Prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination, part 1: Free Speech.

For all the talk from the left side of the socio-political spectrum nowadays about discrimination, human rights, freedom of speech, etc. they're pretty intolerant of people that don't agree with them.  Now, that, in and of itself, isn't a problem.  It only becomes a problem when they try to enshrine their intolerance into law.

"WAIT!!!!"  I can hear you shout now, "That's the right wing, not us!!" Well, it's both actually, but at least the right wing is somewhat honest about their intolerance.

Let's get some definitions down before we go any further.

Prejudice:  a preconceived notion about something or someone, not based on reason or actual experience.

Bigotry:  an habitual state of mind including an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from one's own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

Discrimination:  treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction for or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs or is perceived to belong, rather than individual merit.  It is based primarily in prejudice and bigotry, though, technically, not always. (E.g. discriminating against mass murderers or cobras is not based in prejudice or bigotry)

hate speech:  speech that expresses hatred, offense, or insult to groups based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

"fightin' words" face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that they are likely to start an immediate fight.
----------
On bigotry and prejudice:

One big difference between prejudice and bigotry is the aspect of choice.  Most, if not all, of us with prejudices (and, please don't say you have none.  We ALL have prejudices against SOMEthing) don't choose to have these preconceived notions.  We do choose, however, to continue having them if we purposely do not educate ourselves about what we're prejudiced against, but, again, the prejudice itself is not a choice.

Bigotry, on the other hand, is always a choice.  You choose to intolerant of a differing opinion. If you are unfairly intolerant to it (remember, "unfair" is part of the definition), you are a bigot.  That being said, there is no such thing as "bigotry" against the KKK.   I dare say, according to most of us, intolerance toward the KKK is not "unfair"; they are people who espouse evil ideas.   There IS such a thing as bigotry (and remember here, the intolerance must be UNFAIR, i.e. not grounded in fact) against anyone whose names starts with "J" just because everyone you ever met (which is NOT the same as "everyone") whose names started with "J" was a jerk to you for some reason.

Please note, you can be a bigot without being prejudiced.  I don't like heavy metal music.  But, because of what "prejudice" means, that does NOT mean I'm prejudiced against it:  I have experienced it, I've even studied its musicality.  I still don't like it.

On the other hand, I don't tolerate it in my hearing.  If you ride with me in my car, or are in my home, I  will not allow you to play heavy metal music.  That is unfair.  I freely admit, I am a bigot against heavy metal music.

-------------
On free speech
Freedom of speech.  It's right there in the 1st amendment to the Constitution.  "Congress shall make no law........abridging the freedom of speech..........".  but what exactly does "freedom of speech" entail?

I'm sure we can all agree that the 1st amendment does NOT protect slandering another person.  We can also agree that it doesn't protect overt threats to another's life, safety, or property.  now, by "overt" I mean saying it flat out:  "I'm going to assassinate the King"  that is an overt threat against another person's life.  "The king really deserves to die" is not a threat, overt or otherwise.  A little more into "grey" territory are things like yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, or bomb threats (especially when there is no bomb).   Most people (maybe even all people) would say that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech either, mainly because the effect of this speech is the extreme likelihood that its utterance will result in a panic-driven stampede (for which there is no justification) for the doors which will most probably injure (or even kill) others.

Now, we move onto speech over which there is more controversy.  Let's start with "fightin' words".  I believe this type of speech should be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment.  Why?  Well, if somebody comes up to me and calls me a "flappy-wristed, nelly faggot" (considered to be "fightin' words" by the law) and a fight ensues, who is really the one responsible for the fight?  The name-caller?  Or is it me, the guy who threw the first punch?  If I were to just walk away and he doesn't pursue, that's the end of it----now, if he does pursue and continues saying these words, I may become afraid for my well-being.  At that point, the 1st amendment protection vanishes.  Of course, the difficulty here is determining if there was indeed a threat to my well-being.  My mere saying so should not be grounds for denying someone his freedom, because let's face it, if the speaker is someone I hate, here's a perfect opportunity to get him in trouble!
No,  there has to be some outward sign that I do indeed fear for my well-being.  I may start trembling, or go into a panic, or worse, actually pee my pants out of fear.  Any one of those things together with my saying "I feared for my well being" would be enough to justify depriving my opponent his freedom of speech.  But his merely saying "You're a flappy-wristed faggot" does not, morally, justify my punching him in the face, (regardless of how much I want to do it) but that's exactly what the "fightin' words" doctrine says:  I have the right to punch him in the face because of the words that he said to me.  Really?  Are we that emotionally immature that we need the force of the law to keep us from being insulted?  Are we so weak-willed that merely hearing an insult against us gives us NO choice but to lash out with violence?  I'm sorry, but I call "bullshit."  Those are the actions of children.

This brings us to the broader concept of hate speech.  Hate speech, in and of itself, is not in the same category as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.  There is no probability, great or otherwise, that anyone is going to be maimed or killed by hateful words.  Just because some rube calls me a faggot (which in today's political correctness dominated arena is considered "hate speech") that means nothing more than the fact that he hates be because I'm a gay man.  There is little (if any) substantial difference between "You faggot!" and "I hate you because you're gay, and gay people sicken me."  So why is the first considered "hate speech" worthy of prosecution but the second one is not (so far, any way)?  Please don't start harping on the words used. They're just WORDS.  They are not harmful in the same way a rock up side of the head is harmful.  Sure, they're offensive, and they hurt my feelings, but as the saying goes, "There is no freedom from offense" (and the good ol' "Sticks and stones........") and it's a very good thing there isn't any such "freedom from offense" because if there were, we'd ALL be in jail because EVERYONE has at one time or another offended SOMEBODY over SOMETHING.   If you want to be completely free from offense at all times, I suggest you go find yourself a cave or deserted island and move there, cuz that's the only way you're gonna get what you want.

