Editing for the third time to address confusions.
This post does not:
- -Imply that someone can change their sexual orientation and was not born that way.
- -Suggest that religious people are right in their assessment of others as a “collective enemy”.
- -Imply that complete social harmony can ever be achieved through any means.
This post does:
- – Argue that petty litigiousness is despicable;
- -Argue that it’s not easy for intolerance to end, as long as the left reinforces stereotypes and the feeling of mass persecution through these actions.
- -Argue that the right to free speech should be untouchable, regardless of the opinions one expresses, as infringing on it (even slightly) will always lead to abuses of power.
- -Argue that when those who were previously persecuted reach power, they behave like their former oppressors.
- -Argue that being unanimously liked is unreasonable, un-achievable and not an actual human right.
By far one of the most intensely discussed ideological conflicts today takes place between a vast segment of the world’s religious population, as well as conservatives in general, and sexual minorities. As the latter gain recognition, many struggle with a radically changing world, which they equate with a doomsday scenario. However correct they may be in asserting that the world is becoming more irrational by the day, they do not differentiate between individuals of another sexual preference and the aggressive left, which only claims to represent them.
There is so much to say on this subject. Looking at it from a neutral stance, it becomes clear that both sides are demonising people they only interact with during these heated debates, laden with slogans, cliches and mindless shouting. Both get their motivation in the echo chamber of their peer groups, without stopping to look at each other as actual human beings.
This whole war is contrived; placing an emphasis on sexual orientation itself is a diversion, taking a valid discussion regarding social reforms to a dead end.
The conservative and religious stance
And by that I’m referring only to those of the opinion that any minority today is encouraged to be sanctimonious and very easily offended, as well as the opinion that education is too focused on identity politics. By default I’m excluding those who are genuinely consumed by rage or hatred and are inclined towards violence.
It’s probably difficult for those who are still trapped inside the bubble of religion to consider that others have different instincts than they do. They can’t relate to others’ biological reality, just like they can’t picture being deaf or blind if they are not (I’m not making a pejorative comparison here; there are simply different ways of relating to the world). So it’s easier for them to brush it aside as deviancy and justify mistreating people who never did them any harm, from a comfortable distance.
The right wing is putting up a line of defence against broad societal changes, arguing they want to keep notions surrounding the family “normal”. The thing is, when they talk about “our ways”, “our traditions”, they actually think those ways are intrinsic to them – when the reality is we are a product of the social engineering of our time. What some of us hold as sacred was given to our elders by the indoctrination of their day, just like we’re getting ours now. We are told from birth how things are and how they should be. The truth is anybody’s guess.
Normality is fluid, it is based on norms, not nature, therefore it’s artificial, changing with every generation, according to the interests of those in charge.Even the concept of sanity has been modified through time in order to filter out eccentric ideas, keeping people in line; political systems have long used insanity as a label to discredit dissidents.When someone lets go of the strong emotional attachment to this figment of normality, they’re already on the path to freedom. Those in power, by changing laws and principles from one day to the next, are not taking anything from people – they’ve never had it in the first place. It was never their reality; the script has always been written by someone else.
Norms and laws come and go; political systems come and go. What we are left with, at the end of the day, is our intuition, the only thing that can’t be manipulated. What we can do is treat people as individuals, as we perceive them by interacting with them, regardless of the category or movement they form part of.
Religious people see themselves as the main resistance to the left ; it’s easy to sympathise with them from that point of view. Freedom of speech is under constant threat, being reduced by the day. However, history teaches us that the underdog has very sharp teeth and as soon as it lands a position of power, behaves exactly like its former oppressors. If it was up to them – let’s say if they were given the same amount of power tomorrow as the left has right now – we would end up with blasphemy laws, after all this trumpeting of free speech. Equality is only pursued in the initial phase.
Arguably, we are lucky to live in a culture developed on Judaeo-Christian values. Things could be much worse. If Islam had managed to take over Europe during the Middle Ages, that wouldn’t be the case; everything down to the small things we enjoy would be different. Jean Valjean would have his hand amputated, Madame Bovary would be stoned to death before getting to commit suicide, Snow White would be kept as a house slave by the seven dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty would be gang raped by a hundred sweaty men while unconscious. Even so, giving undue influence to the church has never had good results. Also, religious people do a huge disservice to all who stand up to the totalitarian left when they throw Bible verses at non-believers. It’s beyond me why they think that will ever work.
Who you are versus what you are
When showing righteous indignation before the (rightfully infuriating) cases of LGBT people bankrupting conservatives over cake icings , many forget that those people don’t do so because they’re gay – they do so because they, as individuals, are greedy and the law gives them the privilege. Members of any other category would be tempted to do the same if they could.
Throwing religion into the mix is only too convenient for the left. By doing so, conservatives end up with the automatic label of homophobia, when the main interest for many is discussing the much broader movement of so-called progressiveness, which only mobilises some homosexual people, among many other categories.
Moreover, I’m not sure that outside of political activism, there is such a thing as a gay community. Maybe I’m wrong, but if sexual preference is biologically driven, that would be like saying the ginger community, the blue-eyed community or the tall community. There definitely isn’t a ”heterosexual community” to be treated as a whole. My point is that many individuals in this perceived group might have absolutely nothing in common in terms of how they think or live their lives. Treating them as a homogeneous group by saying “they do/ believe/ say/ like so and so” doesn’t make sense.
