You may have heard that the Ku Klux Klan had a rally in California that turned violent. Apparently, the Klan members were attacked by protesters as they were exiting their vehicles. It appears the brawl was caught on tape (video at the end of this article), and now the protesters are going to be charged in this crime. That is as it should be. You cannot physically attack someone just because you do not agree with them.
I got a lot of negativity for saying exactly that when this incident first happened. I heard many saying that the police should have shut this rally down or never permitted it in the first place. Truthfully, I never thought I’d find myself defending the Ku Klux Klan of all things, and I’m happy to say I was right about that. I was not defending the Klan and have never defended the Klan. I was defending free speech.
I find the Klan morally repugnant. I think they are idiotic, ignorant, foolish and frankly, I think they are absurd. They are laughable, a human joke. That doesn’t make what happened to them OK. Hearing people call for police intervention, insisting the authorities should have shut this rally down and stopped the Klan from exercising their first amendment rights is troubling. People seem to be perfectly happy with the government violating the rights of those they do not agree with. This is a slippery slope to stand on, folks. If you advocate the violation of others’ rights, you are advocating the eventual violation of your own by setting a precedent. Holding a rally centered around their stupid, hateful belief system is their right as Americans. For “protesters” to show up to that rally and physically attack them is a violation of their rights – period. However, this was not a protest. It was a mob. It was 30 people attacking six.
How is this any better than the Klan themselves? It would seem counter-productive for a group of minorities to attack KKK members – to say the least. How does it discredit the stupid things the Klan says about minorities? They say that minorities are savages and wild animals. How, then, does a group of minorities attacking them essentially without provocation dispute that? Sadly, it doesn’t. It’s just more fodder for the hate machine, and it has only made these Klan members martyrs for their own idiotic cause. They were attacked by those “savages” and “wild animals” they’ve been warning everybody about. This was exactly the wrong thing for people to do, and legality or rights violation isn’t even the half of it.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this incident is society’s general reaction to this incident. It’s too much to expect sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan, of course, but for people to be so unabashedly gleeful over this is disheartening, and a little disquieting. Guilt by association is not guilty enough. It’s despicable to be a racist and to be a member of the Klan – but it is not illegal. Holding a rally to promote their separatist, racist views is not illegal. Nothing they did was illegal, and for people to support – even applaud – a gratuitous, senseless “punishment” for what is essentially a thoughtcrime is disturbing.
Seeing and hearing so many supposedly civilized people who would gladly rip somebody apart in the street (or happily watch others do it) over an idea, a belief or an association is ominous. To say they got what they deserved is dangerously close to the type of rhetoric the Klan themselves spouts. People are entitled to how they feel, but to me it’s like saying it’s OK to be like the Klan as long as you’re sure you have a better reason for your behavior than you think they do. Isn’t that exactly how the Klan members feel? Don’t they feel their reasons justify their behavior? I’m not seeing how the same wrong mindset just turned against them is supposed to help anything. I devoutly hope that I myself am more evolved than a bunch of racist, sheet-wearing fools spewing bile and part of being better than that is not being OK with hateful mobs bent on hurting someone – because that is what the Ku Klux Klan is and that is why they are wrong. If we regard them as Neanderthals, as troglodytes trapped in a distant, stagnant past who are refusing to evolve, how does lowering ourselves to that level elevate our own platform? It doesn’t. It demeans and discredits it. It puts us squarely beside and on equal footing with them, whether people want to see that or not.
Is this really what we want? To be on equal moral footing with the Ku Klux Klan? Or is it just another example of the nearly-universal and almost totally unself-conscious narcissism and hypocrisy we see on display in society? “It’s not OK for you to do this, but it’s OK for me because I have a good enough reason and you don’t. I’m right and you’re wrong.” How does this mindset resolve itself? “I’m so tolerant, open-minded and evolved. I love all people equally, regardless of race, color, gender, creed or orientation. I truly believe in the Brotherhood of Man and that all life has value – AND I HATE THE KLAN FOR NOT FOLLOWING THIS! I LAUGH WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKED BY A HATEFUL MOB! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! KILL THEM ALL!!!” It doesn’t even make any sense.
This whole “intolerant of intolerance” thing is just hypocrisy. It’s “bigotry with good reason,” which is just another way of saying, “I can do this but you can’t.” If your reaction to a hateful mob is to form another hateful mob, you are a hypocrite. Fighting fire with fire won’t put the fire out. It only burns everybody involved. It solves nothing, and has the added consequence of destroying the credibility of all parties.
If we claim to be enlightened, if we claim to be evolved, if we claim to be tolerant, if we claim to be champions of equality and free speech but we draw the line at defending those we find distasteful or we actually advocate violence toward others in these situations, we aren’t really any of these things – and we are certainly no better or even any different than those we are opposing. It’s easy to defend somebody that everybody agrees with. It becomes significantly more difficult when it’s someone that nobody – including ourselves – agrees with. It’s hard to look past ignorance, and it’s not easy to have the courage of our convictions in the face of a hostile majority, but what are we without it? We become just so many hypocrites.
