I have to admit, I don’t have a lot of patience with conservative opinion sites like townhall.com, but this one is so over the top I had to laugh despite myself.
Why Liberals Are So Obsessed With Racism, Homosexuality and Transsexualism
Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion.
Yup, exactly. That’s why he, as a conservative, starts by assuming that conservative=logical and liberal=emotional, universally. Because that’s such a logical premise. And he’s just getting warmed up.
Let’s go on and see how this approach leads us to a deeper understanding of liberal attitudes towards racism and other human rights issues.
Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel.
Like for example “trickle-down” economics, abstinence-only sex education, and “world peace through bombing foreigners.” Conservatives only care whether a program works or not, liberals only care about feelings.
Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe they’re best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions.
So you see, liberals oppose racism because it makes them feel good about themselves. By implication, conservatives take the opposing position in support of racism, even though it makes them feel ashamed of themselves, because they believe racism is what’s best for society. Logic. See?
Once you understand those basics, it’s very easy to see why both sides hold the positions they do on most issues and to comprehend why there’s so little middle ground. Once you get the mentalities, you can predict where each side will come down on issues.
Start from these presuppositions, on the basis of no supporting evidence whatsoever, and it all becomes crystal clear. Logic explains everything!
An extremely expensive program designed to help disadvantaged minority children read better that has been proven not to work? Liberals will support it and conservatives will oppose.
Also, apparently, logic requires a vivid and creative imagination. If you imagine such a program, and then imagine liberals supporting it, then you’ll see, from the evidence, just how conclusive this conclusion really is.
A program that cuts the deficit by cutting people off the welfare and disability rolls who don’t belong there in the first place? Conservatives will support it and liberals will oppose.
And since, by definition, only wealthy white bankers and CEO’s deserve government handouts, you can see what kind of savings that would produce. Hey, if you didn’t want to have to go on food stamps, and then lose your food stamps, you should never have gotten a minimum wage job (or two), you irresponsible moocher.
A program called “Puppies for Orphans” that hands out “therapy dogs” to poor children at $100,000 per year in cost? Liberals will support it and conservatives will oppose.
Not that any such program exists, or costs $100K per puppy, or has any support from liberals. We’re not talking about reality here, folks. We’re using logic.
The problem with all of this is that most of what passes for “compassion” with liberals isn’t real compassion. There’s a cost to real compassion and thus, a limit to it.
And remember, this is helping explain why liberals oppose discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and LGBT people. That’s why we’re proving that liberal compassion is “not real compassion” through the use of examples that aren’t real examples.
99 times out of 100, liberals’ “compassion” is nothing more than “virtue signaling.” They’re offering to take your money and give it to someone else. They’re offering to take rights away from other people that they don’t care about. They’re saying people are racist, bigoted, sexist or homophobic for disagreeing with them.
Yes, when liberals try to protect people from being abused and persecuted, it’s because liberals don’t really care. And the reason they don’t care is because they’re emotional, not logical. That’s why they keep appealing to discredited ideas like virtue and compassion and justice. They simply don’t understand that when you prevent conservatives from abusing people who are minding their own business and not doing any harm, that takes away our money and gives it to people who don’t deserve it. I’m not entirely sure how that works exactly, but then I’m one of those emotional liberals too, so I must just not understand logic.
No, for real compassion, you have to look to the conservatives. Conservatives understand that real compassion has limits. For example, you have to limit it to people who look like you and worship the same way you do and for God’s sake fall in love the same way you do. Once you start standing up for people who are obviously different, you’ve left the boundaries of real compassion, and strayed into signaling all that virtue crap. And that’s just not logical. See?
It’s cost-free for someone to talk about how much he hates racism because racism is almost universally despised in America. There is no price to be paid for attacking a zoo that made the difficult decision to shoot a gorilla because a boy had fallen into his pen. If you’re not a Christian and have no moral qualms about gay marriage, it’s easy to call for the law to crack down on bakers or wedding photographers who refuse to participate because they find it morally repulsive.
The problem with all this pointless virtue signaling is that because there is no real cost to it, there are no limits to it. As long as liberals lose nothing by advocating a position, but get credit for being compassionate for taking it, why not go for it?
I know, it’s so unfair, right? Why do liberals keep doing things that people admire them for when they know conservatives can’t compete? Virtue ought to be punished, so that it would cost people to stand up and advocate virtuous behavior. The situation right now, where you can actually be admired for promoting virtues like tolerance and understanding and cooperation—well, I just don’t know if this great nation of ours can survive for long unless we can turn this thing around. Because, you know, a gorilla in the zoo, mumble, mumble, something. You still with me? Logic is hard, I know.
