Liberals are prejudiced

Something came up in class today that sparked some rage in me today, do I figured I had better let it out and hence benefit ftom it while I can. Cathartic opportunity and all.

I won’t go into details, as that would be indiscreet, but at some point, someone responded to my pointing out that liberals can be prejudiced too by smugly asserting thst it was impossible to be prejudiced against the dominant group.

And that is such obvious self serving bullshit that I am shocked anyone has the temerity to speak it out loud in public on a sunny day.

I mean, I get it. Hate is fun! Pretending you’re a liberal is great and all, but to take it to the point of having nobody to shit on and feel superior to and even wish harm to would be taking it too far, wouldn’t you say, all you fucking Hillary Clinton fans?

Liberals will go on and on about tolerance for race, then go on about all the bad things white people have done, as if it’s fine to judge an entire group based on the color of their skin if you nod seriously and make it clear you are “one of the good ones”. “White people” didn’t own slaves, a group of human beings owned slaves. There is no homogeneous monolithic undifferentiated group of faceless, identical race units known as “white people”. Race itself is a meaningless yet harmful socially constructed illusion, and that’s as true for the artificial grouping known as “white people” as it is of any other artificial grouping by skin color.

Liberals like to think that they care about “the poor”… unless those poor people happen to drive pick up trucks, love sports, and live in trailer parks. Then, it’s nothing but jokes about dumb inbred rednecks who fuck their cousins and cook meth. People who, just like whatever undoubtedly racist, classist and sexist vision of “the poor” a liberal cherishes, are people who have not had the same opportunities that the average intellectual liberal has had, and it is equally not their fault if they happen not to have book smarts, be part of a culture that doesn’t value education, speak in a different way that society says is lower status, and sometimes think the wrong things because they don’t know any better.

But no, liberals ignorantly perpetuate harmful stereotypes about “the wrong sort of poor person” and, in doing so, send a very clear message to those people that liberals truly are the elitist snobs their right wind pundits say they are, and are therefore their enemies. They have every right to think liberals hate them…. because they do. And then, they have the gall to preach tolerance and acceptance of every single group on God’s green Earth except poor white rural people.

And then they turn around and wring their hands about how “those people” can support someone like Donald Trump. Well you know what? Donald Trump seems to be on their side. When’s the last time liberals tried to convince those same people that they were on their side? Without it sounding as uncomfortable and insincere as when conservatives try to court the black vote?

Oh, and how about liberals’ ideological mutual masturbation about how multicultural they are? Well why doesn’t that include the culture they consider “dominant” when, in truth, it’s just another school of fish in the global fishtank? Why can’t that supposed tolerance extend to the culture where people love sports, hunting, and generic beer? Where is your vaunted compassion then?

And what of their supposed religious tolerance? They will tolerate all the religions of the world… except the one they were raised in, Christianity. There, they feel quite happy to judge all churchgoers as ignorant, deluded sheeple too scared to think for themselves who “hide behind religion and guns”. If one of these “rednecks” said the exact same thing about Islam, they would get shouted down by the liberal masses in a heartbeat, and that stinks to high heaven, and said “rednecks” know this and rightfully complain about being singled out as the only religion it’s fine to bash.

That’s where all this “war on Christianity” bullshit comes from. Am I the only one who sees that?

That’s why I have decided that I am a humanist, not a liberal. I believe in extending compassion, tolerance, love, and respect to all human beings, whether they are the most ignorant, racist, sexist, ignorant trailer park hick as it does to the most picture-perfect imaginary “victim of society” or the most eco-friendly politically perfect justice warrior.

To a true humanist, there is not nor can their ever be any excuse for treating one group of humans differently than the others. There can be no special category of humans that it is acceptable to treat poorly, to make sweeping generalizations about, to treat as a single homogeneous entity as opposed to individuals.

You want to know the definition of prejudice? Thinking you know something about someone based on information that has no connection to what you think you know. And that applies as equally to thinking you know someone is an uneducated bigot because they are white and wearing a John Deere cap as it does to thinking you know someone is a lazy criminal just because they are black and wearing a hoodie.

Humanism is the moral root of all true liberalism. Everything else is simply a different flavour of the same ignorance, intolerance, and primitive tribalism. If you can’t imagine opening your heart to “rednecks” and trying to see the world through their eyes, then you are part of the problem, and doing as much to keep the Donald Trumps of the world in business if not more. And you certainly cannot claim any moral superiority over those you so readily disdain.

People can only come together when we tear down the walls between us and dare to care even when we do not understand or even approve of each other. We only evolve as a species when we are willing to ignore all the irrelevant superficialities and cherish the humanity in all of us, no matter what people will think of us for doing so.

Until then, the fake liberals will continue to drive people further apart.

I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.

3 thoughts on “Liberals are prejudiced

  1. I was with you part of the way on this. I’ve noticed the “it’s impossible to be prejudiced against the dominant group” idea cropping up in the last year or two. It’s how people excuse their misandry and racism against white people (AKA “reverse racism”). And that’s stupid. It’s still sexism and racism if you hate a sex or a race.

    I’m conflicted about the redneck thing. You make a good case from a strategic angle. Liberals do care about poor white trash. They want Billy-Bob to have a living minimum wage, free health care, etc. They’re just not marketing that concern properly. It’s not getting through to Billy-Bob that we want him to be OK.

    But part of that’s on Billy-Bob. He watches Fox News, he swallows their lies holus-bolus, and he votes against his own interests and our interests in every election. That’s not something I can just forgive.

    • It’s not about blame or forgiveness. You’re right that it’s strategic, but it’s also about doing the right thing. Can you really say that some Trump loving redneck’s kids deserve to have to skip meals just because their Daddy isn’t smart enough to figure things out?

      Remember, these people don’t have our mental resources. They go with their gut because that’s all they have.

      And once you stop judging them for not being middle class liberal intellectuals, it’s a lot easier to want to save them from the bad programming they are getting.

      Blame the people manipulating them, if you must. And the people on our side who fail to counter it.

  2. You’re right that the more that people attack any “dominant” group, the more it reinforces that group’s feeling of being under attack. Well of course. You’re attacking them!

    I was thinking earlier today about how the men’s rights movement is in a tough spot right now. I said before that people are treating them the way they used to treat feminists in the 1970s and 1980s: “You’re just mad because you’re too fat/ugly to get a date”; “Just accept your role and get over it”; “What do you have to complain about, really?” And now the term “MRA” has become negative. The proof is that it would now be a dangerous thing to announce that you’re an MRA without qualifying it lots. Otherwise people will assume you’re some misogynist psycho. Just like in the 1980s when women stopped wanting to identify as feminists.

    And I concluded that if these trends continue, the more that people attack MRAs for being MRAs the more the MRAs will be convinced that there’s a need for a MRM.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.