Harrison Bergeron said:
Johnny Bear said:
ShooterTX said:
Porteroso said:
Johnny Bear said:
All of this started with mainstreaming and normalizing homosexual behavior and the homosexual lifestyle. Once you endorse/embrace one type of sexual perversion it stands to reason that others will follow - and they have.
Many cultures have tolerated homosexuality. Transsexuals are a new thing, made possible by modern medicine. You won't study the Greek trans movement in your history book.
Point is they are quite different. Homosexuality being found in the animal kingdom. Cutting off sex organs not.
We all have a need to know what the heck is going on, but don't be a dullard and pancake everything down to black and white.
I hate to tell you...but he's not wrong.
I remember making the argument in the early 90s that the widespread acceptance of homosexuality would lead to acceptance of tranvestites (that's what we used to call them) and eventually even pedophillia.
I was blasted & ridiculed for making the "slippery slope" argument... and yet here we are.
Sexual deviancy (and yes, homosexuality is 100% in that category) will always lead to more sexual deviancy.
To your point, the move to ultimately normalize pedophilia is under way as the term "minor attracted persons" is now being used to make this sickness sound more like just another type of "different strokes for different folks" kind of thing. I'm convinced there will be an eventual attempt to overcome the fact that we're not talking about consenting adults by introducing the sick notion that "Hey - some kids like it too, and why should they also be deprived of enjoying sexual gratification if it makes them happy?". Yes, that's a disgusting and unimaginably evil thought, but not that long ago the thought of drag queens using sexually explicit language and twerking in front of kindergardeners was as well - and now look at where we are.
Normalizing pedophilia if following the same track that normalizing homosexuality took. Rename it. Start fringe college papers on normalizing. Soon there will be a pedophile in a TV show.
Not to mention the greatest weapon in the war of normalization (and crushing opposition to it) is to define it as a protected class in the Civil Rights Act
If (like Homosexuality) it ever gets interpreted by a Federal Judge as a protected class then the battle against it will be over.
[Wokeness is Government Policy:
Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what wokeness actually is. I'd argue it has 3 components:
1) A belief that any disparities in outcomes favoring whites over non-whites or men over women are caused by discrimination (Sometimes wokeness cares about other disparities too, like fat/nonfat, but those are given less attention. I'm putting aside LGBT issues, which seem to be at an earlier stage of wokeness in which the left is still mostly fighting battles regarding explicit differences in treatment rather than disparate outcomes, although the latter does get attention sometimes.)
2) The speech of those who would argue against 1 needs to be restricted in the interest of overcoming such disparities, and the safety and emotional well-being of the victimized group in question.
3) Bureaucracies are needed that reflect the beliefs in 1 and 2, working to overcome disparities and managing speech and social relations.
Each of these things can be traced to law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on race and gender. While most at the time thought this would simply remove explicit discrimination, and many of the proponents of the bill made that promise, courts and regulators expanded the concept of "non-discrimination" to mean almost anything that advantages one group over another. An important watershed was the decision in
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the Supreme Court ruled that intelligence tests, because they were not shown to be directly related to job performance, could not be used in hiring since blacks scored lower on them, and it did not matter whether there was any intent to discriminate. People act as if "standardized tests are racist if they show disparities"
is some kind of new idea, but it's basically been the law in the United States for 50 years, albeit inconsistently enforced.
Standardized tests aren't the only target of the doctrine of disparate impact. In 2019 (under Trump), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
settled a suit brought against Dollar General for $6 million for doing criminal background checks that disproportionately prevented blacks from being hired. The Obama administration went after schools for disciplining black and white students at different rates,
with predictably disastrous results. Police departments, fire departments, and other institutions use
"gender normed" tests to stop the EEOC and private applicants from suing them for gender discrimination. This is of course completely insane; criminals can't be relied on to go easier on female cops on account of their sex, but somehow we've all come to accept affirmative action policing and firefighting (in 2014, a guy who jumped the White House fence
overpowered a female Secret Service agent and made it all the way to the East Room).
As the government invented new standards for what counts as "discrimination," it was forcing more aggressive action on the part of the private sector.
Executive Order 11246, signed by President Johnson, required all government contractors and subcontractors who did over $10,000 in government business to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The category of "sex" was added in 1967. In 1969, Richard Nixon signed EO 11478, which forced affirmative action onto the federal government itself.
Across the federal government and among contractors, affirmative action
assumed that "but for discrimination, statistical parity among racial and ethnic groups would be the norm."
Government interpretation of the Civil Rights Act also invented the concept of the "hostile work environment." UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has written about how this has been used to restrict free speech. Writing in 1997, he
pointed out that
Quote:
The scope of harassment law is thus molded by three facts:
1. On its face, harassment law draws no distinction among slurs, pornography, political, religious, or social commentary, jokes, art, and other forms of speech. All can be punished, so long as they are "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile environment."
2. The vagueness of the terms "severe" and "pervasive" and the fact that the law is implemented by employers, who have an incentive to oversuppress means that the law may practically restrict any speech that an employer concludes might be found by a fact-finder to be "severe or pervasive" enough.
3. Finally, because an employer is liable for the aggregate of all its employees' speech, wise employers will bar any sort of statement that might, if repeated by enough people, be "severe or pervasive" enough to create a hostile environment.
Putting all this together, harassment law potentially burdens any workplace speech that's offensive to at least one person in the workplace based on [protected characteristics] … even when the speech is political and even when it's not severe or pervasive enough to itself be actionable.
Federal Racial Policies and the Rise of HR
The rise of HR departments can be directly traced to the federal government's race and gender policies, which involve direct control of the federal bureaucracy, the "carrot" of government contracts, and the "sticks" of EEOC enforcement and lawsuit threats.
As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin wrote in
Inventing Equal Opportunity, it was civil rights law that revolutionized the American workplace. Corporations started to hire full time staff in order to keep track of government mandates, which were vague and could change at any moment. There was a sense of "keeping up with the Joneses," in which every company and institution had to be more anti-racist and anti-sexist than the next one, leading to more and more absurd diversity trainings and other programs....]
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights
