Several Reasons Why We “Resist” Political Correctness

Many on the Left are still puzzled as to why conservatives like myself and many others are so resistant to their new PC “innovations”. After all to them, being politically correct is simply common courtesy, or not being offensive or disrespectful. Why would people not care if they hurt others’ feelings or are callous and indifferent to people’s struggles? Are conservatives just a bunch of big bullies? Of course that isn’t true, and countless conservatives are just as kind and considerate as the rest of humanity! So why then, aren’t we just going along with every declaration the Left throws at us in terms of what’s socially acceptable?

Among several answers that come to mind, a major explanation is an inherent criticism into political correctness in itself as a “moral” thing to do. Political correctness asks us to be considerate of other’s feelings, and be conscientious of how our words and actions affect others. However, this lofty moral aim only applies to select groups which the Left chooses, and not everyone. Is it really just me, or does anyone else with some observational skills notice how it’s a-okay to mock, belittle, demonize and deride men, white people, and old people, especially if all three are combined into being an old white male in ways completely unacceptable to do so if the genders and races were reversed? Why is it acceptable to say there are too many white people or too many men, yet not for minorities or women? Why does no one bat an eye when people openly declare they feel threatened by white people yet a white person saying such a thing about a racial minority is a racist bigot? Why are men told to shut up about issues affecting women yet women face no such restrictions on issues pertaining to men? This hypocritical double standard of reverse discrimination chips away at any moral high ground political correctness presents itself as and many see it as dishonest and lacking integrity. 

Another reason also relates to practicality and safety. Many politically correct edicts are simply dangerous, to put it bluntly. The idea that cis-gendered male predators who will prey on women won’t take advantage of now transgender laws allowing trans women in bathrooms or locker rooms for women won’t happen is absurd. I’m not saying that genuine trans women committed to living as women are the threat, but regular men can pretend to identify as a woman merely to gain access to women and no one is allowed to question their true motives. Not acknowledging the risks to women and children in these spaces puts countless people at risk for being leered at and harassed, not to mention sexual predation and molestation! Another major example is how we treat rape prevention advice to women.

Any attempt at safety tips for women is construed as victim blaming, despite the fact the same tips generalized for other non-sexual crimes is something no one equates with victim blaming nor bats an eye about. The idea we can teach young women to brazenly and carelessly get completely wasted, walk alone in sketchy areas, wear revealing clothing and not be sending the wrong message if they don’t want sexual attention and live in the world as it should be rather than as it really is, no matter how unfair or unjust puts them at immense risk for victimization. Of course we shouldn’t live in a world of predatory men hurting women any chance they get, nor does a woman ever “deserve” to be assaulted, but the reality of the situation is there will always be rapists no matter how much “education” you give the male population, just as we teach our kids not to steal, and yet there are still thieves. “Just don’t rape” isn’t the one all encompassing answer to preventing women from becoming victims, and the idea that it’s now socially unacceptable to acknowlege that truth is a direct assault on women’s safety.

An additional reason relates to matters of identity and culture. I’ve heard it argued before by the Left that if something is fairly inconsequential to you, that is you personally have nothing to lose in changing something you do or say, and it matters a great deal more to someone else if you do, then why not just do it? For example, if changing a term you use is of no tangible consequence to you, but means the world to someone else for you to change, why not just do it rather than make a mountain out of a molehill? On it’s face that sounded fairly reasonable. It seems like, okay? Why not? Got to pick your battles sometimes…

The issue in this type of politically correct issue is based in more abstract ideas, so I’ll give a concrete example of a case. One such case was over the renaming of a place in Arizona called “Squaw Peak” to another name because some consider “squaw” to be offensive, thus politically incorrect. There was major push back against this however by the locals of the area, a they have always known it by its original name. Other similar examples involving re-naming include changing namesakes for colleges, buildings, streets etc… from historical figures now deemed “un-PC” for their historical views. Or going beyond places, what about those sports teams the Left decided needed a re-do? On its face, these name changes seem inconsequential. Admit it: What tangible harm will that do to you personally? Unlike many of the safety issues or moral hypocrisy targeting you personally, changing the name of something unrelated to your direct life is not the same as targeting you. Having the sign read “Piestewa Peak” instead of “Squaw Peak” is not the end of life as you know it. Thing is, maybe there are some more significant implications…

It’s really not so much that isolated incident in of itself, is it? It’s really about a much bigger idea: Changing the name changes some of the essence of that place, what its significance is, and part of that community’s identity. Places are meaningful. Imagine the name of your town were changed. Or this entire country for example! Does it matter to you if we change the name of your favorite spots, or places that signify a part of your community’s identity? What about your favorite sports team? Would you root for it under another name? Even if you did, would it feel exactly the same? If you’re honest with yourself, probably not. Changing the name of something significant to your life or your community changes the essence, the identity of that place or thing figuratively as well as literally, which in essence, changes the culture. Even speech is a huge example. The way we talk is a direct reflection of our culture, and in that light, changing one term to another speaks volumes. For many, a seemingly insignificant change implicitly sends the message, you need to change who you are as our culture is superior to yours… 

