But Jordan Peterson is being accused of racism. I can't believe it took this long. Accusations of racism and sexism are the right and left bower of liberalism. Faster than the speed of light is the speed with which liberals will accuse a non-conformer of being a racist or sexist.
That's because, in a brilliant sleight of hand, liberalism has made its doctrines the sole basis of righteousness and salvation. What you do is irrelevant. Love Jesus, hate Jesus, piss on Jesus, it matters not. What you say you believe is irrelevant. What you do is pointless. If you don't conform to liberal ideals and policies, you are guilty ... of something.
Mark Shea demonstrates how this can be used for a host of issues. In Mark's case, notice that he bases the bulk of his post, not on unpacking the details and numbers in order to explain why his opinions are right, but upon judging and accusing. In fact, he spends little time saying anything about what he thinks should happen, other than you should follow the Church's teachings about helping the poor. And so you should.
Mark doesn't argue for any particular policies or philosophies except to say which ones are wrong. And those are wrong, not because of a particular set of stats that show they are ineffective, but because of the guilt of those who believe in them. It doesn't matter if they actually think their ideas could help the poor. It doesn't even matter if they, themselves, work for charity and actually help the poor. They are wrong, per Mark, because they actually hate the poor and want them to starve and die.
How does he know this? Easy. Because they don't follow a particular political approach to economics. That's all that's needed. No real debate about the substance, or unpacking details, or any such thing. Nope. It's enough to know that, despite what they might say or do, their guilt is obvious due to their refusal to conform with only one particular set of political policies.
Same with racism and sexism. Trying to discuss, debate, or unpack the facts and data about various issues pertaining to race or ethnicity or gender is pointless. It's enough that you aren't liberal. If not, then ears are closed, and charges of racism, sexism, or wanting poor people to starve will proceed directly.
When you're dealing with a movement that doesn't bother debating, but moves straight to the inquisition, bypassing evidence, and proclaiming guilt based on the temerity of disagreeing with one political philosophy, it's tough to debate.
No, say it ain't so. I think your a couple of weeks behind on that story.
ReplyDeleteI knew he had been called that before, but this seemed to be desperately silly and grasping. Showing that it's not a 'gee, we hate to admit it, but this clearly looks racist', but rather using racism the way McCarthy used Communism back in the day.
Delete