Now, I can imagine that some of you are saying, "Well, OK, but that only applies to the government, so if your boss fires you because you call him a nincompoop on your facebook page, you can't do anything about it."  As things stand now, that's true, but people should not be liable to punishment for exercising their rights, either by the government or by private entities.  So, if Francis can be fired for expressing himself because "it wasn't the government" then by that logic, his boss should also be able to fire Frencis for being a Catholic.  After all, it wasn't the government!  Oh,  Francis has freedom of religion, you say?  Well, guess what?  The same constitution that says he has freedom of religion says he also has freedom of speech!  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If the boss can't fire Francis on the basis of his religion, regardless of how offensive the boss may find Catholicism, then he can't fire Francis on the basis of his speech, either.  They are both freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.  If you honor one, you must honor the other; if you reject one, you must reject the other also.  To say otherwise is to be a hypocrite.  The law should give absolutely no consideration to emotions, only physical harm and forced violation of rights.  If you believe otherwise, you are no more than a slave and your being an adult is only a matter of chronological timespan, and not maturity.  In other words, strap on a pair and deal with it.  The first amendment was not written to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech.

One of those "other topics as life happens" posts

If you don't live it, don't proclaim it!

I'm talking about the claim to value (so-called) "diversity."

There's a phenomenon in psychology called "cognitive dissonance" which means, among other things, performing an action that is contradictory to one's beliefs or values.  If cognitive dissonance becomes a habit or lifestyle, then it becomes what some people call "hypocrisy."  There.  I said it.

If you claim to value diversity and then go and threaten associates with no longer associating with them  (or some other childish reaction, such as calling them stupid or self-delusional, or actually defriending them on social media) whenever they express an opinion you don't agree with, and you make a habit of this?  That means you are a hypocrite.

There are only two ways to NOT be a hypocrite here:  1.  Stop claiming to value diversity (because your actions show otherwise),  or else 2.  Stop acting like a spoiled toddler who doesn't get his way when you're confronted with an opinion you don't like.  

If you truly value diversity like you claim to, then grow a thicker skin and either let it go, or discuss why you think they're wrong in a calm, logical manner.  Be an adult and refrain from false accusations or threatening bad fall out unless they keep their opinion to themselves. 

Blog reboot, St. Patrick's day, 2016

Since my (mostly self-imposed) exile from the Esperanto Community, I've been trying to figure out a theme for this blog, and I've decided that there would be 2 main threads:  1.  Veg*n (see note below) and cheap eating,  and 2.  A healthy dose of Christian Orthodoxy (note, that's "big O" Orthodox (as in the Greek or Russian Orthodox churches) not "small o" which many non-Orthodox just take to mean "believing exactly the way I do") with a sprinkling of other topics as life happens (these will mostly be about liberty and/or L/libertarian ideals and my involvement with the Libertarian party).

Since today is St. Patrick's day, I'm going to rant a little.
I don't like what has happened to the ancient and venerable feastday of St. Patrick.  It has turned into a debauchery of drunkenness and a tip of the hat to all things Irish.  Not that honoring our Irish heritage is a bad thing, but we must remember, before and above anything else, His Grace was a bishop of the Church not very long after Gaelic Ireland (as a sociopolitical entity, not, of course, the island) came to historic knowledge.  And by "the Church" (since we ARE talking about the 400's AD here), I mean the Church now known as the Orthodox church.  The distinctive doctrines that make the Roman Catholic Church what it is today were not believed by anyone in the 5th century and wouldn't even be made mandatory or professed liturgically till 1014 AD, a mere 40 years before the Great Schism.

The other big surprise for many, will be that he wasn't actually Irish!  He was born in Roman Britain of Brythonic heritage (Brythonic is Welsh, Cornish, or "P-Celtic" as opposed to Irish and Scottish "Q-Celtic).  Here's an icon and his story:

Saint Patrick, the Enlightener of Ireland
March 17

Saint Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish, was seized from his native Britain by Irish marauders when he was sixteen years old. Though the son of a deacon and a grandson of a priest, it was not until his captivity that he sought out the Lord with his whole heart. In his Confession, the testament he wrote towards the end of his life, he says, "After I came to Ireland - every day I had to tend sheep, and many times a day I prayed - the love of God and His fear came to me more and more, and my faith was strengthened. And my spirit was so moved that in a single day I would say as many as a hundred prayers, and almost as many at night, and this even when I was staying in the woods and on the mountain; and I would rise for prayer before daylight, through snow, through frost, through rain, and I felt no harm." After six years of slavery in Ireland, he was guided by God to make his escape, and afterwards struggled in the monastic life at Auxerre in Gaul, under the guidance of the holy Bishop Germanus. Many years later he was ordained bishop and sent to Ireland once again, about the year 432, to convert the Irish to Christ. His arduous labours bore so much fruit that within seven years, three bishops were sent from Gaul to help him shepherd his flock, "my brethren and sons whom I have baptized in the Lord - so many thousands of people," he says in his Confession. His apostolic work was not accomplished without much "weariness and painfulness," long journeys through difficult country, and many perils; he says his very life was in danger twelve times. When he came to Ireland as its enlightener, it was a pagan country; when he ended his earthly life some thirty years later, about 461, the Faith of Christ was established in every corner.

Well, that's my "healthy dose of Orthodoxy" for this episode of my blog.  

(Of note, I should explain that "veg*n" is a relatively new internet term (as far as I know) that encompasses everything from strict vegan to lacto-ovo vegetarian (which is just vegan with the addition of eggs and dairy products))