The last but certainly not the last example I want to bring up as to why conservatives are very critical and resist political correctness is obvious, but not as thought of: We’re simply tired of never being able to please you no matter what we do. Yep. Even if an issue truly is inconsequential in the truest sense of the word for us, maybe we’re just tired of being in a society constantly telling us everything we do is offending someone, and no matter what we may do to fix it, there’s always the next thing, and the next, and the next etc… We address one issue, it’s onto the next, or even if we come up with some solution, it in itself is considered offensive! For instance, people of color complain white people don’t give them a voice on racial matters. Then when white people ask them about a racial issue they are often met with the angry retort “I’m not the spokesperson for all people of color! I’m tired of everyone asking me this stuff…” But, wait a second! Isn’t the reason a white person asked you about your perspective on the issue because you’re a person of color, thus better suited to give an answer on racial issues as opposed to the white person just assuming what you might think??? In essence, you’re given a voice on an issue relating to your race, then get offended because someone asked you because of your race… This just highlights the catch 22 of the Left’s edicts, as well as that many are just plain ridiculous! Banning saying “holding down the fort” because it might be vaguely offensive to Indians is absurd, when there’s no definitive evidence it’s referring to Native Americans for just one example. You know, maybe if it were like one to two major issues that were declared solved and case closed once something was done, many conservatives would have been more willing to oblige the PC ideas. It’s when it’s complaint after complaint after complaint our ears get numb to it and our patience drains away completely.

Overall, an environment where breathing is probably offensive in some way, not being un-PC is an impossible challenge to anyone who has common sense, reason, and a sense of fairness! What’s not to “resist” about it? To leave you with one final thought: Is political correctness really about doing what the Left sincerely thinks is the right thing to do, or is it just yet another tool to push their agendas? 

A PSA To The Left: That is Not Who We Are…

The recent tragedies such as the tragic El Paso shooting leave everyone outraged and yet, are twisted into partisan issues of Left vs. Right. The perpetrator is said to have written an alt-right manifesto desiring to kill immigrants. Now, he’s being used as evidence that conservatives are encouraging these vile acts through our stances on immigration and other issues. The same with the synagogue shooter, school shooters, and many others blaming lack of gun control. However, I don’t want to get into a gun control debate, rather a moral one.

To the Left, you want to blame conservatives for these acts of violence, saying your “enemy” the white male is to blame. It’s his white privilege, or his racism, or his toxic masculinity. You think we give white men a free pass while condemning people of color who do heinous acts. That we minimize it or even enable it and cheer them on. Well, I can tell you that can’t be further from the truth! Believe it or not, we’re just like you.

We have our own lives to live, with our families, our dreams, our goals, our biological desire to live as much as you do! Do you truly think we aren’t just as outraged when the next mass shooting occurs? Do you truly believe that we aren’t scared and appalled by the fact we can’t truly feel safe anymore sending our kids to school, going to the movies, going to concerts, going to our places of worship, even going to shop at Walmart…. 😦 This shooting struck me personally because I’m a fan of Walmart and go there all the time. It could have easily been me in that situation. Those mall shootings? I love the mall and am horrified to think I’m risking my life whenever I go have fun shopping!

Conservatives want to go to the movies, go to school, go to a concert, practice their religion, or simply pick up some items at the store just as much as you do without fear of dying or fear of a loved one going out to have some fun. How can you say we enable such things when they hurt us just as much as they hurt you? We speak of more guns not to be blind to their consequences only thinking of ourselves, but to have more armed citizens willing and ready to fight back to defend you and those you care about. We want solutions too. We want more than “thoughts and prayers” as well. Our solutions just aren’t in line with yours, but that does not mean we don’t care! We just want what DOES good rather than what FEELS good.

Another extremely important point is conservatives in no way shape or form condone or minimize violence driven by alt-right ideas. Those who commit vile acts in name of some so called “conservative” platforms are not real conservatives. No more that is, than you would say ISIS and Al-Qaeda are true Muslims like the every day Muslims in America, or the black thug reflects upon every black person in existence, or the illegal in MS-13 reflects on all Hispanic people.

Us having strong stances against open borders and illegal immigration draining our country in no way equals a desire to kill them!!! That’s a complete logical fallacy. It’s stating the obvious conservatives acknowlege their human right to life. We just don’t acknowlege their “right” to come here and leech off our country. Citing further examples, that synagogue shooting that happened does not mean conservatives were cheering and hate Jews when many conservatives are Jewish! Trump has family who are Jewish and openly condemned that and every other act of violence.

The white males who did these crimes are not who we are. We are not murderers who kill, threaten and terrorize to get our way. We are not terrorists whose only strategy is to bully people into submission. We are not the true racists who adore the Nazis and wish to repeat the Holocaust! They happen to be white males, but isn’t it absurd to think ALL white males are 1. conservative, and 2. feel entitled to kill based on conservative ideas? Keep in mind, this most recent shooter in El Paso was a registered Democrat… Now does that mean all Democrats are like him? Our rhetoric is not one of violence just because it takes a harder position on things. Speaking a blunt truth does not equate to a rallying cry for violence. The violence at places like Charlottesville, or those bombings of the Leftist leaders last fall do not reflect the even keeled conservative. Prominent conservatives have come out and condemned every act of violence as it happened. Also note, it’s contradictory to conservative philosophy to bully people into our views as true conservatives find our strength in our arguments, not threats!

