Bigots don’t know they’re bigots, I guess


It’s useful to look at who your friends are. Who is defending the Intellectual Dork Web? Why, it’s the far-right conservatives, of course, like David French of the National Review Online. He’s got an angry defense, primarily of such right-wing luminaries as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, that is dotted with the usual buzzwords: “Identity politics! Political correctness!” But it’s also interesting to see what ideas he thinks are worth defending from the Identitarian PC Hordes of his imagination:

My email inbox is often a clearinghouse for dissenters from corporate America. They’ll forward me all manner of corporate communications in which their bosses establish definitive company political positions on all manner of hot-button political and cultural topics unrelated to their business. Banks, insurance companies, and technology companies produce statements about gun rights, fund Planned Parenthood, and conduct “diversity training” sessions that would make an Ivy League gender-studies department stand up and cheer. An employee “transitions,” and rather than relying on the good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office, the company brings in “trainers” to teach a roomful of people in no uncertain terms that gender is different from sex, the man they worked with for years is a woman and always has been a woman, and dissent from these highly contentious positions is pure hatred and bigotry.

And everyone knows what happens to bigots in the workplace.

They rise to CEO positions, get appointed to the Supreme Court, elected to the Senate, or become President of the United States? Is this a trick question?

Curious, though, that what has steam coming out of his ears is gun legislation (we need more of it, I would think that’s obvious), Planned Parenthood (a good organization that provides necessary services to women), and … trans people’s rights? He seems most irate that we aren’t just shutting up and trusting in the good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office, which would be hilarious if it weren’t so harmful.

Remember, this tirade is primarily in support of Ben Shapiro, that man of good will, manners, and professionalism, who has declared that “(1) Being trans is a mental disorder and trans folk need psychological help, (2) If you are born with X genitalia you are X gender, (3) Forcing people to treat trans people as their preferred gender is ‘thought policing.’” If we’re supposed to rely on the good will, manners, and professionalism of Ben Shapiro and David French, that’s a pretty good argument that the offices of the National Review need some diversity training.

I haven’t forgotten, either, that Jordan Peterson was launched into notoriety by his ill-founded protest against pronouns and laws that would give trans men and women equal protection under Canadian law. Bigots, all. Shouldn’t we be calling them out?

Comments

  1. says

    Bigots are certain that everybody else is a bigot, too. It’s just that (a) some of them are the wrong kind of bigots—the ones who hate straight Christian white men with money, and (b) the rest of them pretend they’re not bigots in order to signal their virtue and curry favor with bigoted feminazis and race hustling identity politicos.

    But basically, we’re all part of that big brotherhood of haters. Let’s all grab a beer and throw it at someone!

  2. garnetstar says

    Corporations get to do what they damn well please: isn’t that one of their “rights” under capitalism? So, what is he whining about?

    If dissenters don’t like the policies that the company has decided will prevail in their workplace, they can work somewhere else. That’s the free market, which should be completely free and unregulated because that is the only thing that upholds society in conservatives’ eyes, right?

    So, if your company is so awful as to decide to uphold trans rights, donate to Planned Parenthood, have a position on gun control and actually *not tolerate bigots* (!), then get out.

  3. Howard Brazee says

    I agree with Kip T.W. They know they are bigots and expect we are as well. There are excuses for the bigotry, and it isn’t constant.

    They have a point – to some extent we have lots of different ways we see various parts of the world, and we all have elements where we might not notice our biasses and bigotry. But the biggest bigots are *proud* of their bigotry.

  4. blf says

    corporate communications in which their bosses establish definitive company political positions on all manner of hot-button political and cultural topics unrelated to their business. Banks, insurance companies, and technology companies produce statements about gun rights, fund Planned Parenthood, and conduct ‘diversity training’ sessions.

