I know that during the aftermath of her instantly notorious tweet, Roseanne asked to stop comparing her with other awful things said by other celebrities, but this is not just about Roseanne. This is about everyone of us who has ever had the same fight on a smaller scale (and that’s probably everyone of us). A lot of people who are not in this position still don’t realize that this double standard exists, let alone how blatant it is. So this is about everyone who knows what it’s like when people try their hardest to find the worst thing in what you say, and the best thing in what others say.
The left can explain away how the offensive comments from the people they like were OK, but Roseanne’s ill-advised tweet was grounds for firing. But most people will see that the left would have been out for blood if a known right-winger would say or do some of the things left-wingers get away with:
We must keep exposing this hypocrisy for what it is, until it ends. Not because it sucks to not be heard, not even because it’s unfair that we have to be “in the closet” with our politics for fear of personal and professional backlash. But because this is a big factor helping to decide the course of politics. Since the left took charge of the public institutions (which is hard to pinpoint exactly, but I would estimate about 40-50 years ago) the entire political arena has shifted to the left. These days, mainstream “conservatives” are basically just left-wing – they are support mass immigration, big government and high taxation, in Europe: the EU, et cetera.
The Overton window, which describes “the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse” has moved so far left that any actual right-wing talking point lands outside of what is “acceptable”. Before the internet, these ideas were only heard in bars for the working class and obscure, secretive political meetings. The free exchange of ideas online, aided by a reality which has effectively destroyed the left’s ideological house of cards, has revived the right. But those who decide what we hear in the public domain – the people running the TV and radio stations, censors and advertisers, educators, judges, artists, celebrities and anyone high-up in political networks – are still doing everything they can to minimize and ostracize right-wing voices.
Good guys v bad guys
It works the other way around as well: the left swears, issues threats and discriminates against right-wingers. They gladly pardon their own sexism against right-wing women and racism against non-white right-wingers. Because they are so religiously convinced that they are the good guys and we are the bad guys. And anything the good guys do to stop the bad guys must be for the good of us all.
There seems to be an unstoppable drive for overcompensation when executives are confronted by supposed acts of “racism”. Basically, they have been trained to be good little puppies by decades of the left’s extremist activism. Look at Starbucks’ recent, unprecedented move of shutting down all its US stores for a day for “sensitiviy
indoctrination training”. More than 8,000 stores closed for a day because one of their crews might have acted inappropriately towards black customers. We don’t know if their motivations for calling the police were racist, or even racial. We don’t know the experiences these workers have had in the past. We don’t know what sets off their alarm bells. There is no way to objectively establish what happened, nor is there any desire to. The executives are not interested in the truth – they are interested in showing the public that they are “decent” people, by the standards of the left of course.
The same applies to Roseanne. It is astounding how fast people are fired for supposed racism. The speed and thoroughness of the network’s response betrays their eagerness to make a point. Perhaps they fear the wrath of the left in case their response should fall short. But more likely, they were already waiting for a reason to fire Roseanne so that they could feel like heroes for fifteen minutes. Roseanne re-runs have even been taken down from (it seems all) popular streaming services. On the other hand:
Why does one person get a personal apology from a network executive, while others get zero follow-up as victims with zero repercussions for the offenders?
BOOOOM: SARAH SANDERS BACKS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND BLOWS THE ROOF OFF W.H PRESS BRIEFING TARGETING @ABC FOR THEIR BLATANT LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.@PressSec #Roseanne@TheRealRoseanne #Ambien pic.twitter.com/h2uPa6QTC7
— USA NEWS (@USANEWS007) May 30, 2018
Planet of the Apes
Without defending what Roseanne wrote in the first place (I don’t even really know Valerie Jarrett outside of this, and I generally dislike personal attacks), I do want to address the ambiguity of the tweet. It wasn’t a smart thing to write, and it was in poor taste – and I applaud Roseanne for apologizing for it. But the strange thing is that it has been immediately categorized as racist and thereby it has become impossible to question whether it actually was racist (and still remain one of the ‘decent’ people).
I know it’s naive of me, but I feel more racism isn’t going to make racism go away. So the same rules should apply to people regardless of skin color. However, comparing people to apes or monkeys is done all the time. The left enthusiastically compared George W Bush to chimpanzees, and Donald Trump as well for that matter.
Logically, either ape comparisons as personal insults should be off the table altogether, or it should be fine both ways around. Why would it be OK to say a white person looks like an ape, but not a black person? Does that in itself not validate actual racists who may espouse the belief that all black people look like apes? By making a remark about an individual about the entire group, based on her skin color, it is actually the left which is injecting racism into this situation. They are clearly fine with comparing a white person to apes. If they say comparing a black person to apes is racist, the underlying message seems to be: ‘you’re saying that because she is black, that’s racist’. Doing that is a lot more racist than looking at individuals and deciding based on personal traits whether they look like an ape. It may be childish, it may not be very constructive or even funny – but it is at least a rational approach to the matter.
Roseanne apologized. Sincerely, it seems to me. That’s good, we should apologize for things we know we did wrong. But the left is forcing us into a corner where apologizing is always a losing strategy. They are forcing us to start ignoring our mistakes, because we know by now that when the left demands apologies, it is not to forgive anyone – it is to crush and shame them even more. Many have caved to the left in the past, and many still do, and that amounts to political suicide.
Prom Dress Girl Keziah Daum showed she had a spine. She proved they can only hurt you if you allow them to. If they can control you, they will keep hounding you. If they can’t, they will have to leave you alone. The culture of shame is perpetuated only because the left’s victims tend to bask in shame, idly hoping for forgiveness. Shaming us into submission will stop working the moment we don’t allow it to work anymore.
We have to be better than the left. It’s tempting to say: never apologize to the left. But may we all be like Roseanne – own your mistakes when you make them, but make sure you can stand by your words, and then stand by your words.