I am so confused. Perhaps the progressives are correct and we right-wingers are inadequately subtle and nuanced in our thinking. I know that liberals speak out against labeling and stereotyping, but that confuses me too because they have built up so many tiny little contradictory pigeon-holes to stuff people into and for the life of me I can’t figure out who goes where.
If I am afraid that Islamists might kill me, and I want to stop them, I’m Islamiphobic, but a “phobia” is an unreasonable fear – like arachibutyrophobia– an irrational, intense fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth. PB is a little gluey, but that’s what the J is for, so there’s no reason for fear. No one has ever died from peanut butter stickiness. But millions have died horrifying deaths at the hands of Islamists, so it seems reasonable to have some serious concerns about their intentions. Even if only 1% are dangerous, that still makes a million of them running around with bombs and machetes. Pardon my Islamophobia, but yikes.
If, however, I’m afraid of offending said Muslims, and kowtow to their every ridiculous demand, I’m not Islamophobic, I am compassionate and multicultural and diverse. Muddle, muddle. This same principle appears when dealing with issues surrounding gay rights.
If I am against gay marriage and wish that homosexuals would keep their clothes on in public, then I’m homophobic, somehow afraid of these sequined and painted people who mostly just want to force me to say that what they do is just fine with God, who, according to them, doesn’t exist (Large question mark appears over my head).
For quite a long time I laughed at the term homophobic because it was so over-reactive, but given recent developments and the gay rights folk being willing to ruin, bankrupt, and dispossess Christians who are unwilling to countermand God’s instructions on marriage, perhaps it’s reasonable to be afraid of same-sex couples. But then if the fear is rational it isn’t a phobia.
Speaking of gay issues, what do we call the liberal gay male who is pro-Palestinian? Do these guys not know that Muslims in their own countries throw gay men off roofs? And what do we call liberal women who seem comfortable with the prospect of Sharia? There’s no term for them? Allow me: Christophobic nincompoops.
Speaking of nincompoopness, let’s look at the issue of sexism, which I’ve always found perplexing. After all everyone has a sex – in fact, it appears now that we all have several.
So are you sexist if you’re homosexual and want nothing to do with the opposite sex? Doesn’t seem like it. Are you sexist if you don’t like the sex you are and want to change it? Nope – don’t think so. If you change from a man to a woman, do you then become pro-men, or were you always? If so, then are you now straight? I don’t know. Perhaps a person is sexist only if he, or she (:-)), still believes in the original man/woman sexual arrangement, though that seems the only reasonable attitude given the fact that a mere 2% of the population is oriented otherwise. But “reasonable” is not part of this picture.
Now, if one is both pro-Islamic and anti-sexist (anti-sexist= anti-male, which is, in some mysterious way, not sexist) then how can you accept the anti-female dictates of Sharia Law? Are you afraid you would be labeled mutilaphobic if you took a stand against such practices? I should also point out that Muslim men are given permission by the Koran to marry four wives, simultaneously, and to beat them whenever they wish. But we would be mistaken if we think this behavior is sexist. To think so would be provincial and naïve, completely lacking in the suavity of multiculturalism. And any woman, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brigitte Gabriel, who speaks out against Islamic barbarism toward women is a hateful bigot – we must somehow digest that, confounding as it may be.
So, are you sexist if you dislike or distrust a given woman? It depends on the woman. If she has a liberal vagina, she is good, right? If she doesn’t, then she’s bad. No. Well, sort of; if she hasn’t a vagina then she is a he, and that would be bad. But what about a transgendered person – is a manufactured vagina enough? And why isn’t a uterus necessary? Oh, that’s right, that’s the troublesome part of the female anatomy, so there will be no bragging about it. We only talk about the fun part.
Then there’s racism; what makes a person racist? Evidently, distrusting Barack Obama and Eric Holder. But, you have to understand that their being black is not the issue. After all, it’s ok to hate Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Allen West, etc. The issue is conservative vs. progressive, not black versus white. They say that’s the point, but it isn’t. It has something to do with authenticity – whatever that means. Obama is not of slave blood, is not poor, never has been. But he is an authentic socialist, so I assume that is the issue in racism; one must have X amount of melanin in the skin and vote Democrat – such a person can have nothing critical said about them. I have no idea why.
That gets us to the issue of thugism. He who is prone to tearing up private property, setting fire to family businesses, shooting cops and expecting to be paid for his trouble may mistakenly be called a thug. This is deceptive because if said thug is also black then he can’t be a thug, because thug is the new incarnation of the word n----r, which can only be used by racists (unless the speaker is authentically black). And don’t forget that racists can only be white and can only vote Republican – in spite of the fact that slavery and racism are Democrat constructs. It was Republicans who pushed to rid our society of both. Do you see why I’m puzzled?
We also have to remember that it’s ok for a black person to be a copist, to be policephobic -- regardless of whether or not the cop in question is black. Nor is copism influenced by the fact that blacks arrested by cops (black or white) are actually committing crimes. If I point out that more blacks are arrested than whites because blacks commit more crimes, that makes me a racist. Facts have no bearing on the issue, which is always bewildering.
It’s also baffling that the aborting of black babies is not racist. That blacks appear, if the statistics are accurate, to be more babyophobic than other races mystifies me. They are dooming their own race to perpetual minority status, but it’s still racist -- and sexist -- to be against that practice. Sexist also, evidently because we only honor the vagina, the playground, and not the reproductive part of feminine power. Perplexing in the extreme.
I am beginning to understand the left’s fascination with drugs. Anyone this realityphobic has got to be heavily medicated to make it from one day to the next. In fact, I may need medicating if I have to listen to much more of this drivel. I don’t hate blacks, gays, or Muslims, but I do hate it when people use the smoke and mirrors of iillogic and linguistic trickery to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. Call me a phobiaist, if you must call me something, and try talking sense. We’d all be happier.