Trapped In A World, Identity And Reality That I Never Made
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
If race is a social construct with no fixed definition but is something we do and others do to us, then why can’t a person identify as a different race? Example, Rachel Dolezal, was the White woman who identified as Black so she could run the Seattle chapter of the NAACP. What’s wrong with that. Apparently, asking that question is hateful.
I thought the justification for affirmative action and protection legislation was because people were being discriminated against on account of things they had no control over, such as being Black or being a woman. But if race and gender are now self-determined, why do they need protection? Shouldn’t those laws be repealed?
I was disappointed that neither the author nor the scholar mentioned the most brilliant transracialist of all: Godfrey Elfwick. #wrongskin. The struggle is real.
Dear George Orwell: you were an optimist.
May 30th, 2017 at 6:52 am
Homos have this one covered with “bisexuality”, or as I like to call it, run what ya brung debauchery.
Evidently they figured their claim that sexual preference is an immutable trait had a limited shelf life and wisely planned ahead.
I look forward to the day we realize the laws of physics are actually nothing more than a social construct; fluid.
Defeating the bigotry of gravity is a personal goal for me.
May 30th, 2017 at 7:18 am
Godfrey Elfwick, see Poe’s Law, Star Wars & BBC
May 30th, 2017 at 7:35 am
Something smelled fishy when I read his poster. Just too good. Sure enough, he’s a satirist. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/17/star-wars-reeks-of-misogyny-sjw-satirist-punks-bbc-world-service/
May 30th, 2017 at 8:30 am
They’re behind. Walter Williams, noting that springboks don’t get taxed, is perhaps the first “transspecies” columnist, identifying as a springbok and not human.
May 30th, 2017 at 8:59 am
That’s the genius of it, Golfdoc: you had to check and still, you have no proof, you can never have proof, because the fundamental point of “identity” politics is that there can never be proof of what’s going on inside another person’s head.
If race is an individual choice and Godfrey chooses to be Black, then under the new theory he must be treated as Black regardless of his skin color or DNA. Under the new theory, there’s no justification for anybody else to tell him “You aren’t allowed to choose that” or “You aren’t allowed to feel that way.”
His satire highlights the logical conundrum posed by identity politics. If race is no longer immutable, if it is no longer a condition over which an individual has no control, then there is no justification for anti-discrimination laws because being a member of a discriminated-against group simply is your choice. Don’t like it? Change your race. It’s as easy as changing your mind.
May 30th, 2017 at 11:17 am
I thought the justification for affirmative action and protection legislation was because people were being discriminated against on account of things they had no control over, such as being Black or being a woman.
No. At the time AA was introduced, employment discrimination against people because of their sex or race was already illegal.
The purpose of AA was to allow the Feds to determine the make up of your work force.
May 30th, 2017 at 3:17 pm
Think Orwell was an optimist? You’ve never heard of O’Brien’s Law? Says that Murphy was an optimist.