You’ve probably heard by now about Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Washington chapter of the NAACP. She recently resigned from her position because, well… she’s white. This might not have been that big of a deal under normal circumstances; there are white people in the NAACP. However, these were not normal circumstances. Ms. Dolezal was pretending to be black. Yes, you read that right; Rachel Dolezal identified herself as black on official documents and spent quite a bit of time and money in order to make herself look black. Or at least as black as a blonde haired, blue eyed white girl from Montana can look.
Ms. Dolezal’s unusual prevarication has sparked a media storm, with most of the debate centering around whether she is delusional and in need of psychiatric help or whether she is simply a fraud.
While it is certainly unusual that someone would lie in order to claim a different race, it’s not unheard of. But is this a psychiatric issue? Ms. Dolezal’s adopted brother (who really is black) claims that she asked him not to give her secret away. This points pretty strongly to the fact that Rachel Dolezal is most definitely aware that she isn’t really black. Since she doesn’t actually believe she’s black, that would seem to leave only one option: she’s just a fraud.
How is she a fraud? She obviously felt masquerading as a black woman would bring her advantages that she could not have as her true self. Therefore, whatever these advantages were, they were fraudulently obtained. Scholarships, jobs, positions of power… whatever opportunities she received for being an educated black woman were stolen from a real educated black woman. Stolen by a sneaking, scheming, lying white woman. This is a person who is supposed to improve race relations?
Perhaps the most frightening thing about this entire situation is the media handling of the story. There are articles popping up everywhere criticizing Ms. Dolezal’s parents for “outing” her. Really? Her parents should have gone along with fraud? With the outright mockery of black people? What world do we live in where this despicable person is supported for lying to obtain money and opportunities, but her parents are criticized for refusing to support that? It’s absolutely absurd.
Is this white guilt run amok? Judging by some of the comments on articles about this story, it would seem that at least a small segment of society feels Ms. Dolezal should want to be any other color than white and should be forgiven for her fraud because of this.
Another (admittedly smaller) segment of society compares this situation to the Bruce Jenner story. I understand the comparison on some level, but I don’t recall Bruce Jenner defrauding anybody, gender notwithstanding.
The saddest part is that, for whatever reason, Ms. Dolezal didn’t feel she could accomplish what she wanted as a white woman. Perhaps it goes back to when she attended Howard University. Apparently, the school was under the impression that she was black when they gave her a scholarship and accepted her, and when they saw her in person she was not treated very nicely. Maybe that made her believe that a white person attempting to help would not be taken seriously by the black community. Her brother reportedly stated that after she attended Howard University, she made many comments alluding to the fact that all white people are racist. Apparently, that’s what they teach there.
If you are serious about working on race relations, is this not where you should begin then? How does changing who you are help that particular problem? If you think that you cannot achieve what you want to achieve because of what you are, then instead of changing what you are or lying about it, shouldn’t you try to change the perception of what you are by being a better example of it? If you think you can’t do good work in the black community because of the way white people are perceived, pretending to be black while doing good works does not address this problem at all. In fact, it perpetuates it. Addressing it would be doing good works as a white person. That’s real change. This is just lies and foolishness.
If Rachel Dolezal truly cared about race relations in this country, instead of resigning in total disgrace, she’d have martyred herself. She should have stood up and said, “Yes I lied, but I felt that I had to because of the nature of race relations in this country. It’s something we really need to resolve so that people of every race and ethnicity can work together and no one ever feels the way I did again.” Instead, she took the coward’s way out. She resigned in disgrace, with absolutely no dignity.
In the end, this woman has made a mockery out of two races, at least two organizations and many, many people. Most of all, she made a mockery of herself. She’s destroyed her own credibility and integrity, which damages the good she’s done, possibly irreparably. All for a lie.
The shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Ohio is discussed.
I’m so tired of the whole feminist/chauvinist thing, especially regarding relationships. All you hear all damn day long is “Stop kissing these hoes’ asses!” and “Stop letting these bastards oppress you!” #nomoresimping #yesallwoman everywhere. Well, here is my advice to all of you:
There are many different kinds of people. There are just as many different kinds of relationships. Some you may feel are more equal than others. Here’s the thing about that, though: It’s absolutely none of your business. None. At all. It does not matter what you think the societal implications of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think the long-term chances of such a relationship might be. It doesn’t matter what you think of the motives of the parties in the relationship, their feelings or anything else. It. Does. Not. Matter. What consenting adults do is not your concern in any way, shape or form. Your judgement is not needed or welcome. Period.
I cook for my husband. I clean up after him. I bathe him sometimes. I brush his hair, I shave him, I cut his hair. I massage him. I made him French toast at 4 o’clock in the morning the other night. He gets what he wants. In return, I ask for respect, faithfulness and kindness. He doesn’t ask me to do these things, or tell me to. I want to do them. I like doing these things. It’s my personality. I don’t see him as superior to me, or feel I have to do anything for him at all. I just like doing things for people I care about. It makes me happy. I’m (obviously) no shrinking violet; I’m fully capable of standing up for my rights should they be trod upon. But then I have people saying things like, “This ain’t the 1950’s. Come out of the kitchen. He’s oppressing you.” as if it could never be my choice. My answer is always the same thing: “You’re right. This isn’t the 1950’s. It’s the year 2014 and that means I can choose to do whatever I want to do. Stop trying to ‘liberate’ me out of my personal choices.” Liberation and independence are supposed to be about doing what you want to do and making your own choices, not the choices that everyone else agrees with or thinks you should make. On Facebook, someone made a great point about Muslim women, and how Non-Muslim Americans want to “liberate” these women of their head coverings without even sparing a thought to the fact that Muslim women choose to wear them.