This creates a situation where people have to keep on upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You find new things to call racist.
What are those “new things”? We’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. And no fair using the same old things that racism has always been called out for, like being prejudiced against people, and discriminating against them, and trying to refuse to allow them to enter or remain in the country just because of their ethnicity. Or things like trying to sabotage their work, minimize their successes, and exaggerate any real or imagined transgressions, just because of their race. Things like that have always been racist. You have to find new things, that have never been racist before, that liberals are now calling racism. Good luck.
Eventually, when liberals moved beyond parody when it came to race issues, they showed they were compassionate by obsessing over the 3% of the American population that’s gay. Then from there, they became maniacally focused on the .3% of the population (if that) that claims to be transgender.
See, a lot of people don’t realize this, but the magic number is 51. If you’re not part of some group that’s at least 51% of the population, your rights don’t count. Conservatives realize this because they’re logical, and what’s more they can also do math. If your group is a smaller percentage of the population, you get fewer rights. It really is that simple. “Liberty and justice for all” is just a slogan. Only maniacal liberals take that stuff literally. The fact that conservatives reacted to gay rights by specifically targeting transgendered people for abuse is purely coincidental. This is all just liberals looking for something to maniacally obsess over.
If every single thing on the liberal wish list for minorities, gays and transgenders were to happen tomorrow, a new list of demands or some new series of pet groups that need to be protected would spring up almost instantaneously. That’s because it’s not about the specifics; it’s about an arms race between liberals trying to signal their virtue by being willing to go further than other people in being conspicuously compassionate while getting in some cheap shots on their political opponents at the same time.
It’s like conservatives warned us back in the day when those darn liberals started talking about giving equal rights to women and blacks. Start giving them equal rights, and the next thing you know you’ll be giving equal rights to Jews and Irish immigrants and Catholics and Hispanics and on and on and on. It’s a total slippery slope, and what’s to stop us from ending up in a society where everybody has equal rights and is free to do and to be whatever they want, without fear of persecution, so long as they’re not hurting anyone?
Not those maniacal liberals, that’s for sure. Liberals don’t care about people at all, and that’s why they always champion causes that protect innocent people from being abused just because they are different. Thank God we have conservatives to remind us, logically, why protecting everyone’s rights equally would be such a terrible idea.
The problem with this is that compassion, real or fake, has little to do with what makes a society successful. Capitalism is not warm and fuzzy. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, diversity and sensitivity to women’s issues are not what makes a military successful. In fact, the most effective policies are often not very forgiving or compassionate. So, when you have a large block of the country that completely abandons what works for whatever makes liberals feel good and look more “compassionate,” it creates enormous amounts of dysfunction.
Suppose, for example, that society were to say, “It’s the workers who are generating all the wealth that’s somehow all ending up in the bank accounts of the top 1%, they’re entitled to their fair share of the wealth they create.” I don’t need to tell you, if society started practicing a more even-handed distribution of the wealth created by the workers, there are probably thousands of extremely wealthy individuals who might have to go out and start earning their own income instead of profiting off the labor of others. Sure, there’s lots more people in the lower and middle classes, and expanding their income would grow the economy tremendously, but what would happen to the American Dream if people like Mitt Romney or Donald Trump ended up taking home only as much wealth as was proportionate to their contribution to society?
Conservatives understand that a successful society is not one in which citizens benefit from liberty, equality, justice, and fair compensation for their labor. A successful society is one that knows how to cast aside compassion—including the real, limited compassion of conservatism—in favor of a capitalist society where the wealthy few enjoy lives of luxury and privilege through the unbridled exploitation of the political system and of increasingly hard-working Americans. That’s what a successful society is.
And that’s why liberals are so obsessed with racism, homosexuals, and transexuals. They’re all emotion, and zero logic, and therefore they cannot see the beauty of this capitalist utopia. They’re simply maniacs, who care nothing for people, and are only advocating policies that protect individual liberty because they’re silly enough to believe that virtue is a good thing. They’re cheaters, too, taking advantage of people’s admiration of virtue to win admiration for themselves, knowing full well that truly compassionate, logical conservatives can’t possibly take the moral high ground when it comes to protecting individual liberties. Because conservatives only want what’s best for America, or at least for wealthy American capitalists. And things like virtue and compassion are simply irrelevant.