Religious Freedom

The Masterpiece Cakeshop court case, ruled that a baker had the right to deny a gay couple a wedding cake due to his religious freedom.

Conversely, the Trinity Western University case denied a proposed law school the right to contractually obligate its students to engage in heterosexual marriage (as opposed to homosexual marriage).

I have previously discussed the victim mentality prevalent among right-wingers, who frame opposition to their bigotry as an attack on their rights. For that reason, I wasn’t inclined to do a blog post on either of the aforementioned cases. I’ve laid out my arguments before, and I also grow tired of trying to talk sense to an audience that has no willingness to heed facts.

The Trinity Western case came up while I was work, where I read a newspaper column by someone who thought the Trinity Western University (TWU) ruling was a slippery slope to Canadians losing their rights. “Religious freedom” is the go to word, and just like “freedom of speech,” it seems like there is a collective misunderstanding of the term.

Canadians are allowed to go to church, identify as Christian and wear religious symbols. Now, the latter part does face some restrictions when it comes to places of work. The same way some work places ban hijabs, some also ban items such as rosaries. The goal is not to infringe religious rights for individuals, but to keep the workplace neutral.

The TWU case does not affect the school’s religious rights. TWU is still allowed to identify as a Christian university and gear its curriculum towards the goal of developing “Godly Christian leaders.” The fact that the Supreme Court said the school can’t ban gay marriage for its students has no relation to religious freedom. The court did not say every student must participate in gay marriage or that none of the students are allowed to participate in “traditional” marriage.

Like free speech, religion is another crutch for bigots. If your religion says you can’t bake a cake for a couple due to their sexual orientation, or that you must outlaw gay marriage for a university’s students, maybe it is time to rethink the religion.

The Last Of Us: Lesbian Backlash Part II

Last week I posted a video to YouTube to criticize the backlash that the gameplay trailer received for a lesbian kiss between Ellie and another character. This backlash also mirrored the criticism and heteronormative assumptions (e.g. she could still be straight) that the Left Behind DLC received.

 

The like/dislike ratio on my video is currently 24/30 and I was almost tempted to disable comments due to all the intolerance they display. Of course, the free speech warriors will say that disabling the comments would make me intolerant since I can’t accept other opinions. Let me explain something to these people. If I were to disable the comments, that would not mean I don’t think people had the right to make comments. Free speech does not mean everyone must agree with what you say or that you are not ever allowed to be censored in anyway. You have the legal right to swear in a kid’s show but that would likely face censorship. If you insult your boss it is your freedom of speech to do so, but don’t complain about your rights being infringed if you get fired. In short, freedom of speech means you won’t get locked up for your opinions. You have the right to be a bigot but I don’t have to agree or give you a platform that allows other likeminded people to swarm to my video.

Do comments like, “Im not supporting any faggot game” really warrant a response or any attention? Do they contribute to democratic debate? Someone making comments like this doesn’t even have to watch the video or listen to a word I say. They can just read the title.

I have gone ahead and deleted comments that discuss a lesbian “agenda” or “political correctness” or “sjws” because they also demonstrate people didn’t bother watching the video. I spoke for a few minutes about how the things we are either used to or not intolerant of e.g. straight, white male characters get little scrutiny. People will play 10+ video games this year with straight white leads. As soon as one game comes out with a lesbian character an “agenda” is afoot. Do these people ever think the disproportionate dominance (in relation the US demographics) of white characters in the media is part of an “agenda?” I bet they don’t.

I had another person, who likely didn’t watch the video, complain about politics infecting his video games. The implication here is that lesbian inclusion is inherently political, and another implication is that video games should never have characters who aren’t straight since games are just supposed to be escapism. If you can watch an 11 minute video, with a ten second lesbian kiss, and think your escapism is ruined, it appears you are just focusing on the kiss too much. Why are you focusing on the kiss too much? Because it really bothers you. Why does it really bother you? Because you are homophobic. Of course, you won’t just say that in a comment. I can almost respect the user that just said he doesn’t want to support a “faggot game.” At least he could own up to his bigotry in a sense: He won’t call himself a bigot or own that label, but he doesn’t try to play the victim and hide his intolerance through complaints about “sjws” and “agendas.”