People who engage in this type of ridiculous judgment and life-policing are the reason for all of this BS, because they simply cannot keep their noses out of other people’s business. If a man wants to elevate his woman to the status of Empress of the Universe, that’s not your business. If a woman wants to wait on her man hand and foot as if he were God Himself, that’s not your business. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, nobody’s marriage or relationship is your business. So instead of worrying about all the other men and women in the world and why they are not doing exactly what YOU think is the right thing, worry about your own partner and your own life.
And shut the fuck up, too.
As I’ve stated in other posts, I have a few problems with the anti-rape culture movement. The purpose of the anti-rape culture movement seems to be to reduce women once again to helpless victims. To me it looks like women who are being groomed to be victims because they are being taught that they have no power here. I stand in staunch opposition to this and always will. Thinking that more education and sensitivity training is going to protect you in this world is a pipe-dream and it’s a dangerous one. You cannot “cure” or educate someone out of being a rapist. It is impossible. Making women put on clothes is not going to change things and women running around naked telling everyone not to look is not going to change things, because these things have nothing to do with why rape occurs. Rape occurs because a person feels powerless and wants to assert control over another human being in order to feel more powerful. No amount of sloganeering or naked protestation is going to change that.
This video is my statement to the anti-rape culture brigade: Enough, already! THIS is why rape occurs: because a person puts (or sees) another person in a vulnerable situation and takes advantage of them. Period.
It has nothing to do with any of the political bullshit that these assholes are talking about. It is not society causing it. It is not because of some lack of education or sensitivity. People don’t need to be “taught not to rape,” because people already know that rape is wrong. They do it anyway because they don’t care.
This video is also a rebellion against being branded as a sex object. Attempts were made to look not sexy but pathetic. The simulated rape and forced servitude shown here is not just the message but the subtext as well; it is symbolic of being forced into a role you do not want to occupy.
I am not religious but the growing discrimination against Christians and religious people in general is beginning to alarm me. Those who I’ve debated with don’t seem to really be offended on behalf of gays or women or other hot button issues. Not really. They seem to have actually been offended by the mere mention of religion. For many, it seems to be a platform for them to express their own bigoted and discriminatory views — against Christians and/or religion in general. I’m no expert but it would seem that the answer to perceived bigotry and discrimination can hardly be more bigotry and discrimination.
I find it sad and a shame that people who claim they are all about equality and fair treatment for all just ignore this, or worse – they participate in it. Discrimination against anybody should alarm everybody. But it doesn’t, and that alarms me. I really feel that if, say, religious people were all rounded up to be shot simply for being religious, many of the people in this country would not protest or even care. I find that terrifying. “First they came for the Communists” and all that.
What I don’t get is, do they not realize how easily that actually could be them? Do they really think that could never happen? What about when it’s me? What about when it’s you? I tell myself every day not to give in to my ego or superego or whichever it is; that people cannot possibly be as stupid as I sometimes think they are. But every day I hear things like that (“Oh, it’s OK if it’s them, because it’ll never be me!”) and it gets harder and harder to believe that. I think they really do believe that. It’s frightening.
But what can you say about a society where scientific studies are done and psychiatric illnesses are dreamed up solely for the reason of giving people an excuse to escape personal responsibility? Not much, I guess.
As I talked about in my blog on Modern Pioneer Magazine, “Why Working From Home Could Be The Best Way To Go Green,” working from home may be one of the biggest things you can do to go green this year. No commute. No traffic. No gas. No emissions. No rush. No being forced to eat garbage food from fast food restaurants. Less stress, less hassle, less worry about daycare. It’s all around a better gig than the daily grind for sure. You make your own hours, you’re your own boss and you still get paid.
I’ve had some conflicts over it though. I am very against the digitalization of modern society, yet I do inbound customer service for a huge wireless company. It’s pretty ironic when you think about it. My job is to promote and propagate one of the things I hate the most. It makes for interesting internal conflicts, especially considering the fact that I actually like my job. I like problem-solving, I like the challenge and I like the interaction. I hate the product. I hate what it stands for. I hate that it seems to control people’s lives.
How do I rationalize that? I don’t. I don’t justify it either. It is what it is. I earn money contributing to what I believe is a cancer upon society. There is no denying it. I guess in some way, most of us do the same thing. But the money I earn goes toward creating a(n eventually) self-sufficient lifestyle. It goes to help fund small businesses and struggling artists. It goes to help animals in need. It supports small farms. It funds a message I strongly believe in. It’s not a perfect situation but what is?
I guess in the end, all we can do is find a way to live with ourselves for the concessions we have to make.