Can the Left say the same? When violence occurs on their side? When the perpetrator was a person of color, an illegal, a religious fanatic? Who on the Left are speaking out against Antifa’s violence? Why are Left leaning towns stopping police from quelling Antifa mobs? I literally read several Leftists who endorse Antifa with one calling it “the immune system of Democracy” and stating in essence, that Antifa’s violence is justified since it’s against Fascists! Or what about the illegals who murder US citizens like Mollie Tibbetts? The fact he was an illegal who should have never been there to murder her and others like her is minimized by the Left. What about Congresswoman Omar saying “some people did something” in regards to the killing of 3000 innocent people during 9/11? You say the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism in the name of Islam yet why do we hear of so few Muslim leaders openly condemning terrorism? Including a Muslim congresswoman. Or the fact the Left-leaning media glosses over any violence by groups they are in favor with. You openly condemn a mosque or synagogue shooting, yet we can hear crickets when the church shooting happened. Or you decry white males for toxic masculinity or white privilege yet it’s “racist” to call out thugs in the inner city or the illegal who came here to murder.

Violence by lunatics on any side must be condemned by everyone! We condemned those police officers who wanted AOC shot. We clearly said they crossed a line and it was good they were fired as yet another example. ALL sides have fringed lunatics, but the loonies don’t reflect the mainstream. Why the double standard with the Left?

If Islamic terrorists are not who Muslims are….

If pedophile priests are not who Catholics are…

If illegals who do violence and leech off the country are not who Hispanics are…

If gang bangers and welfare mothers are not who black people are…

If Antifa is not who all Liberals are…

Then:

Racists, fascists, Nazis, xenophobes, misogynists, rapists, and mass shooters to name a few are NOT WHO WE ARE!!!!

(Another) White Man’s Burden: The White Savior Complex

Many have probably heard at least vaguely about what is called the “white savior complex”. White people who out of the goodness of their hearts decide to volunteer to do charity work for minority communities or 3rd world countries, or even Western organizations who do charity work are accused of being “white saviors” by the Left. Many on the Left now find fault with their benevolence and personal growth into better human beings due to the perceived paternalistic attitude and history of Western colonialism. Confusing? Here’s one definition:

“The term white savior, sometimes combined with savior complex to write white savior complex, refers to a white person who acts to help non-white people, with the help in some contexts perceived to be self-serving” (Wikipedia).

If that’s a bit too vague, and I tried hard to find a clearer definition but couldn’t, it’s basically the attitude that altruism and benevolent actions such as charity and aid from white people or the West is a form of colonialist paternalism where it implies white people are needed to solve the issues of minorities versus minorities having the independence to solve their own issues on their terms. In essence, white people merely swoop in to “save” minorities and come out the hero and take all the credit in real life and in movies and literature ignoring the perspective of minorities. However, upon further research into the theory, I find their reasoning to have many deep flaws of its own!

On its face it sounds okay. We shouldn’t be paternalistic busy bodies dictating to outsiders they need our help when they in fact, are fine as they are, or can solve their own issues. Nor do I argue in the least we should just show up uninvited and “help” people without their consent and act en loco parentis for the world!

That said, it’s absurd to assume just because charitable people are white, or organizations happen to be from the West, helping minorities and the 3rd world is damaging and racist/colonialist. Perhaps my strongest point is well don’t they need the resources and aid they’re being given? And apparently, it’s not being provided by their own people or country. Proponents of the white savior complex theory argue that by stepping up to help them, it’s an imperialist imposition and strips the people of their dignity and autonomy. An exercise in cultural superiority. Their argument falls apart however, when it is pointed out that food, water, shelter and medical care are basic needs for every human being, and are not culturally biased towards one society!

The cold hard truth is the 3rd world and poverty stricken areas lack all such basic needs to varying levels, leading to higher infant mortality rates, succumbing to easily treatable and preventable diseases, living in squalid housing or none at all, no infrastructure, no clean drinking water, food shortages, famine, corrupt government, tyranny etc…etc… While the West is not perfect, we have what they can only dream of in terms of standards of living. If those countries want better lives for their people, they should accept that help, even if from outsiders.

Of course it’s hard to humble yourself to accept charity, but sometimes, when push comes to shove and your family’s lives are on the line, the bigger person must swallow their ego and accept help in a time of need. What’s more important, food, water, shelter, or your inflated ego? Get back to me when you’re starving, have no home and live in a squalid dangerous place along with your family. The saddest thing is that these countries can’t provide for their own people what we have to step in and provide for them. In that the white savior proponents do have a great point: Why CAN’T these people provide the aid they need for themselves? Why is it being left up to the West?

“But… but what if they don’t want our help? What if they want to be left alone and not have paternalistic meddlers in their village trying to “save” them?” The anti-white savior enforcers ask. Well guess what my answer is: Then we won’t!!! 

You don’t have to accept vaccines that prevent children from dying.

You don’t have to accept hospitals better able to treat you and your loved ones from dying by easily preventable diseases and treatable injuries.

You don’t have to accept clean drinking water.

You don’t have to accept nutritious food.

You don’t have to accept sturdy housing, better infrastructure, education, and a democratic government.

You don’t have to embrace values such as equality for women, children and minorities and live in a democratic society where everyone is at peace, not at war steeped in violence and turmoil.

They are autonomous nations and deserve to make their own choices. We’re not their colonialist babysitters anymore. However, look at where they end up with such attitudes and where Western nations are. If people want to extend the hand of friendship and benevolence in sharing our resources and privilege, why is that such a bad, flawed and racist thing? How is it racist to literally save the lives of millions of people of color? We could just turn our backs and say “Who cares? They’re just brown people in inconsequential countries.” but countless people from the West, including white people, say instead, “They’re humans just like me and I want to give them what all people should deserve to have”. I think plenty of people in such dire straights are deeply grateful that we’re helping their families and communities. Some people would like to be saved from their abusive husbands, families, and governments. If not, don’t forget all the Americans who could use and be grateful for those limited resources! If our help is “too white” for them they don’t have to have it. That simple.

