The Right is always right ?!

Printer-friendly version

Everything will be Right in Amurica

A spoof – sort of – about how far the Right could take Amurica
A balance to the previous ‘Trump of Doom’

Everything will be Right in Amurica

The new President of Amurica made the first policy announcements today.

‘I am the enemy of all things incorrect’ was the first declaration. “I will not make laws which we cannot enforce about tolerance, discrimination and the like. But this administration is going to press for social change so that discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping are seen as the wrong way for people to interact. We know what is best for the people of Amurica – and we will ensure that what they need and deserve is what they get. This will take money – but the power of the capitalist system will be used to ensure that everything is done with no significant cost to the individual taxpayer.

'I have to use some old-fashioned words quite often here so I apologise in advance if I upset anyone. But there are times it is sensible to talk about tall people and short people rather than being over-careful and referring to people who are ‘height disadvantaged at one end of the spectrum and also at the other end of the spectrum’. And many of my audience still hear better if the old ugly words are used.

'There is no doubt that the average Amurican in his day to day life does use fewer ‘incorrect’ words than a generation ago. I happen to be confident that some of the words and phrases used commonly today will be seen as unsuitable within another generation. But to continue, persons of the male category – sorry I have to simplify even at the risk of upsetting some of my audience.

'Men are different from Women. Both groups have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other group and also compared to other members of their own group. It is not wrong to be different. We must accept differences and use them to build a stronger and better nation. But we must not forget that differences are real. There are Men and there are Women. There are Tall and Short, there are Smart people, Sporty people, Brainy people and every one of these exists in a spectrum of variation.

'But we are increasingly aware that there very few of our Men and Women are 100 percent and fixed. We know the skills and characteristics of Men and of Women yet it is so obvious that the complete person must have some characteristics from both sides of the table. Our best Men have the ability to be emotional, our best Women can be decisive leaders. The best of our people need to be able to get in touch with their feminine side or as necessary their masculine side. And at no point do I believe either side is ‘weaker’ or ‘less useful’ or ‘less good’. Those views are even uglier than simple prejudice and stereotyping.

'This nation can move beyond the ugliness of past understandings. We can move past the unattractive idea of positive discrimination. What we can do and will do is endure that from the first days of life, that every child is made fully aware of both sides of life. We are going to ask the manufacturers to move away from pink and blue labelling (which really only became a guideline in the 1940s) and to use yellows, greens and other colours instead.

'We are going to ask the schools to bend the syllabus in every class in every subject so that young people learn about their future life as people – not necessarily as male or female. We are not going to make this compulsory because changes in the law should come after prolonged pressure from society that a change should occur. That is not the liberal way.

'We are very strongly going to work against the abuse of power – because that is what is the real truth behind most murder, all rape, p*philia, and indeed behind most bullying and unkindness. We have to remain true to our liberal views which means that rather than attack and punishment we will try to improve their attitudes with rehabilitation and understanding.

'It is quite apparent that the LGB lobby is very powerful even though it is quite small in number. The statistics are very poor, and not unusually, both the pro- and anti- parties exaggerate their views and numbers greatly. We must return to the nuclear family which made America great – and we know that there are significant numbers of male-female parents who do the job poorly. Surely it is time to recognise that those who have fought years of intolerance and unkindness are likely to have greater understanding and to be better parents.

'We know – whether by seeing intolerance to the LGB community or by being in the LGB community – that unkindness and vileness and even violence have been delivered by too many people too often. It is time that this stopped and that a new light is lit to take us forward.

'Some of us can be accused of being too liberal. This is not so. We are not liberal as regards murderers, pornographers, criminals and all those who are not willing to see society grow and improve in the right direction. I cannot agree with anything that a republican says – so I cannot say ‘if you are not for us then you are against us’ – that is not the liberal way.

'During the fury and chaos of the election campaign, as politicians, we are expected to make enormous promises that we know in our hearts that we will not be able to carry out and probably cannot afford. But, like Martin Luther King, I would not be a politician if I did not have a dream.

'I have a dream that there will be no mental hospitals, there will be no creches for old people, there will be no children put into special institutions, there will be no need for the ugly – even if well-meaning – organisations and charities which carry so much of the burden of social support.

'I have a dream that every household will understand and know the beauty of being different and, yes, the difficulties of dealing with intolerance and hatred. I have a dream that once people are fully persuaded that it is acceptable to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and to dress in accord with their preferred gender of that day – then there will be a massive alteration in the attitudes and behaviour of the people of this nation.

'We are in a difficult position. Some of us take the exemplary Christian view that we should love even our enemies.

'Other believe that we should only love those who are like ourselves, that we should like and be comfortable with those who share enough of our values but that we are entitled to hate those who hate us.

