The liberal cause célèbre of the month has been transgender bathrooms. Before that it was gay marriage. I imagine as a gay man one would have felt very good about that; people coming out to big rallies and the liberal media saying all sorts of nice things about homosexuals. At a college I know of, a gay man was hired by the philosophy department and appointed chief diversity officer. It would be a tremendous scandal if he turned out not to be gay after all! If he were caught embracing a woman in a sexual manner, quelle horreur.
We have seen that feminists throw women under the bus when it comes to Islam’s treatment of women. Cultural relativism trumps any despicable thing one might do to women. Pointing to Sweden’s distinction as having the second-highest number of rapes per 100,000 in the world due to Muslim immigration makes one a racist. Being a Muslim trumps being a woman for most favored status. Being a Muslim trumps our instinct to protect women, at least for liberals/feminists. It even trumps our desire to protect children. Mohammad married a six year old and had sex with her when she was nine. This has not been renounced as far as I know. Pedophilia is to be tolerated if it is practiced by Muslims or at least by Mohammad.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, most of my students think that the greater horror they can “tolerate” the better people they are – up to and including the Holocaust. I used to tell my students that this was not the intention of their misguided teachers who taught them to be moral and cultural relativists. Now, I wonder if perhaps it was the intention of their teachers. But whether it was or not, it is now the intention of liberals to tolerate any behavior of those with most favored status.
Jesus said those who are last shall be first. Liberals have clearly taken this to heart in their own manner. By analyzing their rhetoric, one can discover that liberals have a hierarchy, though ever-changing, even though they claim to hate hierarchies and love “equality.” The ethnic origin and religious affiliation of the Orlando murderer is quickly erased from discussion. Even his actions are not being criticized – for to do so would be a “distraction” some liberals claim. A distraction from what, for goodness sake? Gun control. Since this happened in the San Bernardino terrorist case, I should have seen it coming. I didn’t. I can’t seem to get cynical enough.
Gay men have just discovered that they do not remotely have most favored status, although they must have noticed somewhat uneasily that transgenderism was the flavor of the month. Gay men have been thrown under the bus by liberals too. The fact that the attack was explicitly against gay men; they were actual victims in the most visceral possible way – has just been negated by gun control. Homophobia suddenly disappears as a topic and the sexual orientation of the victims is minimized. Why? Because the murderer was a Muslim. (Sorry to state the obvious). At the moment, this trumps everything. If, as has been pointed out, the killer had been a Christian, then the illusion that liberals care about gays would be maintained and the killer and his religion would be roundly criticized.
After the claims in the 1980s that all men are rapists and then in the 1990s that all men were potential pedophiles, I suppose there could be a certain schadenfreude in women and gays finding out what it means to have one’s sex and race and sexual orientation be used against you. I don’t feel it though. Instead I feel sorry for the Orlando victims and the gay community. The feeling of disillusionment must be intense, if they can even bring themselves to admit to themselves what is going on.
It has been reported that some gay leaders have blamed the Orlando murders on Christians. This seems to indicate some kind of emotional pain. They know that liberals have abandoned them in favor of being pro-Islam. Gays can’t attack Islam because they are liberals themselves and they also know that this would just make their situation even worse. So, they attack those who they can safely attack: Christians. This is the nature of scapegoating. One attacks who it is safe to attack. At one time it would have been the lame, the poor, the disenfranchised, the POW, those without families, foreigners. Gays know they have been doubly victimized. First as targets of the attack and then having their sexual orientation, the reason for the attack, be regarded as something one ought not to mention. They know that any attempt to draw attention to this will be subject to vociferous condemnation. They have been scapegoated. They have been thrown under the bus. They know the liberal mob is ready to silence any mutiny. They try to find another target for the hostility of the crowd. Only one presents itself. Christians.
One can try to avoid being the scapegoat victim by offering another to take one’s place. Also, if you can’t safely criticize your boss or your spouse then you might perhaps kick the dog. You attack whom it is safe to attack. It’s called displacement.
If there were a game called scapegoat poker, then the cards would reveal a hierarchy of value. White Christians and conservatives would be the least valuable. Muslims would be of the highest value at the moment. The more atrocities ISIS commits, the more Muslims must be protected. The more we prove what nice people we are by overlooking anything they do. It’s a bit difficult to place all the in-betweens. White atheists would perhaps be next lowest. Then white women, then “people of color” (they must be wondering how they became so neglected), then gays and lesbians, the handicapped (currently not part of the cultural discussion), the transgendered, then children perhaps. If you happen to be a black, handicapped, lesbian, transgendered, feminist Muslim child, then the sky’s the limit.
I mentioned Jesus saying those who are last shall be first. That’s how it works in scapegoat poker. Being of high value in this game actually indicates something of what people really think about you and it’s not good.
I just received an institutional message concerning the Orlando shootings. The identity, religion, ethnicity and motives of the killer were not mentioned. They did mention that it had something to do with gays. That indicates the demotion of gays versus Muslims. In the old days, it was being gay that one avoided mentioning in polite company.