|
Mercnbeth -> "Inclusionism" Bullshit (11/7/2008 8:19:12 AM)
|
Since Tuesday the warm fuzzy feeling about PE Obama's election has generated a bunch of nonsense about the time being right for all of us to come together.
It's not limited to one side or the other but seems most disingenuous coming from many here on CM who've spent the last few years calling President Bush and/or the Republican party any nasty thing their limited mental abilities could conceive, wishing death not only to come, but to come painfully. Now they find it appropriate for the University of Texas to boot a player off the team for speaking his mind. Bush's actions as President were and are reprehensible, but he is still President and 'inclusionism' requires that acceptance of that programmatic fact the same way it's expected when Obama takes office. But that's not the case.
No - inclusionism, especially by not exclusively to the left, is defined by agreement with them, and their 'principles' no matter how hypocritical they are in the face of side by side comparison. The most flagrant example is Prop 8 in CA. The vote came in resulting in overturning the activist court decision. The vote represented a defeat for 'inclusionism' of same sex marriage by the majority who voted Tuesday; but it was a vote conducted in the same manner that the Democratic majority in both houses was determined in Congress but because it wasn't the 'right' decision as seen by the left - the result is not accepted. Winning doesn't make it right, challenges are appropriate, but where is the 'inclusionism' of the democratic will of the voter of CA? Oh - yeah, its not 'right' and it's not 'PC' and it goes in the face of 'fair' and 'good intent'. So votes don't matter - yeah, that's the brand of inclusionism exclusively I see being sold. Agree with us or we'll insult, denigrate, disrespect, and, if possible, make your idea of freedom and liberty illegal or inaccessible.
Why else would a call to reimplemented the 'Fairness Doctrine' be considered a 'good' thing? How is it that killing a person is made worse or become a 'hate crime' when the perpetrator is not the same race? Well at least if he's a lighter race than the victim. Whether we point to the UT player, or the attempts to remove Senator Leiberman from his Committee chairmanship - there is no action behind the empty word inclusionism. Change? Here's the change; a different group now is in charge of and has the ability to to execute their version of "It's our way or the highway".
There's not a damn thing wrong with that either. "Go for it!"; I say, and enjoy your power. Relish in your conquest and do your best to get your way implemented as quickly and for as long as you can convince the masses that you have their best interests in mind. You don't - you have your best interests in mind like any other party in power; just don't waste my time with inclusionism propaganda in the face of actions, policy, and philosophy that only includes those capable of head bobbing agreement.
I don't need to be nor want to be included in anything. If an argument or debate point can't convince me, guilt about being on the outside of the 'in crowd' won't do it either. Winning doesn't make it right, but change comes from convincing not demanding and not through insult or strong arm tactics.
'Inclusionism' is the new buzzword for 'politically correct' and just as meaningless and just as hypocritical coming from the majority. Their ability to rationalize their hypocrisy fully considered.
|
|
|
|