This attitude of it’s racist to help people of color in non Western countries because of imperialism or some lack of autonomy or dignity, or even accusing white people of being self serving in helping others I argue is actually a reflection of how blinded the proponents of the theory of the white savior complex are by their own privilege! How many of these people have lived and experienced the deprivation of the 3rd world first hand? How many have actually taken their assumptions beyond the theoretical framework into how people actually feel when subjected to lack of medical care, starvation, corruption and tyranny?

Pragmatically, which takes precedence? Food, water, shelter and healthcare from anyone who will give it, or some abstract notions of egos and pride? For those absentminded academics who endorse such ideas without ever experiencing or seeing people in such dire circumstances, try researching Maslow’s hierarchy of needs! Then see in which tier self inflated egos go and where food, water and shelter go… It’s simply illogical to think that desperate people wouldn’t accept anything beneficial to help themselves and their families. We are GIVING them the resources as charity out of benevolence!

Not to mention, is it not racist to limit a charitable person from helping those in need because of their skin color? White people are incapable of charity without wanting an ego trip or some self serving purpose? I for one know plenty who would take nothing in return for their altruism including my own family. Is it impossible a white person may want to empower a people to become more autonomous and self sufficient? Is it out of the question a white person could embrace a society and want to help them even at their own deep personal risk and have genuine respect for those they are serving?

Another point to consider is when people are being oppressed, the oppressors won’t listen to them, but might eventually have to if enough people in power speak out. I thought speaking up for those who can’t was a virtue, not a vice. If white people really do have white privilege as it’s often accused by the Left, then wouldn’t it be commendable if more white people used their privilege to help those who don’t have that privilege in society? What about every white abolitionist in our history for one example? Were they being “white saviors”, and if so, was that bad considering the outcome? White people who use their privilege, whether racial or socio-economic to help those in need are using that force for good instead of oppression which could more easily have been done.

Overall, I’d say if you are white, and want to help the less fortunate who happen to not be white, the last thing you should feel is guilt! Go ahead and serve who want your help knowing you’re a better person for it. Kindness doesn’t have a skin color. 

We don’t need this, especially if they don’t want it!

Your Choice, Their Body…

I’m sure you all have heard of the recent laws being passed in several states restricting women’s abilities to get abortions. For many, it’s a victory in the fight to recognize the human right to life for the unborn, but for others, it comes as a severe blow for women’s rights to her bodily autonomy. Abortion is an incredibly heated topic, perhaps more so than all the others I’ve covered on this blog! Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, I think much of the controversy rests in the fact that many pro-choice people miss the points the pro-life side is trying to make. The pro-choice side sees it as a struggle against the “patriarchy” over obsessive control over women’s bodies and has decided that men have no say in the matter, and argue that person hood and the rights that come with it don’t start until birth. However, the pro-life arguments I have heard have nothing to do with obsessively controlling what women do with their bodies, and all about protecting any ethical concerns regarding the person hood and right to life of the developing fetus. To many pro-life people, they define those rights beginning at conception. Some define it after a heart beat begins at around 6 weeks. Some factor in the when ability for pain and suffering would be present in the equation.

As to my own personal views on the matter, I will only say this right now: The issue is not all black and white, but ANY viewpoint or decision on the matter has to be about the child’s interests, NOT what’s merely convenient for mom! I’m honestly enraged by the blasé attitude of “my body my choice”, because the child growing inside of you is its own entity despite needing your body for survival for the first 9 months. Yes, bearing a child to term is a drain on your body, but just because your already born kids are a drain on your bank account doesn’t give you the moral right to terminate your parenthood over them, now does it?… Why not a “my bank account, my rules” clause too that relives parents of the legal obligation to feed and clothe their kids as well? A fetus depends on your body but is NOT part of your body and regardless if you are pro-choice or pro-life that’s just biology. It is not your cells. It is not your DNA. It often is not your blood type, and what many women find out the hard way, nor your Rh factor. The REAL crux of the issue is not about whether or not it’s biologically part of your own body, but the point at which it gains its own moral person hood and human rights in its own interests apart from yours, which is a nuanced and contentiously debated issue!

And nuanced and high stakes ethical issues require all sides be on the same page as to what’s being argued. I can respect arguments about the quality of life for the child after it’s born, as part of honoring life is understanding that all life is sacred, but the quality of that life matters just as much as being biologically alive. I can understand arguments about the mother’s health and safety in extreme cases other than mere inconvenience or some discomfort. What I cannot and will not consider though, is the total disregard for the fact that there even is a separate life to consider in the equation! 

The radical Leftist pro-choice side has lost more and more credibility with me the more they deny there are any rights to be considered for the child and couch their arguments in terms of convenience and argue strawmans about some mythical right-wing fundamentalist “patriarchy” in a mass conspiracy to get women pregnant and keep them that way. Really? The guys would have to pay child support for the next 18 years then! If they were being selfish and callous, they would encourage MORE abortions! He wants to cover up his mistake too… Oh, and the idea terminating a life is merely a “medical procedure” sounds chilling to both sides in any other context… Conversely, I have only gained more respect for pro-life arguments which do consider the interests of the unborn child above all else, because that’s what a parent does, and I agree parenthood morally begins once you know you’re pregnant, (and many on either side agree in terms of drinking and drugs while pregnant…) and parents put their children first above all else. Do I think the mother has zero rights herself? No, but while every life is sacred and person deserving of their human rights including mom, a mother puts her children first.

