The persons I dislike the most are by far right-wing extremists. They are greedy, stupid, bigoted motherfuckers. The rich ones base their political views on what would make them more money, because they do not have enough. The religious wackos... Well, I think we all know their problem. All these people do is spew out a bunch of hatred and propaganda. But I don't think anyone should be forced to censor themselves, even if what they say is sexist and racist.
This brings me to the main topic of the blog post: left-wing extremists. I don't dislike these guys—let's face it: mostly gals—as much as I do the right-wingers, because left-wing extremists at least have better political views, such as gender and race equality. But there's one thing that almost makes left-wing extremists crazier than the right-wingers. Where conservatives think we will go to hell if we express individuality, liberal extremists want us to censor our speech like crazy.
Extremists on both sides just push my buttons like a fat guy trying to dial a number on a phone with normal-sized buttons. You often hear conservatives calling liberals hypocrites. This is sorta dumb, since EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO HAS EVER LIVED is a hypocrite, liberals no more than conservatives. And the biggest hypocrisy I know is cherry picking from the Bible. For example, the Golden Rule, turning your cheek, and loving thy enemy aren't important, but that two men should not be together means the world. To be fair, while some Christians do follow some bad things from the Bible, they don't take to heart the truly wicked stuff, like slavery.
As I said, all people and peoples are hypocrites and bad in some ways, good in others. But it's in some ways the extremist liberals that are relevant for me. I'm not gay and I'm not a woman, so conservatives don't touch me directly. Theists do with their anti-atheist slander and I, of course, also strongly oppose their views on LGBT and women. But as a writer, it's left-wing extremists that screw with me.
You can't use any sexist or racist words in any context, and especially not referring to women or minorities. If you call any such individual any such word, even if said individual is a bad person, you're a sexist and racist. You also cannot criticize something that's obviously vile, like Islam, because then you'd be insensitive. BUT! You can criticize white men all you wish, because their feelings don't matter for some reason. Derogatory terms for men are okay to use, even though they are used at least as extensively as those for women. You can hate white men all you want, but you'll be damned if you point out this hypocrisy. I do realize, however, that some hate for being white isn't the same as systematically being degraded and discriminated against; I can never know how that feels. Even so, I dislike being categorized as racist just because I'm white and sexist just because I'm a man.
My point is not that we shouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about white men, because a lot of us are assholes. My point is we should be free to say anything about anyone, regardless of background. Freedom of speech is our most important liberty, and even though racism is wrong, forcing all people—even racists—to censor themselves is worse. To put it in more practical terms: It won't remove bigotry, but it will create more bigotry by pushing stupid people toward right-wing politics. Unfortunately, we clump all women into one group, all black people into another, and so on. Say anything bad about one individual, you insult everyone in the group. Sigh.
What's most relevant for me, however, is how we analyze everything in movies and books. The film The Silence of the Lambs is sexist because the crazy serial killer skinned women. But if he had done the same to only men, no one would complain. How exactly is it sexist to have an antagonist who does mean things to women? It is a damn story! The writer isn't saying he wants women to be skinned. And if a black guy dies first, then the writer clearly is a racist, right? Does this mean black characters ought to have plot armor until a white guy has died? And if, like in 24, the antagonist is a Muslim, does this mean that the writer is saying all people of Islamic faith are bad? No, but the fundamentalists are bad and there actually are terrorists from the Middle East. We read too much into the stories we read, and it is silly how writers are criticized for having characters who are not politically correct, as if that means the writer isn't, either. It's also dumb how a bad character with a minority background means the writer is criticizing all people with the same background. The Silence of the Lambs received criticism for how its antagonist was bisexual and transsexual, as if to say only straight people can be bad. But at the time, probably even now, there were few positively portrayed LGBT characters, so I get why they're upset.
There's been progress, too, of course. More blood, filth, and vulgar language is allowed on TV nowadays, but certain words and topics can be very sensitive. People simply don't have a sense of humor about it. If we take these issues too seriously, how will we ever move past them? Art should never be censored or stripped down just because it includes some uncomfortable content. If it's obvious and hateful propaganda, that's one thing, but films like Django Unchained are not propaganda, even though the word nigger is used prolifically.
And how come if a white person hates black people, it is racism, but if a black person hates white people, it is justified? Same goes for sexism. Why is it only sexist if it is done toward women? White men are people, too! Racism and sexism go both ways, but we have all these double standards, which mostly come from the liberal side. It drives me CRAZY! Everything is seen as a crime against political correctness. Of course the hate white men have received recently isn't as big a problem as the hate many minorities still experience daily, but a gross generalization must be pointed out.
Fuck political correctness! We can't call handicapped people handicapped, because that's an insult, for some reason. They're not handicapped; they're handicapable. Double sigh. Can't we just call people what they are? If we can't call people what they are, nothing changes; the condition remains the same. But we are not allowed to draw attention to how somebody is different, even if we don't discriminate. Perhaps, in the future, we won't be allowed to call men "men" and women "women", as we'd categorize, segregate, and may make someone feel bad because they are different. It is the ultimate hypocrisy; we're not allowed to draw attention to differences, or in other words tag someone, but the same differences are used to place people in one of two categories: "okay to talk about" and "not okay to talk about". Am I the only one who sees how stupid this is?
And can't we use derogatory terms without assuming it's racism? Yes, we ought to avoid calling minorities by racial slurs, but if someone has a heated argument, gets mad, and lets such a word slip, it doesn't mean they express disdain toward the race. If there's no racism behind it, why is using racist words worse than calling them a son of a bitch? The desired result is to hurt the person, either way. And dislike of one individual is NOT racism. Racist words are not racism. Racism is racism. If we define it by words we use, we clearly have no concept of what true racism actually is.
So stop with all these double standards. Stop seeing something wrong in everything. Stop blaming all white men for all the evil in our world, because not everyone is bad and if another group were dominant, they would be just as bad. Most importantly, stop trying to censor everyone and everything. We are all individuals, equally good and equally bad; opportunity dictates our choices, and white men just happen to have more opportunities to be assholes. But this says nothing about an individual, as we are not wholly defined by what group we belong to. Nobody is inherently better than anyone else. We share the same nature. It's how we're nurtured that's different.