Protecting Feelings

Ryan Holiday is one of my favourite readers, and I seek his advice on mentorship, reading, careers, self-development and so on. However, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. I logged into Medium and came across this article, where he basically argues humans need to accept more personal responsibility for feeling offended by the media. Basically, if you let something offend you, it is your fault.

While I admire Holiday I realize he is imperfect. He incorrectly predicted that Trump would not be president, arguing that all of the Trump supporters were just a loud minority. Maybe he was right, but low voter turnout gave that minority more power and look where America is now.

Now, Holiday actually ends up parroting a lot of right-wing talking points I’ve discussed previously. As a preface, I recommend reading those articles first. I am not saying that Holiday is a right-wing bigot, I am only saying that a lot of his arguments unintentionally parallel those used by groups such as the alt-right and their sympathizers. While Holiday’s article present examples of sensitivity that are not race related, the comments reveal a slew of people who are applying his comments to “snowflakes” and “social justice warriors.” These terms are typically used in the realm of politics and race; the rallying cry to successfully derail any progressive conversations.

Holiday described “social justice warrior” as someone who creates an issue where there is none. Maybe that is what it originally meant, now someone who comments on any well documented form of racism is a sjw. Everything is relative. I remember listening to a podcast where the male speaker warned a listener about the racism in Arizona, while also saying he is not a social justice warrior. However, some people would still call him one because he spoke out against racism. Nowadays, people can only accept something as racist, discriminatory or offensive if it includes explicit racial slurs of lynchings.

Holiday has criticized the notion that freedom of speech means that people shouldn’t face consequences for what they say, or that everyone must agree with what you say. The anti-liberal meme above embraces the idea that disagreement is a threat to freedom of speech. As I’ve also discussed before, it seems like many members of the right-wing lost track of the term’s legal dimension, and now frame any disagreement with their ideas an attack on their rights. Holiday explicitly criticizes this view in his latest book, Conspiracy, which I was happy to see.

I didn’t have to look long and hard to find the anti-liberal memes posted above, and I used them because they help summarize the right-wing view. The things that liberals “cry” about include police brutality (which disproportionately affects minorities), racist Hollywood practices (which right-wing people care about when a role gets “blackwashed”) and a host of other issues that are supposedly not valid.

Now, people want to argue that the issue can’t bother us unless we let it. Fair enough point, I can see the purpose behind it. However, does the fact that I don’t get passionate about an issue or “triggered” mean I shouldn’t care. Should we just ignore all racist comments and people? Ignore racist cops and presidents? Ignoring the issue doesn’t make it go away. People like to use the analogy of a cut, saying that if we keep picking at it, it won’t heal. However, the people who routinely use terms like social justice warrior believe there is no cut.

The Chip On My Shoulder

Any longtime readers of this blog or viewers of my YouTube channel know that I don’t shy away from discussing racism. I am not one of the people who uses the rhetoric of “colour-blindness” to derail conversations about racism, pretending like I am enlightened while also letting racist assumptions guide my life e.g. black people have a higher rate of poverty because they are lazier than white people.

I had several experiences during my early teen years that cemented the importance of race to everyday life. These experiences range from always being treated with suspicion (“Do you live here?”) when I got home, to a flight attendant telling me to use the bathroom in coach even though I was in first class, to being followed when I shopped. Of course, these are just a small selection of the total. Now, these experiences are a far cry from facing death at the hands of the KKK. Things have improved, but they are nowhere near equal yet. The belief that racism is dead is a fiction meant to comfort, not to educate.

Although school taught me about the racism of the past, such as Jim Crow, school failed to teach me about lingering forms of racism. The racism that says someone’s skin colour makes them more suspicious in certain areas, regardless of their dress or behaviour. The racism that says that certain types of entertainment, or certain types of activities are the domain of the white man only. The racism that says that a certain race must just be dumber or lazier if they can’t succeed like another.

All of my learning about the lingering forms of racism, the new Jim Crow, came from my own experiences. These experiences were a kick in the teeth that coincided with the time I was becoming more self conscious in general. It was a recent conversation with my mom that made me realize that I let these experiences give me cargo that I need to shed.