Then there is the slippery slope argument – it’s true that there are other “sexual minorities” riding the coattails of the LGBT movement, using the fact that tolerance has become the most important value in society in order to squeeze in through a narrow opening of acceptability. It’s true that there is an actual paedophile lobby which is becoming more vocal with each passing year (something unimaginable twenty or even ten years ago) – and it’s true that groups such as NAMBLA were associated with the LGBT movement in its inception. However, one cannot demand that individuals who simply are gay and had nothing to do with that association foot the moral bill for other people’s poor choices, or for what those groups are doing today. Everyone is responsible for what they personally say and do.
A pain in the collective leftist butt
When Lucifer met Kali, they must have shagged under a full moon and spawned gay conservatives. You’d think that, from the amount of hatred these people get from self-professed liberals, simply for having a different political inclination. Whilst straight conservatives are usually mocked with derogatory labels, gay ones are genuinely, viscerally hated.
The left is incredibly hypocritical when using this cause to garner sympathy. Like any good cult, it stands unflinching beside its devotees – unless, of course, they start dissenting even slightly.When it comes down to it, they don’t care about the discrimination an individual might suffer, if that individual refuses the collective stance.Cognitive dissonance is rampant in the brain of any respectable SJW. When a gay liberal is attacked, it is automatically assumed that homophobia is involved, regardless of the nature of the dispute. When a gay conservative is attacked, no matter how viciously, the motive is thought to be purely political.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a good example of that. Hats off to him for persevering, after being constantly vilified, down to death threats and being mailed a dead animal. Why aren’t bleeding heart lefties jumping to his defence? When heaven forbid, a couple is refused a joint room by a traditionalist B&B owner in his 70’s, or a wedding cake, they jump in the thousands to support the cause. But when someone like Milo receives death threats and is the subject of character assassination – the exact type of bullying lefties claim to be fighting – they join in with delight.
To me it’s quite clear that “progressives” are using gay people, crying crocodile tears for them, as well as for those who feel singled out due to their race or ethnicity, in order to advance the socialist message. Once / if they achieve what they’re aiming for, allow me to suspect they won’t give a toss about anyone’s grievances. There is a valuable testimonial on YouTube given by former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov in the 80’s, describing the way a bloodless Marxist revolution takes place, through cultural subversion; how groups are created and spurred on to make noise, in order to destablise a country. According to him, as soon as the new system is put in place, all these revolutionary groups (feminists, sexual minorities etc) are forced back into underground activism in order to build an image of stability and harmony.
”I’m calling my lawyer!”
A lot of folks (even moderate leftists I think) wonder when this pettiness of suing left, right and centre over trifles will stop, as it has reached absurd levels. It’s frightening to see masses agree that it’s fair to ruin someone’s business if they cause you offence even once.
Denial of service is immoral when it’s state policy, making it impossible for a person to access it anywhere, or when that service is vital. If you’re in the middle of a desert during a torrid summer and the only shop within 30 miles refuses to sell you water, that is a problem. If you’re refused a certain icing on a cake for a same sex wedding, you can move your ass fifty metres up the road and find a different bakery to spend your money in. What will happen at the most, if you’re a reasonable person, is that you’ll be annoyed for half an hour.
Whereas, when you put said bakery out of business, you are taking your small frustration (and humongous ego) against an entire family (or group of families, depending how many people work there), with the actual desire of taking their money or ruining them. That makes you, at its mildest, a greedy piece of shit, and when you seek to destroy them completely, it makes you a monster.I mean, really, who are you – a Roman emperor, who with a single gesture orders someone’s head chopped off? Who died and made you God? The law should not give people the possibility to behave tyrannically because someone doesn’t like them.Being liked is not a human right. Working is.
In the above-mentioned article, these are some of the things apparently inflicted on the couple by those who refused the cake order:
Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
If that’s all it took for these people to experience weight gain and resume smoking, allow me to assume they weren’t all there to begin with. They could basically pin that list of afflictions on anyone who dislikes them even slightly, for any reason.
The thing is, once the goals of advocacy groups are reached – usually through legal reforms – those groups, money funnels to date, suddenly become pointless. In order to keep making a living by obtaining sponsorship for their cause, they must keep inventing problems. Woe is them if discrimination actually ends, as they will have to pack their placards and go home. These specimens are professional picketers; if there is no problem to raise hell about, one must be created. That’s why these cases are often crafted by agitators, who purposefully target business owners with a declared traditionalist stance, who become sitting ducks in this type of culture. Like feminists, they don’t consider taking their trade to genuine backward societies where gay people are prosecuted and killed – but they’ll gladly ruin lives at home with the smallest amount of effort.
The main thorn right now in the attempt to achieve mutual respect between people with different sexual orientations remains the left and its aggressive attitude, which naturally provokes a reaction, even in those who did not have a prejudice to start with. If it weren’t for that, people of very different views might actually have a calm discussion and become comfortable with each other, instead of crying “pervert” or “bigot” whenever they meet.