However, we could avoid this entire issue and the ugly realities it brings out for both sides of the debate if people could have the self control to not pop out unwanted kids then feel the need to clean up the mess! In that I agree with the pro-choice side: Your body, your choice, but also your consequences! With freedom, comes responsibility ladies. If you expect a man to step up to the plate if you choose to keep your baby, then why can’t you hold yourself to that same standard? Sex is NOT a right, and it’s certainly not a right to bring a child into this world you can’t care for and won’t want to! Prevention is the best cure!

Oh, and to the women on sex strike not raising future kids they will resent or turn into soy boys or radical man haters, thank you for this wonderful gift to humanity! 😉

(Oh, and P.S., all the conservative men said “NO!” first 😉 )

The Left’s Social (Ir)responsibility…

Social responsibility: The idea that while we enjoy many individual freedoms, we cannot do just whatever we please to the detriment to our community.

I think we all embrace this concept to varying degrees despite debating the more subtle nuances. For example, many agree that your freedom to drink and drive ends when another person’s safety begins, or as some may argue, albeit far more contentiously, that vaccinating yourselves and your kids is a social responsibility toward herd immunity against disease for those who cannot get vaccinated for various reasons. Even minor daily things like basic manners and consideration of others could fall under a sort of micro version social responsibility. While we all agree we should be considerate of those around us, the problem starts when our personal freedoms get smaller and smaller all in the name of “social responsibility”. It’s a delicate balance between our right to personal choices, and others’ rights in a collective society that may affect the choices we as individuals can make for ourselves without thinking of everyone else’s needs too. In this “land of the free”, freedom should be paramount, but to live in a cohesive society, we all need to take into account the needs of the group, not just each individual.

Personally, I’m for the idea that we must do everything we can to preserve the maximum amount of freedom of personal choice as possible and some of our personal choices can ethically outweigh the needs of the group. However, I cannot go so far to say we owe nothing to contributing to a smooth and cohesive society as a whole either, such as in the case of being “free” to endanger others by driving drunk for instance. Never the less, attempts to restrict individual freedom in the name of “social responsibility” can lead down a dangerous slippery slope when the powers that be use it as an excuse to slowly take away our freedoms. This argument however, is often used by the Left against conservatives. Whatever social agenda they wish to push, they always pull out the collective responsibility card to further restrict our freedoms or demand more entitlements such as your tax money for welfare, forced indoctrination of your children, and social agendas that feel good rather than do good.

The ironic, but perhaps not surprising thing anymore is, like most of the Left’s hypocrisy, they ought to look in the mirror when speaking of social responsibility! The Left wants and demands to be given the choice to feel entitled to have hook up culture, enable welfare cradle to grave, force their agendas on the next generation and control everything they think, take away our means of defense, demand someone’s personal choice outweighs the interests of society and such. Here are some prime examples:

A person’s own personal choice to be transgender is lauded by the Left, and now demands that the rules of biology, evidence based science, and all of society must be turned on its head for those who want to redefine the norm so they can feel normal. They say that it’s a personal choice that harms no one, and that all the hoopla over the issue is a right-wing conspiracy and sexist. After all, who does it hurt if a man wants to live and identify  as a woman? Why should we care if a dude wears a dress and renames himself Susie? Why can’t there be more than a gender binary view of human nature? However, it’s not that simple.

Living as a woman with the expectation that you, a biological male, are entitled to enter women’s private spaces, compete with masculine strength on women’s sports teams, and such has consequences beyond just your own personal lifestyle choices. If it were simply about one’s personal choices, I’d have no issue at all, but that’s not the case. Women have been endangered before when perverts assaulted them in bathrooms and changing rooms pretending to be transgender. Biological male athletes on women’s teams have significantly out competed their fellow women in endurance and strength. On the flip side, trans men who are biological women do not have the requisite strength and endurance in male dominated fields such as the armed forces. Not to mention simply the idea of one feeling entitled to redefine the norm and what is factual based on their own personal feelings! So no, transgender people’s personal decisions do affect others around them yet the Left cries “personal choice” when confronted with that reality while ignoring the detriments to society. If you want to argue that communal welfare outweighs personal choices, then why not in this case?

Or consider the example of the Left’s promotion of promiscuity to young women to “get ahead” and be “empowered”. Treating sex as a handshake, a mere commodity instead of a milestone for a young woman has real and lasting detriments. It’s not, as many perceive the issue, about nosy prudes sticking their noses in everyone’s business! There are reasons why sex on a whim and confusing promiscuity with empowerment is detrimental beyond arbitrary edicts, attitudes and cultural taboos. The Left says sexual freedom must be paramount for women to be equal to men, but they forget: with freedom comes responsibility!

Yes, your personal choices regarding your sexual activity do matter for society. They matter for all the unwanted oops babies born to parents with nothing to offer them and no resources to care for them, adding a drain on services to feed, clothe, educate and provide healthcare for these children. Speaking of healthcare, isn’t it a drain on the system to be flooded with patients needing treatment for their STD’s, prenatal care and yes, abortion? What about all the misunderstandings that can arise out of murky situations regarding consent and willingness the police and courts have to deal with? All the criminal cases when she hooks up with the wrong guy? Or conversely, the young men now at risk for a false allegation that will destroy his life? What about all the young women being brainwashed into the idea that sex is a handshake and mistake exploitation for empowerment? It’s not just between you and your partner anymore when you bring 1000+ liabilities to the bedroom whenever you choose to hook up? Society did not “consent” to clean up the mess you made when you had your little slip up last night!