'We all know that America is the land of the Free – but this does not mean that we are the land of complete equality. And with our views on the abuse of power, we have great disapproval of those who prevent freedom.

'The real and obvious discrimination is by Colour, Nationality, Gender, Sexuality, Age. Some of these we cannot alter. Some of these it is very hard to find ways to ensure viable and worthy forms of positive discrimination.

'We cannot make tall people short nor short people tall – except by medieval methods which are no longer available.

'Nor can we fix the blind, the deaf, the disabled, the sick, the infirm, the aged. Youth will be cured by the passing of time. Ageing and long-term illness, sadly, are most commonly also cured by the passing of time.

'The area where we can be most flexible is invisible discrimination. Like it or not, we can easily identify people by Age, Sex, Colour and for several ‘disabilities’. But ‘gender’ is one area which is based solely on internal difference. Sexuality overlaps with both Sex and Gender.

'It is very hard not to look at a new acquaintance and base your judgement on previous people and previous knowledge. Done badly – it is called prejudice and is wrong; done right it is called good judgement. We all do it. The real change of the last decades is that now many more people accept that even they in their daily deeds do and say and act according to prejudice. Being able to recognise poor behaviour is an enormous step in doing better next time.

'I am well aware that the statistics for LGBT and for L and for G and for B and for T are much too vague and often concealed beneath a blush of secrecy and embarrassment. Nevertheless, we must continue our efforts to accept and endorse this group of people.

'But we can be specific about certain changes. In recent years, the small but vociferous and powerful LGB lobby has pressed for change in the laws of marriage, inheritance, adoption and so on. The lobby has expanded beyond sexuality as with LGB into the realms of gender with LGBT – and there are other variations too, more complex than simply T. While the percentages may be small, the numbers of such people are significant and they deserve to be heard.

'And we shall endorse two separate medical projects – the de-testosterosing of the uber-macho people (a very few of whom are women) and the pro-oestrogenation of their opposites. This is what the liberal agenda demands – and we must make it happen for the benefit of all those who suffer from gender-extremism and are seen as dysfunctional.

'These two medical projects are essential for encouraging change. In addition are the aims we have for encouraging change in schools. If the laws come through, then I and my partner will have to accept the changes. One of us will have to grow breasts after oestrogen-supplements and the other will have to accept the benefits and disadvantages of testosterone-poisoning.

'This will be an exciting opportunity for us.

'There is nothing wrong, there can be nothing wrong in recognising that one is different. I am probably different in all sorts of ways from every one of you – and most of the time it doesn’t matter. And it shouldn’t matter. While we may not actually be equal – we should all have equality of opportunity.

'What we must avoid is the statements made by our opponents – and there are two important ones “If you are different in ways we do not like – then you are in the wrong”; and secondly, “If you are different in the wrong way – then we can shun you, punish you, humiliate you and abuse you’ – and that is very wrong.

'Our view is that it is NOT wrong to be different. We do feel that there are some minor areas where difference can be seen by society as ‘good’ or even ‘bad’. And we are going to use all the forces at our command to ensure that bad differences are eliminated in favour of good differences.

'So – Let’s be proud to be Amurican. Where being different is your right. But you need to be different in the right way.

up
112 users have voted.
If you liked this post, you can leave a comment and/or a kudos! Click the "Thumbs Up!" button above to leave a Kudos

Comments

You may be proud to be "Amurican"

I am proud to be British, but writing as a horribly ordinary heterosexual geriatric (hence my by-line), I support your statements. I look forward to a time (probably when I am no longer here) when nobody has to identify as straight or any of LGBT, because it should not matter; a time when nobody should be forced by those of a different belief to adopt their views, when the self-righteous who would never have an abortion would force their views on those who would go to self-induction if it is illegal, when the disabled who reject a "right to die" would be unable to prevent those whose age or disability has made life intolerable from exercising theirs (which in UK they do not have -- yet).

Agree

If the muse amuses me - the EU will be next.
AP

We can but dream

IMHO, and sadly if an American president actually said those words they would not be president for very long.
There are far too many entrenched opinions to change and from what I see as an outsider visiting at the moment, I see them only getting worse and even more immovable.
btw, I have been coming here since 1975.

It is a SPOOF .....

but there does seem to be a strong interpretation by Republicans and Democrats that they only accept those who are different if they are 'acceptably different' which opens horrible cans of unending worms.
AP

How to poke the bear

Jamie Lee's picture

It's good this is a spoof, sort of, because someone who deals in logic would poke several holes in this speech.

If someone tried this in the US not only would they have a short life in office, but would witness the start of every radical group fighting those changes. And for one simple reason, who determines what is right for the common people?

