03 11 10 - 06:00Interesting comment that cuts right to the core of the culture wars:
I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia this past month. In all my travels to Islamic countries, Iâve never seen such a stark contrast of Islam and the West. For example, in one shopping mall, I was shocked to see ladies in burkas walking past lingerie stores. The city was littered with slutty European and trashy westerner tourists. Iâll tell you what, if Iâve got to pick between the hijab and the whores, Iâm going with the hijab. The dad in me began thinking of buying burkas for my daughters. - TTHW
Hijab or whores -- well, no one wants their daughters to be whores. No one wants a hijab either, at least in the west, because it seems so... extreme. Maybe there's a middle path. But at some point, philosophies diverge. You pick the left path or the right path, and while some of the way is shared, you diverge:
|Left||Human individuals being able to do whatever they want is most important, so we form a collective to enforce political and eventual physical equality on the population. None may rise above.||Right||Human individuals sacralizing, revering and adapting to reality is most important, so we set up social standards and promote those who rise above.|
There's no reconciling these views. One wants to shield individuals from natural selection, nature and reality; the other wants to shield society from people who want to be shielded from reality. We can fake it for a half-millennium, as we have, but ultimately the collision shows.
Here's another good one:
The Equality Act introduces a myriad of ârightsâ which will allow staff to sue for any perceived offense imaginable.
It also creates the concept of âthird party harassmentâ, meaning an employee can overhear a joke which was not even directed at them, perceive it to be offensive and then sue the employer. Workers can sue if they feel any comments âviolate their dignityâ, create an âintimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environmentâ, etc. A one-off incident is enough â the âvictimâ doesnât need to have warned the âoffenderâ that their comments were unwelcome.
As if that wasnât bad enough, the legislation extends to everyone in the workplace; hence staff can sue their employer even if they were offended by something said by a vendor, customer or contractor.
Basically, the law aims to prevent anyone being offended by anything and any person, and allows workers to sue if their fragile feelings do get hurt. - MHB
Good questions. She goes on to really nail the origins of this:
I can see why imposing equality of outcome has proven so popular with the very many who benefit from it. And when it comes to those who are forced to pay dearly for such âprogressâ? Thatâs where indoctrination and coercion come into play. After all, who could ever object to the pursuit of âsocial justiceâ (code for forced equity), right?
Collectively as a society we are in complete denial of reality, having happily embraced our pretty illusion that we are all special, all equal, equally important, equally smart, equally valid.
Therefore, if some people earn more than others and wealth is not equally distributed, it is a clear sign we live in an âunfairâ society and some people are oppressed or discriminated against. Such injustice must therefore be rectified by government intervention.
That, in essence, is leftism: the idea that we are all (politically) equal, magically THEREFORE we are (biologically, aptitudinally) equal. Once we make that assumption, if we spot anyone who is poor, miserable or stupid, we have to assume that OPPRESSION was the cause. It's a backward society and an inverted world. Whore or hijab? If whore brings us equality, HIJAB ALL THE WAY.