Why do so many equality movements have nothing to do with equality?
Sure, they claim to be about equality. Some even begin with honest intent. But it always seems to derail.
Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, had no Machiavellian agendas, no axes to grind. They wanted to be free to sit down in the bus their taxes paid for. They wanted to be judged as individuals, instead of as groups. Remember that whole “content of their character” part of the Dream speech? It was about integration, and people of different backgrounds coming together as equals. We’ve wandered a long way from that ideal, haven’t we?
It is the same with Feminism. To begin with, it was about being able to access the voting booth, or the workplace. It was not a cudgel for bitter women to smash men with. (At least, not at first.)
But these things invariably become politicized. They become an organization. With funding models. And a budget. And management. They become a means of exerting political power, which can be exchanged (by the unscrupulous) for personal gain. They become status, and employment.
And so, long after the original objectives have been achieved, they need to explain the need for their continued existence. Which leads to “Mission Creep”. A slowly (or not) expanding list of objectives that are of the utmost importance, and which (unless they continue the fight) will fail.
Enter emotional arguments about the poor, the children, the Earth is your Mother principally designed to shut down dissent.
If the principles in these movements cannot justify their continued existence, the game is over. And with it, any political clout, prestige, or personal gain is lost. They might fade into obscurity, or wind up just another has-been talking head pundit on the pseudo-news circuit.
What comes next? Pseudo-crisis are ginned up. (Remember, we must “Never let a crisis go to waste.”) To keep the process running. See? We are victims. We need MORE government intervention.
So we have ludicrous boycotts of fast-food outlets, lawsuits against bakeries, claims of physical abuse. Calls for punishment of public officials for not assenting to mob rule. (Addressed brilliantly by Ben Shapiro.)
We have people claiming to be physically assaulted by people who object to their lifestyle who are later shown to have those injuries deliberately self-inflicted.
And now we have someone finally pushing back against these bully tactics. it’s another case of a bakery, and this one will not be simply cowering and paying the agitator’s dhimmi tax. No, this baker is counter-suing its accuser.
In case you haven’t heard this one yet, here’s a quick overview. A customer goes into a Whole Foods store. Jordan Brown — the customer — ordered a cake saying “Love Wins”. The customer is a homosexual pastor.
He buys the cake without incident, pays and leaves. Once he arrives at home, he opens the box, and is horrified to see a three-letter slur beginning with “f” also on the cake.
Horrible, right?
Sure. Unless he put it there himself. Which is what the counter-suit Whole Foods is putting out claims. And, well, they have video to prove it.
Oh, one more ironic detail? The “homophobe” (what a useless word) that so horribly defamed this poor pastor? Sorry, Jordan, hate to break it to ya — he’s gay too. Looks like you picked the wrong store to punk, genius.
There’s a pattern here. The goal is not merely to be equal to their ideological rivals. They seek to conquer them, and aren’t afraid to force conformity using a whole range of coercive methods. The courts, public pressure, defamation, personal destruction it goes on and on.
Environmental activists have begun advocating for people who question their view of climate change to face criminal charges. (Will we be honest enough to at least call them “thought crimes”?) The absence of politicians at events like the Pride Parade is noticed, and “inexcusable absences” are sometimes headline news.
Atheists have wondered aloud whether parents teaching children religion amounts to child abuse, and call religion a virus that needs to be irradiated.
A news story just this week called for reparations from “all white people”
Private universities with ZERO government funding and an exceptional education base have been “black-balled”, and graduates have been forbidden to practice law because of a voluntary code of conduct that required (among a number of other things) celibacy for the unmarried students, for the duration of their classes. Conservative Christians must not practice law.
There is a reason we have legal protections from people being compelled to act agains their conscience.
Washed-up musicians (Ringo? Pearl Jam? Brian Adams? They’re still around?) have the freedom to act in their conscience and serve, or not serve customers based on their personal convictions. Customers have the freedom to reward or punish Chick-fil-A for the public stances they have taken. Even the law clerk who made the news over marriage licenses was found by a court to be within her rights not to have her own name signed to the certificates.
If people only wished to be treated equally, few would truly object. But it never stops there. Because the goal is neither tolerance nor equality, is it?
