Questions Of Difference

There is a body of people in America (and throughout the western world), that has a peculiar worldview, that at every turn notes an injustice that it nobly claims to stand against, and then acts in ways that inevitably do exactly the opposite, either promoting the injustice that exists, or replacing it with another.

My questions for those who hold this worldview include these:

You say you believe in free speech...

...but you insist that disagreeable words are as harmful as a physical assault, and therefore ban any words that are "hateful", or "-phobic".  You demand "safe spaces" from "trigger words" that might make anyone uncomfortable, rather than promoting a mature intellectual and emotional resiliance to hear or read, and assess words accordingly to either ignore or accept reasonably.  Why?

You say you deplore the practice of labeling and categorizing people or ideas...

...but you insist at every turn in manufacturing more and more new labels and categories every day to put into an intersectional matrix, to carefully label, categorize, and put into a box everyone according to their degree of guilt and offense.  New categories must in turn be invented with new hyphens and pronouns to describe every possible exemption to balance the scales should you find yourself not inclined to be in a box.  Why

You insist that you believe in tolerance and inclusiveness...

...but you show no compunctions about excluding and insulting those who don't agree with your ideology regardless of whether or not it was done with civility, respect, and reason.  You are perfectly willing to disenfranchise hundreds of a majority group on no other basis but their label (not their individual behavior), for one or two of a prefered categorical label.  This preferential treatment is supposedly not a privilege but rather resisting oppression.  Why?  

You make loud assurance of your commitment to being open minded, and call for more communication and understanding...

...but you readily assume those who merely disagree with you are ignorant, bigoted, and oppressive.  When asked for explanations or information, you generally excuse your rude, spiteful, or condescending answers, or avoid the issue altogether with the curt evasion that it is not your job to educate your interlocutor.  Intolerant shunning usually ensues, with forgiveness out of the question.  Why?

You often suggest that your worldview is the view of the intelligent, just, and moral...

...but you deny that truth is defined in any objective sense, instead insisting that reality is actually the interplay between competing narratives, the goal of which is ultimately political/economic power, and that those who hold more than others are inevitably violent, oppressive, and unjust to those around them.  You assume some gnostic enlightenment in your worldview which is itself nothing more than one narrative in a sea of others, and yet don't question your own actions even when they exactly resemble those of factions you excoriate.  Why?

You readily condemn America and it's largest historic labeled category of population as being unforgivably predatory, selfish, and destructive...

...but seem to never get around to acknowledging that the same imperfect people group and nation has also been through their efforts the most prosperous and subsequently the most generous nation in all of human history, has in the last hundred years been the greatest defender of democratic freedom, humanitarian behavior, intellectual and material advancement, and promoter of human unity to boot.  That nation has indeed been imperfect, and has still had the courage to try and fail rather than not try at all, even for those who have given nothing for the prosperity they enjoy so abundantly that they can afford to spend time and resources to attack it.  Why?


I have a different view.  I have the humility to acknowledge that while I have not yet found any credible reason to espouse the particular worldview I differ with, that it is worth talking about becase so many people do endorse it.  I have the peculiar view that all human beings are inclined to be pretty crappy to each other by nature, and yet we individually have the choice to not be.  This choice has nothing inherently to do with any particular sex, race, skin color, or nationality.  Humans of all stripes can make (and do make) both good and bad, True and False choices.  We are all sinful.  As such we can all recognize our individual flaws and try to equally apply the practice of not treating our fellow humans with dishonesty, wrath, envy, or lust.  We can disagree with them, and yet forgive them when they behave badly to us.  These are taller orders I'm sure than the orders that the opposing crowd marches to... it is always easier to take a group of people you don't like and hate them because their different ideology excuses your behavior... but it is not nobler.