in the idea of giving an important voice to those who have experienced things firsthand. Which brings me to my final point on the subject: Why does this “pass the mic” policy seem to apply to thee but not to me so to speak? Like many things the Left makes into a double standard and selective outrage, you ask for your side to be heard, yet are all too quick to silence us when it’s our turn to speak. We hand you the mic, yet you won’t “pass it back” once you’ve had your turn to talk. For some relevant examples:

The white male who feels he is looked at as the “enemy” to progress and is told he can’t take credit, or deserves his achievements due to his skin color.

The conservative of color whose perspective is “No, actually, I’m privileged to have the bountiful opportunities this country brings me.”

The Hispanic immigrants who want others like themselves to come “fair and square” like they did.

The family of a 9/11 victim who read comments on social media about how their loved ones “deserved” 9/11 for the acts of our government overseas in which they had no control over. (Yes, I have the tweets to prove some do feel we deserved 9/11!)

The woman who says “I feel unsafe with biological men in my restrooms and locker rooms.” or disagrees with the idea she has to be like a man to be worth something as an autonomous human being.

The man who knows that on nothing more than a mere whim, can have his life utterly destroyed in one sentence.

The underprivileged youth who achieved the so called “mythological” American Dream.

The soldier who feels dismissed and unappreciated when all you see is what’s wrong with the country he fought to uphold, but never what’s right.

The police officer who had to make that split second call and pulled the trigger.

The parents who keep asking why there wasn’t a “good guy with a gun” when the unthinkable happened at their child’s school.

All the conservatives who feel like they must live a double life in a democracy of free speech.

And many others!

Look, we don’t mind taking turns and passing you the mic when you want it. We just want it passed back when you’re finished. 🙂

Image result for free speech cartoon some exclusions apply


  1. What’s fascinating (and I’ve just had another experience with this, just today) is how incredibly shocked and upset they get when you dare “take the mic” yourself! The very idea that someone who holds a different opinion daring to speak. LOL Oh, the ad hom attacks come in hard and heavy!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As usual, you raise some interesting points. As you state, the term “pass the mic” implies that it is a zero sum system in which letting one person or side speak requires the other side to keep quiet. Internet blogs, twitter etc enable everyone to speak and it’s up to each of us to decide to whom we will listen. That tells me that saying “pass the mic” is more about telling the opposition to keep quiet rather than giving voice to those who haven’t been heard. Whether or not all sides can speak or just one side is the difference between a discussion and a harangue. It’s helpful to hear the opposition and to understand their reasoning. It might or might not change my mind on an issue but it does tell me what the other side of the issue is. These days, at least, the attempt to shut up the opposition comes mostly from the left. The right seems content to let the left speak so that everyone can hear how silly they are. The attempt by the PC SJWs to “qualify” who might voice an opinion based on whether or not it’s from one of their favored groups is just another ad hominem argument that shows the weakness of their position. The late Margaret Thatcher, former PM of Britain, used to say that she liked it when her opponents resorted to personal attacks on her because it showed that they didn’t have any substantive arguments. In that sense, it can be reassuring when someone tries to shut you up.

    As regards you point about people not being able to analyze their own positions objectively, I believe one of our “dead, white, male” founding fathers said it best:

    “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Why do you think they have judges and juries to decide outcomes in civil and criminal cases? ” This right here is gold! While we all have different perspectives based on our unique backgrounds, experience and upbringing, we are at the same time all biased because of this. So yes a fair and impartial third party is essential for balanced reasoning.

    And this whole notion of “outsider” opinions not being relevant is just so un American because it ignores the individual. It’s a card straight from the identity politics play deck where it’s implied all black people feel the same way about specific issues or white females surely think this way, while hispanic males do not. Pure rubbish and just another way to divide the country.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. giving an important voice to those who have experienced things firsthand.” In most areas of life we get bogged down listening to the experts, ie; politics, religious commentary, etc. There are still some first hand accounts that are widely ignored and replaced by opinions. This is an errancy of life, having someone else tell us what it all means so we can group up and fight even more.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s