I have a couple of questions for you which I hope you will try to respond.
Umar MF

. Political correctness was created in an attempt to make us become more sensitive towards one another. Social justice, in what is arguably the direct offspring of this once noble concept, then began to arise and, breaking the same dreaded rule it professes to despise so greatly, namely, painting others with a broad brush, began to perpetuate ugly, grotesque stereotypes onto those whose views may have differed from their very own. Similar to how political correctness today has transitioned from its humble beginnings into a vessel in which identity politics and bigotry reign — which may be understood as political but definitely not correct — social justice and the often faulty mindset attributed to its followers do not represent the rights of society as a whole and are surely not out for justice:

1. I am afraid your analogy was a false equivalence; and I feel as though I have been labeled as a monster too hastily if you deemed necessary to compare my thoughts on religious liberty with that of the vile act of murder. If you have felt hateful overtones from my writing — indeed at odds with my own views — there must be an elaboration in hopes that you, as is common to do amongst your circle, do not ignore well-founded criticism simply because you believe your opponent to be a hateful man. Underneath what seems to be a harsh surface lies a mindset that champions equal rights above all else. I myself have condemned the Republican Party for perhaps being too conservative for their own good — though I understand that they, too, are simply pandering to a certain demographic. What has attracted me to the Republican ideology is not its views on social issues, but rather its stance on limited government. You are accurate in claiming that one’s constitutional rights should not supersede the rights of others; though I fail to see where in the constitution it mandates that a privately owned business must offer its services to those who they believe, as narrow-minded as their views are, live a lifestyle that is incompatible with their religious convictions. In short, it does not. If the owners of a grocery store who happen to be sympathizers of the Marxist ideology refuse to serve me because of my defense of capitalism, it is their right; and if a local florist refuses to sell me a bouquet of roses because the owner believes white people are the devil, it is also their right. Much credit being given to the free market, these businesses will suffer greatly; for surely other businesses would not be so cruel and therefore thrive over their bigoted competition. I can always go to another grocery store and florist; they, however, should not be forced to suspend their first amendment rights because my feelings may have been hurt. The reason the rights of these morons should be remained untouched is because its sets a precedent that the sitting government then has the right to limit everyone’s speech if it finds it discriminatory; and because one party’s thoughts and experiences with discrimination is different from the other, one side will unfairly suffer more.

2. I define a governmental overreach as a power the government grants itself that was not listed in the constitution; one that uses the elastic clause of one law or amendment as a means to destroy to pieces other constitutional amendments (perhaps the clearest example today being the Democrat’s argument that the right to bear arms should not be preserved if it will limit the right to life of its victims). The amendment that is chosen to be preserved and the one that is discarded temporarily is, of course, almost solely depended as on the party that is committing this crime as a means to, in a case of bitter irony, discriminate against the other party’s members. In this case, the homosexual couple who have been denied service from a baker can always choose another bakery; the baker, however, is forced to discard this religious conviction entirely.

3–4: It has become quite fashionable for leftists to ignore the faults of their own sympathizers — all in the name of party politics — and attack viciously the shortcomings of their opponents. This has metastasized to the point where bigotry and pigheadedness — frequently mistaken for compassion and common sense — remain in the core of leftist ideology. I am tired of hearing about an abortion clinic bombing that was committed by a white Christian two decades ago when every time I turn on the news I hear yet another terrorist attack committed by Islamic extremists. Now before you misunderstand me, let me elaborate: I entirely understand the difference between peaceful Muslims and Islamists (though liberals have failed to admit that there are problems within the Islamic faith that give rise to extremism). My point here is that because white Christians have been assigned a narrative in recent years that they are the group responsible for the hardships of others — as nonsensical as this claim is — they are, once again in irony, labeled as racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. and are discriminated against. So when a racist white man shoots a black man in Los Angeles, CNN reports on it for weeks. When a racist black man kills ten white men in Detroit, not a drop of ink is wasted (and black people cant be racist!). And perhaps no greater example exists than the fact that Muslim bakeries have been denying homosexuals service for years; but it only deserves government interference and news time from the left when Christians do it (how very unbiased indeed). You can find videos all over the internet if you’re interested.

5. Reread number four.

6. I am all for freedom from discrimination; now let us hold both parties responsible for consistency on this matter. The right to not face discrimination is indeed a democratic right, but it only seems relevant for leftists when it is their constituents that are being discriminated against. They will go to any length to pander to their demographic, even if it means discriminated against other party members.

7. Human progress has, contrary to what you may believe, come from the journey to seek individual — not social — justice. The modern day “social justice” admirers are more often than not emotional cowardly, intellectually inept bigots whose biggest fear in life is coming across someone who disagrees with them. When they silence others because they deem their ideas to be offensive — often finding a non-existent brick in the bouquet of flowers they were given — they are favoring their own agenda. The problem here is that because the term social justice — a concept that. does not represent society as a whole and is surely not out for justice — is criticized, people believe the criticizer is against what social justice, or what it should have been, stands for. Social justice is, in its rightful name, justice for the leftist only. Individual justice, a concept that would ignore party boundaries and indeed look out for the individual rights we are promised by our constitution, benefits everyone.

8. Social justice, as you say, should have not become a means to silence those who disagree with its ideology. Unfortunately, it has. When “social justice worriers,” as they are often laughably called, call you a racist because of your well-founded, sincere criticism of the BLM movement and how it has failed in its once noble quest to make sure that black lives do indeed matter, your opinion, however crucial to the argument, is discarded; and this is all because you claimed that the real issues within the black communities exist in the inner cities and not in the handful of unjustifiable police shootings that we have seen in recent years. Although this certainly is true, social justice and its followers will condemn you of being a racist, all because you dared to break the sacred rules of political correctness. No speech or the expression of an idea, however vile you condemn it to be, should be silenced. Moreover, perhaps you can explain the actions of the ACLU in regards to the disguising KKK to those who refuse to let speakers come to their campuses to talk because they deem them “too offensive”. In reality, these speakers are almost never seen as offensive by a rational person, and are simply there to state their own views. What is education, after all, if not the vessel for which the free, open exchange of ideas can be shared.

9. In short, when leftists are invited to a college campuses who will surely condemn members of the right as being racist, sexist, transphobic, amoral bigots, the right nevertheless allows them to speak. When a conservative pundit is scheduled to speak that has in the past been heard stating murder rate statistics in Chicago, he is stopped at the door by a wave of cowards who are not emotionally mature and secure enough with their own ideas that they deem necessary to prevent others from expressing their own.

10. Fundamental differences of opinions is in fact what I am preaching here. I never claimed that is was bigoted of social justice warriors to protest, for example, conservatives who wish to come speak on their campus. It is bigoted, however, when they feel the need to block the door, preventing their fellow students from going to engage in a lively conversation in which the host happens to be a conservative. I urge these social justice loonies to stand next to the door with signs that would make the modern rapper blush. The moment they step in front of the door, however, they are guilty of silencing free speech.

I tip my hat to you for your civility, and I even understand that perhaps your loyalty to “social justice” comes from being a decent human being above all else. I would say, however, that this movement, in its current state, is not what it seems, and is surely not worth saving.

Umar MF

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated abcd_efgh’s story.