June 25, 2013
Jim Treacher notes the totally non-racist racial fixations at Netroots Nation, where the ‘progressive’ left rubs its collective rhubarb:
Sharon Kyle writes, “For social justice advocates, Netroots Nation 13 is the place to be… I was a member of the panel selection committee. As we prepared to make our selections, we were instructed to dismiss any panel that was comprised entirely of white males.” Good idea. Everybody knows that people with the same skin colour are all alike, and people of the same gender are all alike. What happens when you put together a bunch of people with the same skin colour and the same gender? I hope I never have to find out! I mean, what’s diverse about that? It looks really bad on camera. Well, that’s assuming they’re white males. If not, the preceding paragraph is racist. See, we must have diversity of appearance, not of thought. We need to get people of all races, colours, and creeds to come together and agree with Sharon Kyle. What’s the point of engaging in meaningful dialogue if other people are going to disagree with you?
When faced with strident “diversity” blather, it may help to remember the acronym LETELU. Looks Exotic, Thinks Exactly Like Us.
CJ Ciaramella* mingles with the moral heavyweights at Netroots Nation:
There were “80 panels, 40 training sessions, inspiring keynotes, film screenings and other engaging sessions designed to educate, stimulate and inspire the nation’s next generation of progressive leaders,” according to the conference website… I found myself at a panel titled: Free your Ass: Defining and Creating a Progressive Sexual Culture. Panellist Favianna Rodriguez, a new media artist, talked about her explorations into polyamory and kink. “I’ll close it out with this image I created of an awesome sex party I went to,” Rodriguez said, displaying one of her paintings. It was full of psychedelic colours and an arrangement of Picasso-style figures entangled in various sex acts. Kind of like Guernica, but with erections.
Chris Snowdon on “health inequalities” and unspoken causes:
Public health folk would argue that such choices are not rational (because of hyperbolic discounting and suchlike) and sociologists would argue that they are not free (because accidents of birth make them more likely to choose the unhealthy option). I have little time for such arguments. Accusations of irrational consumption invariably revolve around the moral judgement of the accuser while choices, even if constrained by imperfect information and financial circumstance, are still choices. The fact that the smoking rate is higher in Glasgow than Sevenoaks, for instance, in no way predisposes a Glaswegian to smoke. It is not ‘victim-blaming’ to point this out.
Tim Worstall adds this.
And Jim Goad is amused by the cannibalism of the self-designated “oppressed”:
So much for transcending labels and viewing one another as individuals. These people want to institutionalise such labels. They balk at the concept of “assigned identity,” yet they also seem unable to live without it. So many of these multitudinous oppressed “identities” seem like nothing more than cheap cloaks to mask nakedly annoying personalities. People with bad personalities seem to have a built-in defence mechanism that makes them believe you actually hate them for any other possible reason besides their bad personalities. With all the banter about oppression, it’s hard to think of anything that stifles free speech and free expression more than such strident humourlessness.
Readers who wish to behold the endpoint of competitive victimhood are welcome to revisit this glorious incident. Part 2 here. And, because you’ll need them, some explanatory notes.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets. [ *Added via the comments. ]