Bigotry Due To Privilege

Sometimes, when I read a blog post by one of The Usual Suspects, I end up doing a facepalm. No, that’s not exactly correct, I end up constantly facepalming and sometimes, just bump my forehead on the desk in utter disbelief as these people don’t seem to be able to argue a point; All they do is rant about something they dislike and then jump to impossible conclusions based on that rant.

I read this post this morning that I believe made me both facepalm and bruise my forehead on my desk. I hardly know where to begin with this but I’m going to give it a try.

The thesis of the linked post is that people are bigots, even though it may cost them money and her first example is the show Empire. Why aren’t there rip-offs, as she calls them, of this big money maker? Then, completely off that subject, she tangents into same sex marriage and wedding cakes, not renting or selling homes to blacks, not hiring people of color or women that are qualified. She then answers her own question:

The fact that people keep doing bigoted things, even when it works against their immediate financial interests, shows just how valuable privilege is.(emphasis hers)

I was going to take the post point by point, but it’s too exhausting and laughable. It’s what I call Social Justice Logic. Someone is to blame for all the ills in the world and the usual target is white and male for the SJW crowd. Notice there are no facts cited about any of the privilege allegations made.

As most readers here know, the SJW logicians rarely base any of their accusations based on any data, it’s all about feelings.

So it appears from the quotation above, that people are actually making lots of money based on privilege. It’s valuable. Yet this author fails to prove how not hiring a woman or selling a home to a minority profits anyone at all. Pretty bizzare to me and is why I look at this reasoning (yeah, I’m being facetious here) as specious. There is no logical reason to make the accusations that are in this article.

What about bakery’s refusing to make cakes for gay couples weddings based on the owners religious beliefs? Well, so far, those that have refused to accomodate, have lost in the courts based on public accomodation laws. So, where’s the privilege here?

Where’s the proof that the charges made in the article are widespread and rampant? Oh, wait, we’re not allowed to ask for any actual proof of something, we must just listen and believe.

3 thoughts on “Bigotry Due To Privilege

  1. Now you’re getting it: listen and believe! No evidence is required because they have seen the truth and are here to save us from ourselves. Now why does that sound so familiar?


  2. The most offensively stupid part of that post to me was this:

    Think of it this way. Think about affirmative action, and the arguments that are most commonly marshaled against it. “You’re lowering the bar! You’re diluting the talent pool! By going out of your way to look for qualified black people, Hispanic people, women, disabled people, LGBT people — you’re discriminating against all those super-talented straight cisgender able-bodied white guys!”

    If we think about this “reasoning” for six seconds, it becomes clear how absurd it is. Expanding a job search to look for qualified people who might not otherwise have been considered — that’s not diluting the talent pool. That’s expanding it. That’s getting more talented people into consideration.

    Do you see the sleight of hand there? I sure do, and anyone thinking about this honestly should see it in 5 seconds or less: she’s conflating affirmative action with “expanding a job search.” Those are 2 entirely separate things. “Affirmative action” is never used in regular English to refer to the act of “expanding a job search” to more diverse candidates, it’s exclusively used to refer to the act of giving certain minorities extra points when comparing against other candidates, or giving them tie-breaker advantages when comparing equally qualified candidates. Indeed, in my experience, almost everyone who opposes affirmative action also fully supports the act of “expanding a job search” to include as many people from as diverse backgrounds as possible.

    And I’m someone who is extremely pro-affirmative action! But arguing against people who oppose it should be done honestly and in good faith, arguing against actual arguments and points that they make, rather than knocking down an obvious straw man. But of course, FTB and their ilk will let that blogger get away with it, because as long as you’re rooting for the side of (what you’re REALLY SURE is) Social Justice, fallacious arguments that paint the opposition in wholly inaccurate light are 100% justified and in fact Very Good and Virtuous.

    So maybe that part isn’t stupid after all, since she’s actually doing exactly what she seems to intend to do, which is to signal to other Virtuous People that she’s Really Virtuous. Facts and honesty be damned.


    • Oh, I agree! When I was first looking at that post, it took me three readings to come to the conclusion that it made absolutely no sense. In fact, my small response took me 2 hours to write because I was trying to wrap my head around what she was saying. In order to respond to every ridiculous point, it probably wuld have been Carrier-worthy (4-5000 words). I really didn’t want to waste too much time pointing out the lack of reasoning that riddled it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s