Hate Is Often Deliberate Density

One of Fox News' latest tactics is to claim that "toxic masculinity" is the notion that masculinity itself is dangerous and bad, rather than that there are notions of masculinity (or facets of the way that "masculinity" is portrayed and discussed) that are toxic.  Then they pretend that all who use the term want to see even the good parts of our cultural ideas about masculinity done away with, and cast themselves as proud and good defenders of the good stuff, so that they can be the heroes without ever engaging in discussion.

In much the same way, Steve King is out and proud using "white nationalism" to refer to all nations founded by white people, and demanding that he be allowed to defend the virtues and accomplishments of Western civilization.  He doesn't see the problem with "white supremacy", either.

"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?" King asked the Times in an interview.  "Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"

There's so much to peel apart here.  "White" itself (as it refers to people) was constructed to defend and justify slavery.  And there's little moral difference between "white supremacy" and "white nationalism"; though one tends to be about subjugation and the other about exclusion, both are only possible through sustained violence and oppression.  But, no matter how deeply they might question the means and methods, neither term attempts to deny that Western civilization has brought humans some really good stuff.

We need to know where we've been to have any decent idea about what to do next.  If we're smart, we learn, and we know better.  And that's the root of the problem here -- the refusal to learn.

This isn't just bigotry.  This is bigotry using blatant stupidity to defend itself.  That's either deliberate ignorance, bad faith, or doublethink.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Catch the Snowflakes, Little Children; Count Them As They Bury You Alive

Stephen Mansfield has some stuff to say about the 81% in an article entitled "After 'Choosing Donald Trump,' Is The Evangelical Church In Crisis?"  And I mostly agree with him.  In the places where I don't, it's usually because I don't think he goes far enough. For example, he says, "They are in crisis.  And I think there's a lot of healing that needs to happen." Yes, but we can't leave it at that.  There's a lot of repentance that needs to happen.  "Healing" can't really take place without it. And that repentance needs to come from various corners, not just the ones that were loudly political and appointed with the movement's money and resolve to speak for all within the tribe.  I don't harbor the illusion that every Evangelical wanted to gain societal influence through political means -- but I do recall a strange silence on the matter as far as most people were concerned.  A good number of them were p...
Read more

If They Move Too Quick, They're Falling Down Like a Domino

What we do well when we tell the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50): Remember that even when we think life sucks and is completely unfair, that we don't know the end of the story. What we do poorly when we tell the story of Joseph (Genesis 45-47, Exodus): Remember that it's a cautionary tale about believing your own hype and forgetting your own mortality, and that every villain believes he's doing the right thing (and can even invoke God to prove it). Joseph, after all, conducted the work of Empire.  He sought political solutions to spiritual problems.  By that, I mean that he had an opportunity to be a blessing to people -- to give them dignity and hope, using his political office as a tool -- and instead used it to increase Egypt's social and political sway, using his spiritual folklore as justification.  That, it seems to me, is why God is often referred to in the First Testament as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", not "the God of Abraham, Isaa...
Read more

Big Bangs

Creationists often assert that the only way a story can be true is if it is literally, historically, and scientifically accurate; here's a link to such an assertion .  This requirement for truth means, they claim, that Genesis must be scientifically accurate. I think this assertion makes God out to be much smaller than He is.  Let me see if I can explain by analogy. If your five-year-old kid asks where babies come from, it is entirely possible that your answer will not be literally, historically, or scientifically accurate.  You'll describe sex by analogy ("The mommy and the daddy came together in a special way"), body parts by proximity ("The baby grows inside the mommy's tummy"), and the birthing process according to the barest of details ("The mommy's body tells her that it's time for the baby to be born, so they go to the hospital").  You'll also focus on the parts that it's important for a five-year-old to know: The...
Read more