"Donald Trump is such a terrifying fascist
dictator that literally no one fears speaking out
against him on literally any platform."
|Image credit: Clickhole|
It’s time to get excited, because Marvel Comics just announced a new superhero that advances diversity in comics in a major way. The series is called Luminary, and it tells the story of a mild-mannered Caucasian man named Percy Pendleton who gains incredible superhuman powers and constantly expresses his regret that he was blessed with those abilities instead of a Latina woman, who could be a role model for young Hispanic girls in addition to merely fighting crime.
[...] While working as a nuclear physicist at Stark Industries, Percy is caught in a particle-accelerator explosion. A surge of neutrinos floods his nervous system and transforms him into the incredible Luminary, a hero whose amazing powers of flight, super strength, and energy manipulation make him concerned that as a white man he does nothing to reflect the face of a changing America, which is increasingly Hispanic and female.I was heretofore unfamiliar with Clickhole, so it took a few minutes of research to reassure myself that this was satire. In these troubled times, I wouldn't put it past Marvel to infuse an established superhero with some white-privilege angst, but I doubt that they're ready to make such an idea the basis of a superhero.
Minorities2 cannot be racist and women3 cannot be sexist, because they "do not hold political, economic, and institutional power".In essence, whites (especially white males) have a stranglehold on political, economic, and institutional power, and whites employ that power to oppress women and ethnic minorities -- even without consciously meaning to. The oppressors enjoy all of the privileges of being in the oppressor class, and they jealously guard all of the privileges they enjoy.
|Images via "The Safest Space" on Twitter|
Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Noting the neighboring words "security" and "State", many on the Left would have us believe that the phrase "well regulated Militia" is referring to the military and to state and local law-enforcement agencies -- that this amendment guarantees the government the ability to undertake any and all efforts necessary to protect the country (military) and maintain public order (local law enforcement).
Say we believe that Policy A, which we support, will lead to good Result X. We encounter someone who instead advocates for Policy B. Because of our certainty about the evidence and how to interpret it, too many of us too often see that person’s support for Policy B coming not from a good faith and reasoned belief that Policy B is a better way to get to Result X. Because if what we believe is both correct and obvious, then the advocate of Policy B must know that it will undermine the achievement of X. And if X is a good result, then this person doesn’t just disagree with us, but actively wants something bad to happen.If you see nothing wrong with this phenomenon, and your chief goal in any ideological conflict is to vanquish your foes, there's not much left to talk about. Just carry on doing what you've always done. The current chaos that is the 2016 presidential campaign is the world you live in and apparently enjoy.
Unfortunately, this all-too-common way of thinking about political debate leads to serious problems, because it means that our empirical beliefs are essentially closed to critique unless that critique comes from someone who already shares our policy preferences. If our interlocutor doesn’t share our policy preferences, then before the conversation can get off the ground, we’ve already decided he is either stupid (he’s too dumb to see his error) or immoral (he maliciously prefers evil outcomes). But, of course, if our empirical priors or interpretive framework are wrong, then someone with better priors will likely come to a different policy conclusion.
Thus individual policy preferences exist as a signal of their holder’s intelligence or moral worth—and a challenge to one’s policy preferences gets interpreted as an attack on the holder’s smarts or basic goodness. Because we believe that certain policy preferences signal moral worth, we adopt our policy preferences based on how we would like to be perceived. And we hold to those policies regardless of their actual, real-world outcomes, or pay so little attention to their outcomes that we never feel the need to revise our political preferences.