My last but certainly not the final example of the Left’s hypocrisy regarding social responsibility is the welfare system. They say we owe our fellow society members in need a helping hand. And if everyone were motivated to give it and pass it forward too that’s fine. The issue is though, many take clear advantage of the welfare system despite families in need who need it legitimately. The welfare system is now really the welfare state, one where families are enables to live cradle to grave off welfare with no thoughts of further career choices. Instead of using food stamps for food to feed their wife and children, they exchange them for drugs. Instead of wanting an honest job, they are content to collect our tax dollars then raise their kids to do likewise. Instead of coming to America to work, they come for our handouts while homemaking widows, starving children, wounded veterans and their families, that family who just needs this month’s rent to secure that job interview and get back to self sufficiency, etc… are denied what welfare is REALLY supposed to be for! One must ask: What about their responsibility to society to be self sufficient and earn their living rather than leech off of everyone else’s hard work?

All in all, the Left likes to cry “social responsibilities” when we ask for personal freedoms, yet ignores how they hurt society by letting people feel entitled to do what the want regardless of the consequences for society to bear. Society is NOT here to clean up and subsidize your poor choices! We, society, are not here to clean up the mess you made by:

Your unwanted pregnancies

Your STD’s

Your nasty divorce and custody battle requiring extensive therapy for your traumatized kids

Your addiction you pass off as an involuntary disease

Your choice to live as a woman then demand access to women’s spaces endangering REAL women

Living off welfare cradle to grave on OUR tax dollars

The laws that stops law abiding gun owners from defending society

Teaching a generation that what feels good matters more than what does good

And many others!

See? The best thing about embracing personal choice over societal obligations is personal choices get personal consequences 😉 You make the choice: You own it. Society should not be obligated in any way to clean up one’s own personal mess!

When it’s Not Just “A Matter of Opinion”…

I sincerely believe that many issues can be debated in a mindful and nuanced way, and that many topics are multidimensional and complex in that there truly is no one simple solution that can be solved by one side or the other 100%. I also argue that it’s wrong and misguided to demonize people over an opposing view, disregarding how they got to their opinion and what motivated them to feel as they do. The vast majority of issues are not all black and white, even ones people are strongly polarized over and strongly feel theirs is the only moral opinion. There are always mitigating circumstances, unique cases, exceptions to rules, gray areas to be seen etc… that make each issue very much a case by case basis. There is room for open mindedness and still staying strong in your own convictions. The two are not mutually exclusive! It is possible to hear the other side out, while sticking to your guns, so to speak. It is also not a weakness to change your opinion, or modify it in light of new information. I have done that over my journey too…

However, that said, I do also feel that certain issues are more ethically and morally salient than others, and therefore, must be more strongly debated. Yes, some issues cannot simply be written off as “Let’s agree to disagree”. Now, this doesn’t mean you have to make an arch enemy out of your friends, family, classmates, coworkers, etc… who hold the opposing view, but I’m talking on a societal level and a policy-making level. It is true one cannot easily “legislate morality”, but our laws reflect the moral code we embrace as a society. Not stealing. Not murdering. Not cheating people. Yes, I also realize there is a fine line between “public safety” and “nanny state”. We do need autonomy and individual choice in society as well. Society serves us, and while we must work together to keep it running smoothly, we’re not its slaves. However, without morality, there is social anarchy. As for the things we really can’t legislate per se, our de facto rules and attitudes in society can do just as much or even more harm than what is written into our laws and policies. After all, society really doesn’t change until we agree it should, no matter what any law says.

If you were to ask me about one area I’d advocate taking a more firm stance on in terms of fighting harder to get my way, I’d say it would be in matters of safety and risk of lasting harm. It’s one thing to argue the subtle nuances of fairness, what’s fair or not, and that’s important too. But there is more moral wiggle room. When policies and attitudes harm people, a clear line is drawn. We’ve all heard the phrase “Your rights end where another’s begins…” 🙂 When real harm is done, physically, and yes, emotionally in certain cases, or real danger is present, then yes, the debate just got more high stakes. So to me at least, while I can and will listen openly to other arguments for why something may not be so high stakes and such a big deal, I will speak out to stop policies and ideologies that are doing real and lasting harm. It’s not just “a matter of opinion” when:

Illegals and refugees are bringing in crime and 3rd world values of oppression and inequality and case after case of murder victims murdered by an illegal.

Biological men can go into a bathroom or locker room with women and girls under the guise of being transgender putting them at risk for sexual assaults.

Children aren’t safe in school from the thugs bused in from the rough neighborhoods to support some social agenda or when no one is safe in their once safe neighborhood due to policies bringing in thugs and a culture of crime.

A generation is raised in broken families, where live in boyfriend replaced dad, and mom resents the kids from her marriage with her ex. Where children are now primed for an increased chance of mental illness, depression, and risky behaviors.

Parents feel entitled to make decisions “consequence free” that will do deep and lasting harm to their children emotionally, scarring them for life for the sake of an adult’s convenience or happiness, over a child’s need for stability and love.

