Written by Slayer666 on 19.12.2015 at 05:38
Nope. What you're doing right now is merely buying into the current wave of the so-called "progressive" rhetoric. You're an easily swindled idiot, as history has shown. It used to be "the working class" vs "the evil capitalists", now it's "the RAYCISS" vs the non-RAYCISS. But thanks for being the useful idiot, idiot.
I am not buying into anything, chap, although I must say I disagree with ATR being irrelevant because the frontman is an asshat, ATR is irrelevant because they haven't released any good music since The Fall of Ideals (though For We Are Many had some cool moments), but if there is anything history has shown is that "raycissm is bad m'kay?".
Frankly, I am not sure about the stuff that happens in serbia, but right now the hungarian politics is essentially about our dear prime minister being in good progress of building a legal dictatorship by manipulating the guillible masses by inventing a new enemy every time they have a new scandal, and the idiots buying it. Usually if it isn't racist, it is xenophobic, and I am frankly tired of that shit.
The problem of "polcorrectism" is simply beating the bush around real issues out of fear of offending someone/out of expectation not to offend anyone, however the failure of polcorrectness is usually a simple execuse for being an asshat.
This is a pretty objective statement, since no singular group of people, unless driven by a clear ideology, or a clear interpretation of an ideology, can be subjected to any sweeping statements. There is no such thing is "black ideology", "woman ideology", "man ideology", "white ideology", "homosexual ideology", "foreigner ideology", and frankly, although there is such a thing as "muslim ideology" or "christian ideology", apparantly the actual practitioners of these religions cannot agree on what the fundamental tenets of their religion should be, therefore we can also say there is no such thing as a universal "muslim ideology", par example.
Thus, any political or socio-political stance, whether spoken by government representatives, or laypeople, that makes sweeping statements against any such group of people is invalid by definition, since these groups cannot be characterized by anything else than tautological statements have or statements that carry no qualitative or moral contant (eg. black people have brown-ish skin color).
Mind you, I am not advocating for governments being able to arrest people for saying something like "all women are asshats", since I also believe in freedom of speech, but from the above logic it follows clearly that any statement of this form is by default incorrect.
Because of this, I am all for, however actually punishing politicians for stating such things, since unlike laypeople, politicians actually are capable of introducing
actually harmful, and discriminatory laws and attitudes against very much real people.
Obviously, this is quite far from Phil Labonte, who is simply a musician, and holds no real power, but nontheless my prior statements apply. Phil has the freedom to be an asshat as much as he wishes, but people, who condemn that form of asshatism have just as much right to call him an asshat, and not listen to his music, and this is hardly polcorrectism taken to the extreme. It would be such if and only if the american government actually shut down his band for that, which is obviously something I would not support.
If Phil indeed makes racist and/or homophobic remarks, which he is serious about, then he IS a racist and/or homophobe, even if his words and/or actions don't particularily make anyone actually miserable, unlike, say, racism and/or homophobia in places where the victims of said discrimination actually get hurt or killed. This follows by the definition of racism and/or homophobia and/or any such -ism or phobia.
And frankly, it is not hard to see that the more such "innocent racism" is tolerated (by toleration I mean as a social intersubjectivity, not legally), the more it actually is gonna increase.
Here is a fun anecdote:
I have an american friend here in my city, who is of native american descent. He has been living here for years, and he owns a small business. Prior to the whole migrant crisis, nobody had any problems with him, not even in small villages. Nowadays, he gets visibly hostile looks and attitudes even in my city, which is a university city, therefore it is quite common in the inner city to see people of different skin colour regularily. Now, he never had any actual incidents, but he is also visibly sturdy-built and muscular, and he is also quite adept at avoiding conflicts, since he grew up in some californian ghetto where violence, including gun violence, was commonplace.
However, many others were not so fortunate, and during the height of the migrant crisis, it was not exactly rare for foreign-looking people getting beaten up, even if they have been actually living in this country for a long-long time. The government decided that the foreigners are gonna be the enemy now that bring all the bad things into the country, and now that it was government-sanctioned, suddenly it became far more socially acceptable to be an /actual/ racist/xenophobe, many of those "innocent racists" suddenly ended up being not so innocent, and actually innocent people have been hurt.
And this is one of many reasons why we take racism seriourly.