    “Unrelated to their business”? No. Substitute “stakeholders” for “business” — employees, shareholders, customers, contractors, and so on do care, it’s not just profits and pay and dividends: To see this, substitute “child rape” for “gun rights”, “daesh” for “Planned Parenthood”, and “chemical warfare for “‘diversity training'”: corporate communications in which their bosses establish definitive company political positions on all manner of hot-button political and cultural topics unrelated to their business. Banks, insurance companies, and technology companies produce statements about child rape, fund daesh, and conduct chemical warfare sessions.

    Unrelated? Perhaps. Inappropriate? No. Hot-buttons, political, or cultural? No — those are some of the things stakeholders do not support, condone, or tolerate: It’s not just profits and pay and dividends.

  5. says

    Somehow I don’t think he has a problem with bosses denying women access to proper health care on religious grounds. What a hypocritical motherf*cker.

  6. rietpluim says

    Why, yes, bigots never consider themselves bigots, and racists never consider themselves racists, and Nazis never consider themselves Nazis. They think “bigot”, “racist”, and “Nazi” are meaningless slurs that do not refer to actual people with actual ideas.

  7. blf says

    They think “bigot”, “racist”, and “Nazi” are meaningless slurs that do not refer to actual people with actual ideas.

    At the recent le penazi conference here in France, Steve Bannon said: Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honour.

    This same twisting was also recently exhibited in London, [… N]o one cares anymore with being labelled racists. (The bellowing eejit in this case was Tommy Robinson, a former leader of the English Defence League (read: nazis).)

  8. screechymonkey says

    garnetstar@2 and Erlend Meyer@5 have it nailed.

    Your employer refuses to offer health care or recognize a union? Tough luck. Quit and go find another employer who will, and if it’s really so damned important to you peons, then eventually market forces will compel all employers to do so.

    Your employer wants its workers to treat trans people with respect? You’re being oppressed!

    Your employer donates to causes you don’t like? Umm, before I answer, which causes are we talking about here?

  9. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Bigots, by definition lack self-awareness and “enjoy” throwing demeaning labels on anyone different than themselves.
    // or so my bigotry against bigots tells me. /sigh
    seems we’ve been infiltrated with bigots, enough to get ensconced in all 3 branches of our government.
    ?

  10. pocketnerd says

    You know what? I don’t think trans people should be expected to rely on the “good will, manners, and professionalism” of people who use scare quotes around the word “transition” and whine about how unfaaaiiir it is that being deliberately awful to a trans woman is socially unacceptable (in a few circles, at least).

  11. says

    If we could rely on “good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office” WE WOULDN’T HAVE THIS F*CKING DISCUSSION!

  12. kebil says

    Peterson’s protests against the Canadian bill were not even in good faith. Nowhere in the bill was their any talk about forcing the use of pronouns. Instead, trans-persons were added as a class that could not be discriminated against. I really can’t understand why protecting people from hate is a bad thing

  13. emergence says

    Complaining about “identity politics” is just a way to shut down discussion of discrimination. You can’t stop people from being treated unequally if you don’t acknowledge what they’re being treated unequally for, like their race, gender, or sexual orientation. You may as well accuse the suffragettes or MLK of “identity politics”. Beyond denying the reality of certain groups of people being targets for bigotry, assholes like French use this argument to try to make it seem like opposing bigotry is inherently wrong. They refuse to acknowledge their own bigotry or that of others, and then accuse the people who call them out on it of being divisive.

  14. rietpluim says

    Complaining about identity politics is identity politics. It is white identity politics.

  15. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @rietpluim:

    +1

  16. says

    If we could rely on the “good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office”, we wouldn’t be having yet another public fscking argument (#MeToo) about the prevalence of sexual assault and why it isn’t cute, fun for everyone involved, or polite, much less legal. When we can rely on the “good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office” to ensure the average woman is able to get from one end of a working lifetime to the other while receiving as few sexual propositions from their co-workers as the average man, then maybe we can trust it to work for some of the other stuff. Until then, it’s going to be annual seminars about “what constitutes sexual harassment, and why it isn’t acceptable”, as well as regular training classes about every other bloody thing under the sun, because at present the “good will, manners, and professionalism of an otherwise collegial and functional office” is about as reliable as the average political promise.

Leave a Reply