A society where young women are told that they need to be promiscuous to be empowered, risking STD’s, sexual assault, and a damaged self-image/esteem leading to vulnerability and abuse.

The attitude of it’s “blaming the victim” to tell young women how to empower themselves to decrease their risk for assault creates a false sense of security and opens them up to fall right into the predator’s trap.

The men in our lives can be accused and have their lives destroyed on a whim by #MeToo witch hunts with no other evidence than a Y chromosome and a stereotype.

Our country is defended by a weaker less able military in the name of “gender equality”.

A human life is considered an inconvenience easily disposed of and honoring its human rights is a “choice”.

Anti-Gun policies enable the mass shooter bent on destruction of human life to come in to your child’s school and shoot without hindrance or the shooter at the movie theater, or the mall, at work, or anywhere you go since no one is armed but him!

Terrorism reins free here and abroad, creating a world of distrust, suspicion, and obviously, lost lives and property. A world where going for a vacation is your last choice on this Earth, going to work and never coming home, going on a trip to see a beautiful attraction in a country just like our own is now too dangerous, a car veering off the road is more than just an accident, an unknown package requires the bomb squad, etc… etc…

A country that turns a blind eye to crime rates by demographic, calls for abolishing border protection, schools that cover up instances of sexual assault due to transgender policies from the parents of the victims, news reports that don’t give the description of a wanted suspect due to race or other minority status etc… etc…

Science and academia is suppressed from publishing research studies that conflict with the party line that would help people suffering and provide better solutions to many social issues.

A country where starving citizens, homeless veterans, needy children and families, hardworking people who just need that extra leg up, are brushed aside for outsiders or fellow citizens able to support themselves coming to take our resources for themselves without giving back. The detrimental effects are real: Homelessness, hunger, poor health, etc…

The media reports false information to support an agenda that takes our focus off the real dangers to look out for and be aware of.

And so many others. These are all tangible dangers that affect our society greatly, due to societal attitudes and policies. Our policies enable these injustices to go on and endanger ourselves, our family, our friends and our fellow citizens. So do our de facto attitudes that pressure people to turn a blind eye and just shut up. Well, someone has to speak up, and it needs to be all of us together. Someone to advocate for our families, our communities, our country. Someone to say, NO, it’s NOT up for debate when people’s lives are literally on the line. Someone to say that a person’s right to safety and freedom from harm matters more than any agenda or social experiment. Someone who is brave enough to say:

The safety of our families, communities, and country is NOT “a matter of opinion”!!!

A PSA to The PC Crowd: Ignorance is Not Malevolence!

This observation came up for a while now in noting the various absurdities of the pro-political correctness crowd that in many cases, they seem to judge everything in a “one size fits all” sort of way. This is probably no surprise to many of my fellow conservatives, but I do want to expand on this particular aspect of it. Imagine a few scenarios if you will which I will proceed to describe:

A few students are gathered in the cafeteria for dinner at some college somewhere, and meet up with a few friends and acquaintances. Some of these friends also brought over their friend groups unknown to your group. To break the ice, one white student asks a student of color “Uh, so, where are you from?” The student of color answers “Oh, I’m from Upstate NY…”. The white student then prods further, “But, where are you from originally? Where are you really from?”

A guy goes out to a party on a Friday night with his buddies. They see a group of what looks to be girls wanting to look for a date to dance with and hang out with. One guy is nervous, and really doesn’t know what to say to start the conversation and absentmindedly blurts out “Hey, you’d look nice if you smile” to one girl staring off more absentmindedly. She gets angry and retorts “It’s not my job to smile for you!”

In a discussion about race, a participant says “I don’t see color, I treat everyone equally…” when asked how they would view a solution to stopping racism and racial bias.

A co-worker recently has come out that they are transitioning to be transgender. They tell everyone what pronoun to use and the new name they want to be called, but many at the office find it hard to remember either, and out of habit, refer to and accidentally address the person by their old name/pronouns. 

A white person called up on stage during a concert (This is based off a real event) to sing a rap song written and sung by a black performer included the “N”-word as it was in the lyrics of the song.

At the neighborhood picnic, a neighbor reveals he has Native American ancestry and someone asks “So, how Indian are you?”. 

All of the above examples are considered offensive and demeaning within the politically correct edicts. Reasons given for each scenario are asking where someone is from “others” that person and makes them feel like you don’t think they’re a legitimate American and like an exotic other. Asking a girl to smile is now considered sexist and a form of harassment, a sexist entitlement to make a woman conform to your needs vs. her own autonomy. The idea of being “colorblind”, the Left says, does not help not being racist, and in fact, now is racist as they believe it marginalizes the influence race plays in inequality. Not using the correct names and pronouns for a transgendered person de-legitimizes their choice to be transgender and live as their preferred gender. Non-black people are not allowed to use racial slurs, but black people are exempt as they are said to be “reclaiming” the slurs once used to oppress them. And in the last but certainly not the last example of what constitutes a PC faux pas, asking “How Indian are you?” is said to be ignorant and offensive as it implies they’re not a “real” Native American.

On the surface, these seem to be at least semi-believable explanations. They have been said over and over to the latest generation, including myself many times throughout school, media and society. However, looking deeper into each reveals the issues may not be so black and white in of themselves, but also the key factor: The intentions of the people who made such an “Un-PC” mistake.

