Non-discrimination as the Path to National Suicide, Chapter MCCCLXIX
logical and inevitable step in the homosexualization (and trans-sexualization) of America has been proposed in the Congress: the Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011
Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity [e.g., a male dressing as a female] or that of their associates. Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination. Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act….
As reader Diana at The Thinking Housewife explains
Under the benign language of “non-discrimination,” the federal government will be able to force schools to accept the behavior of flamboyant, gender-nonconforming kids as normal. So, if a school administrator disciplines a boy who is wearing eyeliner and swishing around in a skirt, he will be fired, and the kid will be able to camp it up in school.
She continues: “I am becoming extremely anti-American as a result of things like this.”
See the discussion at The Thinking Housewife. - end of initial entry -
Irv P. writes:
Does that mean that my behavior in the locker room would have caused me to lose my job?
When kids used to take their sweet time changing and would be late for their next class if not hurried along, I had several strategies. One of these was to yell out, “Last one out is a you know what.” That usually cleared the place in 20-30 seconds!
Amazing how every kid knew what I was referring to. Damned homophobe!
Irv P. continues:
“It is the horrible genius of American culture, broadcast to the farthest reaches of the world, to wrap up decadence in seeming normality.”
That’s a great line!
Nile McCoy writes:
The comment by KB at The Thinking Housewife is the most profound:
This [enforced promotion of homosexuality] is inevitable. Where this ends up is, normal people will retreat further and further into their homes and cede the public sphere to the barbarians. It’s already happening due to the wildings; white people either move out or stay home when there is no choice . It’s already happening due to feminism; guys prefer Xbox to associating with uninteresting, ugly women. We have the Internet, Netflix, Xbox. Most of normal society is in some transitional phase of checking out.
Paul T. writes:
Nile McCoy wrote: “Most of normal society is in some transitional phase of checking out … ”
Yes, but what happens when checking out is no longer good enough?—when the enforcers begin to note our absence and demand our visible presence at, and enthusiastic participation in, the party? Here in Toronto, it’s no longer enough for the city to fund the annual Pride Parade. The mayor must show up, smiling and waving. The first mayor to don a tutu for the occasion will probably be nominated for the Order of Canada. But if, like recently-elected Mayor Rob Ford, he spurns the invitation (Ford preferred to spend time at the cottage with his family), he’s denounced in the press as a “hater.” OK, he’s the mayor, an obvious strategic target. But it’s easy to foresee the day when everyone will be required to burn their pinch of incense at the Emperor’s altar or be stigmatized, or worse. In fact, as liberalism repeatedly fails to deliver happiness to its advocates, they’ll only step up their demands—as Orwell wrote, like a doctor who responds to the failure of his prescription by doubling the dose.
On the bright side, a law that permits boys to swish around in skirts in public schools may really be an example of “worse is better.” I admit that each new outrage that might have been expected to mark the point where popular revulsion kicks in, has so far been just another way-station on the road to complete dyfunctionality. But “so far” (I will stubbornly maintain!) isn’t necessarily predictive of the future.
That’s an example of where my thinking has changed since last fall. I no longer expect or hope for people at large to turn against liberalism on the basis of its going too far. No moral outrage will do it. Only life becoming unbearable will do it.
Aaron S. writes:
Here’s something that immediately stood out to me:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 07, 2012 08:46 AM | Send
Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act….
I’ve see this tactic used repeatedly in so-called “civil rights” initiatives everywhere, whether legislative measures or—especially—plebiscites. One negative in a sentence is easy to comprehend. Two sometimes confuses, but is often necessary and can be parsed with some degree of clarity. But with three, the legislator is essentially granting himself total license. Not only must the reader continually read again and again to make sure he’s got it right, but this has the subtle and real tendency to smuggle in the assumptions of the designers—you’ve *got* to consider the legitimacy of the underlying purpose of the act, just to understand the sentence.
prohibit … retaliate … opposing … unlawful …
I was going to say “the tyranny of the triple negative” but in they’ve got four here!
The proliferation of negatives in legislation is a clear sign that evil is afoot.