Regardless of geographic location, there are laws which common to all cultures. But what about those gray areas, those areas dealing with moral choices which conflict with other moral choices?

Isn't it this very problem which has created the physical altercations which have permeated every country? Those who feel they have the right to tell everyone what the moral code should be? And if they can't have their own way, someone dies.

The best advice a person could give another, is to treat others as you want to be treated, as long as no one is harmed. Because if we don't treat others as we want to be treated, how is it possibly to accept ourselves?

Others have feelings too.

Slick & Slidy Politicians ....

are skilled at putting phrases together which have gaping holes but manage to look and sound solid and convincing. Most of us don't react fast enough. Wouldn't it be nice if people obeyed 'do as you would be done by' aka 'love your neighbour'.
OK AP

... who determines what is right for the common people? ...

Wow. Someone actually asked The Important Question.

Of course you failed to put any emphasis on the word 'who'. Oh well, no one is perfect.

We (mankind) have been fighting about the answer for a long time, but we almost never speak the question. So double kudos to you.

The boys and girls who founded the USA said it was you.

Um, some disambiguation may be needed here. I mean you the reader, not you the author of the post. And I also mean you as in each of you individually, not you as in all of the readers as a group. You are the right person to determine what is right for you. No one else.

Not them (the founders), not me (Tarzana), not anyone else. BTW, this is the true meaning of 'American Exceptionalism'. Individual Americans are no more special than individuals from anywhere else. (Damn. A Democrat was right about something!) It is our totally unique system of *** SEVERELY *** limited government that gives rise to the concept of American Exceptionalism. (Well, it used to any way. It is obviously fading rapidly from existence, except on that funny piece of paper.)

Those who favor big government say that you are the least competent candidate, and that they are the the only possible choice. They know what is best for you. They promise.

***

Power to the (common) people. Shall we dance?

T

This topic could grow and grow

There is also the split between the Left and the Right, which in Britain at least is The Left want to control everything and everybody whereas the Right does at least recognise that the individual should be able to control much of their lives (with a not-so-subtle underlying truth that the individuals who actually matter are those who already have power.

At the moment, an ugly truth is that allegedly 46% of those planning to vote for Trump are actually against Clinton but 49% of those voting for Clinton are actually against Trump - a 3% margin. What would happen if the ballot paper said 'none of the above'.

As an alternative the Romans had 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodies' who will guard the guardians.
AP

morality

From Jamie's post -

Regardless of geographic location, there are laws which common to all cultures. But what about those gray areas, those areas dealing with moral choices which conflict with other moral choices?

Isn't it this very problem which has created the physical altercations which have permeated every country? Those who feel they have the right to tell everyone what the moral code should be? And if they can't have their own way, someone dies.

Moral choices.

Right or wrong. Good or evil.

Are we talking about morality? Or the subset known as religious morality?

Question - what is the correct or proper or moral number of wives a man may have?

If we talk about a society organized as a theocracy, where all subjects are required to subscribe to the state religion, then that religion's answer to the question is the only one that can be used.

  • Under a Muslim theocracy, the answer is 4
  • Under a Mormon theocracy or an Atheist theocracy the answer is not specified
  • Under a Christian theocracy or a Jewish theocracy the answer is 1

However in a free society, where all religions are alleged to be welcomed, it is obviously immoral (in the larger-than-religious sense) to pick the answer from any particular religion and force everyone to live by it.

So the government of this hypothetical free society would have to recuse itself on the question of "how many wives". Then, those who desire to be a Christian would have to join the Christian Club and agree to abide by their rules. The only role of the government (re this specific question) then would be to keep members of the Christian Club from trying to force non members to limit themselves to one wife.

T

Remember the song "Short People" ?

I have a question, I know or may belong to L, G, B, or T, what the heck is Q?

Hugs,
Karen

An obnoxious demigod

laika's picture

Q is an obnoxious arrogant demigod who likes to harass Starfleet captains.
(Or possibly "Questioning", as in "I don't know what the heck I am"
Some say "Queer" but that seems covered by the LGB part...)

.
What borders on stupidity?
Canada and Mexico.
.

What the heck is Q

In the LGBTQIA+ spectrum, Q stands for either queer or questioning.

Laika suggested that "Queer" is covered by the LGB portions of the spectrum. Personally, I would disagree, queer in modern times may be, but is not absolutely bound to that, it can also by used by people who are non-binary and/or non-normative, genderfluid for example.

The page for queer on wikipedia has a rather lovely little section titled Inclusivity and scope that describes it quite well.

And by the way

It was only after seeing other comments that I realised that piece titled "The Right is always Right?!" could be read as something other than a spoof! To me the question mark and exclamation indicated it before I started reading. the My reaction was because I read it as the spoof that I am sure the author intended!