Why liberals are bullies
Sam writes:
Thinking more about incident in which anti-bullying advocate Dan Savage bullied the students he was addressing, I have decided that it is illustrative of so much that is wrong with the way liberals approach social problems. Dan Savage indicates that he had been bullied, and I believe him. He is a seething cauldron of hatred and he oozes venom. Few people become that way without suffering abuse. But the Christian teens he insulted and mocked aren’t the ones who are going to go about bullying gays. Most of the bullying will be done by the jocks and aggressive male teenagers who find homosexuals repulsive and pathetic.
And that is the basic problem. The reason that gays will be bullied is that most humans have an instinctive reaction of disgust and aversion to perversion, and a number of them will translate this disgust into violence. There is nothing we can do about this, it is human nature and the best we can hope for is to advise gays to be discreet about their sexuality. But for Savage, and for liberals generally, the problem isn’t human nature, which we cannot change, but ideas, which we can change. In their minds, homophobia and bullying will simply disappear once we get those who adopt Christian morality to change their minds about homosexuals. So they mistakenly locate the problem in ideas which can be changed rather than in the concrete reality which cannot be changed. And this leads them to “fight back” at the wrong target, demonizing Christians and holding them responsible for bullying.
This is the same pattern that liberals adopt with the problem of disparate impact and black dysfunction. They think the cause of black dysfunction must be racist ideas and attitudes which can be changed. But the real cause of black dysfunction is the blacks themselves, their lower intelligence and poor impulse control. But we cannot change blacks themselves, we can only change our ideas about them. And this leads the liberals to “fight back” at the wrong target, demonizing whites and holding them responsible for black failure. The liberals are obsessed with the notion that it is bigoted ideas and attitudes which are the root cause of social problems. But it isn’t, because the source of these problems is largely concrete reality itself. The liberals cannot face this, because ideas and attitudes can be changed but the nature of concrete reality cannot. And as soon as one accepts, as the serenity prayer puts it, the things one cannot change, one must give up on the whole liberal utopian project. Unless that project is abandoned, the liberal will have no choice but to try and destroy every social institution or vestige of culture in the vain hope that such destruction will finally dislodge the ideas and attitudes which are the “real” cause of social pathology.
- end of initial entry -
Timothy A. writes:
Your correspondent Sam is right. Liberals think that humans are infinitely malleable, so that antipathy to homosexuals, gender-specific behaviors, the religious instinct - any natural inclination - can be eliminated by proper liberal education. Funny, then, that these same liberals are so insistent that same sex attraction can never, ever be changed and should never, ever be treated as a disorder to be modified or controlled.
Aditya B. writes:
I’m very much impressed by Sam’s penetrating insight into the motivations of “gay-bashers.” I am also in complete agreement with his analysis of the kind of person most likely to bully gays. In your average high school, in any part of the world, the least likely bully is a boy from a deeply religious background. The most common sort of bully is usually, though not always, from a non-traditional family, and oftentimes, from a lower socio-economic background.
In our times, the most likely bullies will tend to be Hispanics and blacks, who are notoriously disruptive and violent. They have an implacable hostility to gays which is rarely concealed. In that regard, they are no different from our Muslim friends whose enthusiasm to bugger little boys is only matched by their hostility to open homosexuality, Western-style.
My personal experience with bullies (which has been extensive) is that they pick on cowards. They will rarely, if ever, attack a person who fights back. I’d wager that Dan Savage was a coward in high school. And cowardice, like courage, is inborn. You either have it or you don’t. You can teach a man how to fight, you can’t give him the nerve to get in a fight and the courage to get his a** kicked should he do so.
And so the coward remains a coward. Instead of picking on Hispanics, blacks and Muslims, this cowardly bastard Dan Savage attacks the one group that will not hunt him down and slaughter him.
And that is liberalism in a nutshell. A gang of bullies who prey on the weak.
So, what does that say about American whites who are enthralled by liberalism?
Roland D. writes:
Liberals are bullies because liberal/leftist thought is rooted in the urge to power.
Liberalism/leftism is not introspective, it is outwardly-directed. Even Marxist self-criticism is explicitly intended for an external audience, rather than for individual betterment.
April 30
Nik S. writes:
Subject: liberals need a 12-step program
I like Sam’s parallel between liberalism and alcoholism:
“And as soon as one accepts, as the serenity prayer puts it, the things one cannot change, one must give up on the whole liberal utopian project.”
In my opinion, the racial paradigm is the glue of the entire framework of liberalism. If the racial paradigm were to collapse, liberalism would be nowhere fast. Once that lie were dispelled, other issues like global warming and homosexuality would seem almost trivial in comparison.
LA replies:
I agree with you. As I’ve said here, I think that race—particularly re black equality—is the linchpin of liberalism.
Ken Hechtman writes:
Sam writes:
The reason that gays will be bullied is that most humans have an instinctive reaction of disgust and aversion to perversion, and a number of them will translate this disgust into violence. There is nothing we can do about this …
Sure there is and it’s mostly already done. We already accomplished more in reducing anti-gay bullying than anyone making predictions 15 years ago would have thought possible. That’s the real story here, not that Dan Savage used a bad word [LA replies: Used a bad word? That’s all he did?] but that the problem he’s campaigning against is mostly solved. [LA replies: Yes, the liberal tyranny reigns.] Any time the straight press reports a story related to the bullying issue and they don’t remind readers of the long term trend they’re being irresponsible as hell. And the long term trend is that anti-gay bullying is sharply, dramatically down. [LA replies: What “anti-gay bullying” there is, is largely a function of the aggressive homosexual behavior supported by liberals.]
Let me ask Sam this: If you have a son of your own, what did you teach him? Maybe you taught him Leviticus 20 but I’ll bet you also taught him nothing in the Bible appointed him as God’s personal enforcer in his own daily life. I’ll bet you taught him we have laws against assault in this country and the gay kid in his class isn’t an exception to the law. If you did that, it’s all anybody needs to do.
LA writes:
And another thing: Since this is really about anti-homosexual bullying and not about anti-bullying as such, why don’t you call it that, i.e., “anti-gay bullying”? How many people understand that the “anti-bullying” campaign is not about bullying per se, but is a movement to encourage younger and younger people to “come out” as homosexuals and silence any disapproval? You’re all evil liars.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 29, 2012 07:54 PM | Send