Before the right-wingers breathe a sigh of relief, this does not mean I have adopted the colour-blind mentality. A popular refrain among those who derail anti-racism conversations is that minorities have a “victim mentality”. The word “victim” is thrown out even if the specific people being referred to are happy in their skin. The argument assumes that acknowledging racism means thinking of yourself as a victim. The word victim is technically a good one to describe people who are disproportionately policed, profiled, jailed etc. but the word victim here also implies a lack of agency. It implies that black people just sit around waiting for things to get better and don’t bother trying to work hard. In my case, the reality of racism motivated me to work harder in order to try to get the same level of respect as my white peers. I am willing to bet it is the same for plenty of other black people out there.

While I thought of myself as a proud black man, it was my mom that realized I am not truly happy in my skin. There are many types of discrimination that are defended nowadays, and I realized there was a specific one that hung over me more than others. While racial profiling and police brutality are some of the most notable, there was another, more insidious form that I started to come across more often once I went to university.

I have been profiled pretty often, but I have fortunately not been profiled every time I go out or talk to a group of friends. The form of discrimination that came up most often for me was dating discrimination. I call it a more insidious form of discrimination since it is probably the most heavily defended form. Even people who are enlightened when it comes to their other views, might still want to stick to their own when it comes to sex and dating.

Now, I understand people like what they like. However, I don’t believe that people are just born wanting to date a specific type of person. As Ex-Machina put it, “accumulated external stimuli” determines what you like. This stimuli can be the type of people you grow up with, the guidance of your parents, the images of beauty you see in the media etc. The influence of the media is especially important since dominant images of beauty coinciding with light skin are a factor in the belief that lighter skin is more attractive than dark, and this is a belief present even in the minds of some minorities. When it comes to dating preferences, our newborn minds are a tabula rasa waiting to be molded. I grew up with interracial couples in my family and went to many different schools with many different ethnic makeups. I wasn’t just around other races, I actively mingled with them on a regular basis. Therefore, I grew up thinking interracial coupling was natural and widespread. I was very wrong if my early experiences are any indication.

When speaking with my mom, I described hanging out with white girls, and my memories of the disgusted stares people directed at me. I described my experiences trying to talk to girls, only to get looks of hatred, while my white friends were treated with conversation.

As my mom said, “If it bothers you, don’t date white girls.”

These are not colour-blind words. These are the words of someone who acknowledges that racism is alive and well, but also doesn’t let it make her feel uncomfortable when she faces the world. I realized that I don’t have that quality. I am always on the lookout for a security guard eyeing me, the guy giving me dirty looks as I hold a white girl’s hand and so on. I don’t enjoy the moment. Even if I go to a nice restaurant or hotel, my earlier experiences with racism make me tense as I pretty much wait for security to be called on me, someone to look at me with disgust or clutch their purse tighter.

It makes sense to be on the lookout for real danger, and maybe some ignorant suburban mom could call the police on me and I could end up getting shot. However, that hasn’t happened and that wasn’t what I worried about. It was the looks that bothered me, and the thoughts that fuelled them. Those thoughts exist, but I shouldn’t let them get in the way of my life. My date or my day snowboarding shouldn’t be ruined just because some people looked at me funny or had ignorant thoughts. Their racist thoughts exist and I will never deny that. What I will deny is their power to ruin my happiness.

Debate Me

I was scrolling through Twitter the other day and decided to check in on Talib Kweli’s feed. I have previously discussed the racists who continuously flock to his feed to accuse him of “race-baiting”. Although Kweli has a busy touring schedule he engages racists in debate, shutting down the incorrect assumptions, or straight out incorrect data that they use to justify their views. Seeing all of the foolish things they say, such as “racism isn’t racist” can be infuriating, but I believe it is also a window into the souls of the new breed of racists. People always love to call these people “trolls”, which implies they aren’t actually racist and are just saying racist things for attention. However, this mindset is downright dangerous in this day and age. Steve Bannon, former chairman of far-right site, Breitbart, has even said that online hate “is an army” that politicians can mobilize.

