Saturday, 7 February 2015

21st century neologisms: Bigotry

The big brother of its violent relation 'racism', the accusations of bigotry from the extremely unliberal left have been used in concert to shut down any opposition as if by insulting alone you can force not only expressing certain views out of existence but according to them the views themselves. But bigotry had and ought to still have a dictionary definition, one close to but more specific than prejudice:

"A person blindly and obstinately devoted to a set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others" Old French, Chambers Dictionary.

Now of course anyone outside the political left knows this already, and can quite accurately use it to describe them perfectly. Yet they instead use it to demean anyone opposed to their indivdual bigotry of multiculturalism, diversity and LGBT culture, to name the front line of their cultural (and in my view possibly decadent) revolution. A single word not actively positive about race, Islam (all other religions, and God especially are fair game), homosexuality, transgender, equality, wealth redistribution, global warming, and anything else which diverts from traditional society and its values including the EU are then followed with accusations of crime, and calls to make disagreement a capital offence at the extreme end. In fact Britain alone drew up a bill to make offensive speech a crime, and very nearly succeeded, and are currently trying again with a watered down version. This will mean totally harmless words (harmful ones are already covered by incitement to crime) will subjectively become illegal and they will get their wish of making speech against anything they hold dear a crime to even criticise. Just like the Soviet Union or China.

Specifically, if you think:

It's fine for gay people to form civil partnerships, but marriage is between a man and a woman.
The amount of global warming has been trivial.
It is unfair for gay couples to have children as they will be brought up missing a parent in most cases.
There should be restictions on immigration (even if said by immigrants).
Your religion disagrees with homosexual practices (unless apparently it's Islam?).
Different races have their own characteristics.
There aren't many British people where you live (although it's OK to say not many black people as they often do).

You are, according to them, a bigot. Plans are under way to stop all these views, as each has been raised from the level of observation or opinion to fact, even raising these issues nowadays sets you up as a bigot. Despite most of these views were actually mainstream and many were actually law (and some still are elsewhere) till the late 20th century. It is nothing to do with discrimination, as that is already and quite correctly banned, so clearly not covered by that law (paying less, not allowing certain people in your property etc), but still attempting to make such views outlawed.

If you then divide opinion from fact, and merge the areas where we have facts (eg the number of immigrants, which is known), and opinions (it divides society, they form tight pockets within other communities etc), and returning to facts to form queues for services, roads, schools and cause problems where teachers and customers alike have to work with people with little or no English. That was why we always restricted immigration and most countries still do, and is not about bigotry but space and resource management.

For marriage, you can only have a male and female parent. You can have a couple that isn't, but they must borrow one of the second sex, and unless they live as a trio or quadruple of two couples then the poor child will grow up with no parent around and no knowledge or influence of that sex. Also it is established a lot of crime is caused by boys in particular growing up with no father at home, and knowing this then making it happen deliberately from day one simply enters dangerous territory. I will no doubt be called bigoted for even quoting scientific fact, but then they used to execute people who said the sun is the centre of the solar system.

Racial characteristics, like its related intelligence debate, has torn science in two ever since the words mongoloid, cripple, spastic and moron became relegated to the dustbin of bigotry even though they were the terms used by doctors to describe mongoloids, cripples, spastics and morons. Did you know what I meant when I used them all? Yes? Then that proves they are effective words in communicating their meaning. Unlike differently abled or educationally challenged. The disabilites remain and will never change as that is how they are, but people will need a course to work out what's wrong with someone as no doctor or social worker will be allowed to tell you directly even though they know exactly. But even the furthest left loon can't get a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and won't expect their child to get a double first from Cambridge if they were born with Down's Syndrome, no matter how much they hothoused them with private tuition. They are forced to recognise the extreme obvious ends of the scale, but refuse to acknowledge the less certain ones on the surface even when shown by both scientific experiments and more recently DNA testing showing certain characteristics are innate.

I have already spoken about the Utopian view where everyone is equal, no one is cleverer, stronger or better at anything than anyone else, and if this was the case we wouldn't need anyone else as we could do it all ourselves. And if they accept even one quality is inborn they have to accept many others have to be as that is nature. Dogs are selectively bred for their personalities and abilities and it's pretty hard to dismiss a pedigree dog or cat who always behave in similar ways and claim it's all due to their environment, so why not people as well? Of course they are but why waste time, effort and worst of all bitter argument trying to deny it is the case?

Science actually states you can make the best of any quality or squash it but you can't create it from nothing. Einstein would have been as intelligent wherever he was born and whoever brought him up, it would just have had less chance to be known had there been little or no formal education. Separated twin experiments show every time that most qualities are shared, and it makes no difference who adopted them for them to show. Science also shows that CO2 has only made the planet rise by 0.8C, which includes at least 0.2C of natural recovery from the last small ice age, and without water vapour increasing it can do no more per doubling.That's not bigotry, ignorance or attempted murder, it is simply direct observation. How can you be bigoted for quoting exact figures.

It is a poisonous symptom of 21st century politics and social activism which has selected a specific range of personal issues and made them sacrosanct, to the point of violence and the threats of violence and worse. What right does anyone have to dictate our views, just because they claim to have right on their side, as every tyrannical rule has since the start of history, including Isis. Their version of right is actually more bigoted than anyone they target, as there is no room for movement. Their way or no way. To undo badness is to see it first. Then once you are aware of it you can know it is bad dressed up as good. Totalitarian dressed in a liberal overcoat, equality but only for who they choose to be equal. And by misusing both the terms bigot and racist they divert attention from the real ones by including most things which aren't. That gives them a free run and also diverts attention from the current worst bigotry of all, their own.

No comments:

Post a Comment