Saying “Where are you from?” because someone looks a little different is not always, and in fact is most likely not a pointed slight to make someone feel like an outsider. The question in any other context is simply used as an ice breaker to start a conversation and get to know a person more. It’s really context dependent and also in your tone of voice. Saying it in a suspicious and accusatory way does indeed hint to a less friendly intention, however a neutral question said in curiosity is most likely meant that way. In the scenario, however, it is pushed further when the answer wasn’t what the person was going for. Even then, I argue, it doesn’t have to be a display of bigotry. Is it always prejudice if the person genuinely had curiosity as to what part of the world someone’s heritage came from, especially if they do look different than most others around? Yes, in that case the person being asked is sort of “the other”, but the point in asking what part of the world they are from ethnically is to make them less of an outsider, and to become more familiar with them. Racism and prejudice can stem from ignorance, but the key to combating ignorance is asking questions to gain knowledge! Most who ask such questions, while can appear insensitive, are merely just curious, not prejudicial and suspicious. Curiosity is NOT bigotry!

Asking a girl to smile I will say, is probably awkward in most cases depending how you phrase it and  if you’re talking to a stranger. However, labeling it as depriving women of their bodily autonomy and being male entitlement is going way off the deep end! Think of it: A young guy who is shy and awkward around girls might blurt out something that’s a bit awkward and not quite the ideal pick up line, but is that an expression of oppressing women? I’d argue the last thing any nervous guy approaching a girl to ask her out feels is “entitled”! Asking a girl to smile is nowhere near REAL harassment of women…

Saying “I don’t see color” while not the catch all solution to end all forms of racism and bias, had its heart in the right place. While not solving racism, it fosters the attitude to help combat it as it is said in the spirit of treating every person as equal in human worth and dignity, regardless of skin color. The idea skin color isn’t even a factor in how we should treat others. The world would indeed be a much kinder place if we didn’t obsess over each other’s phenotypes…

I have other reasons to sympathize with those who don’t want to legitimize just “choosing” to be another gender and calling it reality, but in the common scenario that the pronoun and name conflict comes up, the issue of common habit, not a pointed rejection is a valid explanation. See, if you knew “Bob” your coworker as Bob and referred to him as a “he/him” for the 20 years you worked at the company, it may be a harder transition to consistently remember to call him “Susie” and “she/her” overnight! Even if you’re perfectly okay with his/her choice, just the sheer habit of knowing him by one name and identity takes a lot of getting used to, and slip ups happen… If the pronouns are different such as the made up gender neutral ones, it’s like learning a new language!

If you get invited to sing a song at a concert, that contains a swear word, and you say said taboo word, is it your fault as if you chose to say it spontaneously? If it’s not your own word, you’re just quoting someone else’s choice to use it, and if it’s in the song the artist invites you to sing, then why omit it? The person in that scenario that said the racial slur was NOT saying it to disparage anyone, nor was her own choice of words, but the lyrics to a popular rap sing she was INVITED to sing! Racism never even entered the picture other than she was white and singing along to a song written by a black artist. In this case, context means everything…

And in my last example, it’s related to the first one: Curiosity. No one is prodding to do detective work into if someone is a “real” Indian, or anyone else (Unless you’re running for political office capitalizing on that status 😉 )! People can be genuinely and innocently curious about things, and it means no more than that. Asking how Indian someone is is simply about curiosity, and many wouldn’t even think it would be offensive to ask any more than asking how much German or Italian ancestry someone had. Does anyone of mixed ethnic European ancestry feel invalidated and feel less German or less French or English for instance if someone asks how much ancestry they have of those respective countries?

And tying all these various examples of some “microaggressions” as the Left calls them together, the common theme is the “perpetrators” are either merely curious, or ignorant that it is coming off as offensive or insensitive. No one in all scenarios presented had deliberate intent to oppress, marginalize, invalidate and belittle anyone! Yes, pointed and snide comments can happen, and are meant to be offensive, and I advocate for everyone to stand their ground if insulted so. However, before making that comeback to shut them up, think first on the intention of that off color remark or seemingly insensitive comment or question. Did they mean to hurt or belittle you, or were they simply curious or ignorant of how it came off to your ears? Most, if told they offended would feel mortified and apologize right away! Let me emphasize this again: Curiosity is not bigotry. Ignorance is not prejudice. The vast majority of microaggressions are merely mistakes and misunderstandings, not targeted insults. The elder who uses that outdated word is just saying what was acceptable in their generation without malice. The kids dressed up as Indians aren’t thinking “Hey, isn’t it fun to marginalize Native Americans?” The nervous guy just blurted something awkward out and is embarrassed, not entitled! Ignorantly assuming something off a common stereotype betrays lack of knowledge and familiarity, not lack of acceptance and kindness.

Yes, I also realize damage can be done even with good intentions. However, intentions do matter. Breaking the prized vase does damage regardless if you pushed it on purpose or by being knowingly reckless, or simply bumped into it and it fell. However, one is judged to be an accident, and one a deliberate act or one you are culpable for neglecting to be careful of such an event. How is that done? By the intention of the person who did it! Why isn’t it the same for all these PC grievances too? A person may feel “othered” by a comment or question regardless of original intent, but in terms of judging the one who said it, one should consider did they mean any harm and did they know it would offend? Unfortunately, the politically correct crowd only sees everything as a one size fits all issue of perpetual offense and demonizing those who unwittingly commit the dreaded microaggression… Well, all I have to say to them is just wait until it’s YOU on the other end of the accusation… How will YOU want to be judged? 😉