So, when I look at all the hate directed to Kweli’s profile, I don’t disregard it all as unimportant trolling. I can see the thought process of the people who cling to the idea that the straight, Christian, white man is now the real persecuted minority. One thing that pops up time after time, is the “debate me” gimmick. Racists flock to Kweli’s profile, asking him to debate them on their world view. He cuts their arguments apart, and when he shows them statistics or arguments that they disagree with, they focus on more trivial things to avoid admitting they were wrong e.g. “You called me racist, you’re just a name caller…freedom of speech.”

Kweli has said it better than me, but there seems to be a collective misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech does not mean everything you say is right, or that everyone must agree with what you say. In the simplest terms, it means you can’t get arrested for speaking out. If you say something racist, it is legal to do so in America. If someone decides to ridicule you for what you said, that is their freedom of speech, and it is not violating yours. Freedom of speech does not only apply to what you want to say or hear, so don’t use it as a crutch when people disagree with what you say.

Aside from the misunderstanding of free speech, is the desire to be spoon fed information. I can’t count the amount of times some Trump supporter on Twitter says, “Show me one example of Trump being racist.” If these people really wanted to find this information, they could just Google it. The fact that they are on Twitter means they have internet access for some portion of their day. The information is there if they wanted to search for it. Instead, they will likely use Google to search “Reasons Trump is not racist” and ignore all of the information to the contrary. We are all guilty of this selective exposure to some extent. However, the information I seek out can often contradict the information someone from the alt-right will seek out. One source will likely be more reputable, not because of the name, but because of how they collect their info e.g. Ben Shapiro can give stats about police shootings, and information I find can demonstrate that the stats are skewed because they don’t factor in nearly half the police agencies in the US. This is how the internet works. You can use it to find info.

So instead of Googling “Trump racist”, some people will just post on Twitter and wait for someone else to drudge up all of the information they actively ignore everyday. When someone actually presents the info, the Trump supporter will derail the conversation with straw man arguments, ad hominem or statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts. Who knows, the Trump supporter might not even read the info before calling the presenter the real racist for caring so much. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario, this is something that is played out again and again on Talib Kweli’s feed and many others.

The Right is Still Triggered

Note: To anyone reading, sorry for the hiatus. Been busy sorting out a move into a new place and just got internet set up yesterday. Without further ado, back to it.

I have my moments of distraction, where I spend time in the black hole of YouTube recommendations, watching scenes from some of my favourite shows or the other random videos that pique my interest. I was watching a clip from Netflix’s The Punisher, when I came across a random right-wing comment.

“Deborah Ann Woll is so beautiful and talented. The female characters in this show are some of the best I’ve seen in a long time. No feminazi bullshit, no pandering, no SJW nonsense, just all normal, strong, believable women characters that didn’t make me feel like I was watching a show created by tumblr. I loved Karen and Madani in this show (Madani started off annoying until around episode 4 though.) This show is just so well done. There’s some cheesy writing here and there, some flat jokes, but shit, nothing is perfect. I’m stoked for season 2.”

Firstly, this comment is amusing since the 20+ other comments after it didn’t mention politics at all. No one else was mentioning “feminazis” or sjws, so who is really triggered here?

Next, this post also demonstrates how intolerance is relative. This viewer commends Karen’s character and her inclusion in the series, while also saying it isn’t “feminazi bullshit”. For some people, any scene with a female lead (if she isn’t banging the male lead) is feminazi bullshit. Any strong female character becomes a Mary Sue and part of a feminist agenda.

As an example, look at this comment on this Punisher clip. In the below scene, Billy Russo is giving a speech to potential recruits of his private military contracting firm, Anvil.

Now check out this comment from a triggered right-winger who sees two female applicants.

“This is such a bullshit scene LOL I laughed out loud there’s no less than two women in that crowd. There is not a single civilian contracted mercenary group that would ever hire women for combat. Sjw’s and stupidity may have forced the US Army to allow women into combat but civilians don’t have to and most people that own their own businesses are smart enough to know simple facts of life. Simple facts such as women are ineffective in combat and if you don’t believe that look at any stats from the US military’s physical Fitness tests. Without fail the ratio of men passing these tests to women passing these tests are ten-to-one one across-the-board. They are not built for combat there’s nothing sexist about that it’s simple fact men are Fighters they are built to be that way women are not.”

