How do you end racism by telling half the people they “can’t be racist” while telling the other half they “can never be anything but racist?”
The law can address discrimination, it can level the playing field, but it will never cure racism. That requires a more fundamental approach to our human nature. If you accept and defend critical race theory; at the end of the day you are trading one racist group for another.
Who’s going to tell Anglos, Hispanics and Blacks who like American-Chinese food to stop eating it, and who’s going to tell Asians to stop using knives and forks because it is cultural appropriation?
Cultural Appropriation is a growing fad among the liberal intelligentsia, but from what I’ve observed is it is little more than a club used by those seeking domination of the dialogue. The reason mankind has risen to dominate, for better or worse, this planet is because we are adaptable omnivores. The foundational strength of this nation was our ability to absorb new cultures and incorporate their unique qualities, while they absorbed our mashups from prior waves of immigration. This cultural appropriation movement seems to seek only to divide, not unite us under the false flag of enlightenment and respect.
When Gay PRIDE parades prohibit participants based on their faith aren’t they missing the point of their movement?
It seems problematic to me that a minority movement that sets out to demonstrate their legitimacy has now reached a point where they are willing to display their anti-Semitism openly, just like all the other groups that blame the Jewish faith for the ills of the world. If we have reached this point within the LGBT community then perhaps we no longer need to consider the word acceptance as part of their effort.
When college student-professor groups prevent speakers they don’t like from speaking, aren’t they the ones with the narrow minds?
Much has been written about this, let’s leave it with a different question, are colleges centers for education or indoctrination these days?
Nothing provides a persuasive argument quite like emotional over-dramatization and name calling.
If these two approaches are to form the basis for all future political debate, then how much longer will we be a “nation of laws” where we seek equal protection under the law? Wouldn’t it be easier to just establish the WWE or UFC as the judicial system and return to the tried and true concept of Trial by Combat? I mean, who wouldn't like to see a cage match between Nancy Pelosi and Ted Cruz? I believe we can thank the 24/7/365 news media and the internet for this advancement.