So this person is obviously harping on the fact that women typically have less upper body strength than men. He says women pass these tests at a ten-to-one ratio compared to men, and that ratio of women is approximately what we see here. Maybe (emphasis on maybe) I could understand where he was coming from if the group was mostly women, but to go on a rant because two women are in a scene?

Like I said, sjw and feminazi are relative. They are not absolutes. “Feminazi bullshit” to one person can be completely overlooked by another. The more right-wing you are, the more sensitive you will be to any minority or female inclusion.

Miles Morales: Political Correctness

Here is a link to an article I wrote for comicommand.com

As a quick summary, this short article (about 900 words) explores some of the backlash that Miles Morales received when he was introduced as the new Spider-Man in the Ultimate Marvel comics.

My argument is that many of the people criticizing this reveal with terms such as “PC” fail to see the context that led to the creation of iconic white characters like Peter Parker, Batman or Superman.

Would love it if you could all check this article out.

http://comicommand.com/2016/03/30/miles-morales-political-correctness/

The Right Wing Buzzwords

Politically Correct,

White Knight,

Social Justice Warrior.

 

We’ve probably all heard these terms, and many of us have probably used them,

People are always quick to say it’s (insert year) anytime a conversation about discrimination comes up,

As if the year itself changes the way people think,

There is the idea that time always means progress,

Yet the state of the world makes it clear that the flow of time can lead to more entropy,

Time can lead to a regression, instead of a progression,

 

It’s 2016, racial, religious and sexual minorities have more rights than ever and are more respected than ever,

In theory,

Many laws tell us that we fixed the problem of discrimination,

Yet why is rape culture increasingly embraced among men?

“Women shouldn’t dress like that if they don’t want to get cat-called or raped. Anyone who disagrees is just a white knight.”

Why is racism so accepted in our progressive population?

“I’m not racist but I’d never date a black guy.”

“A black guy got hired; no way he deserved the job. It’s affirmative action, reverse-racism. Why can’t these social justice warriors see that?”

 

Why is discrimination against other religions so widely accepted?

“We should ban all Muslims from entering the country. We can’t be politically correct about this.”

 

Maybe that last sentence is the issue, The use of terms like “politically correct”, “white knight” and “social justice warrior” to criticize anyone whose beliefs fall farther left of the political spectrum,

I can see why it is so seductive to rely on these words,

You don’t have to try to understand what your opponent is saying,

You don’t need research, facts or figures of any kind,

The words speak for themselves and you become a pied piper, attracting all the bitter and angry people who share your view of the world,

Your words entice them, seducing them and encouraging them to embrace their prejudices,

You can just throw out one of these words and wait for like-minded people to commend you for your argument,

The real beauty is that these words help to disguise prejudice,

No one who uses them sees themselves as possibly being prejudiced,

To them, it is only common sense,

It is the liberals and the minorities that need to smarten up and get their act together,

These same people who preach about their tolerance, how It’s 2016 and they don’t even see colour or care about religion, often hold the most discriminatory views,

Cognitive dissonance is a permanent part of their lives,

These right-wingers complain about how minorities focus on race too much,

Meanwhile, they also make decisions about who to date and what areas to live in based on the racial preferences whose existence they deny,

They will complain that Muslims get too much recognition in their secular country,

Meanwhile, they also protest against “Under God” being removed from the constitution,

They will deny that sexism and objectification is a problem for women anymore, arguing that men are the real victims,

Meanwhile, they will assume that a successful woman got her position due to her gender, not due to her skills or intelligence

 

It’s the start of a new year, and instead of making another failed resolution to eat better and get in shape, maybe we can make some real progress and try to change the way we see the world,

Instead of shutting down facts and common sense we can try to listen to reason,

Maybe we can have conversations about diversity, tolerance, equality, without going to our knee-jerk reaction to blurt out the right wing buzzwords