Before you click away because you’ve decided to hate and disagree with whatever information I have yet to lay down, please use the next 30 seconds to read this short tale.
Let’s say we have a nice homosexual couple who lives in Hollywood. Their names could be Karl and Barry. Karl really wants to try out a newly-opened club with Barry.
KARL: “Let’s go try out that new club that just opened.”
BARRY: “No thanks.”
KARL: “Come on, we’ll have a great time dancing!”
BARRY: “Maybe some other time.”
KARL: “What’s the issue? You dancephobic??”
I think we can agree that Karl was in the wrong for saying what he did. Why? Not only did Karl’s “dancephobic” accusation lack fairness and clarity, but Karl also resorted to a subjective, primal reaction by using an emotion-based opinion to attack another person.
George Orwell once said:
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’… Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”
Replace “Fascism” with any other political buzzword, and the saying will still be true. Let’s replace Orwell’s choice buzzword with three of our own: homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. And ah, look at that, the saying remains true. These words are used in a deliberate, dishonest way to attack certain individuals with whom the Left disagrees. Using this tactic is corrosive to discourse and has played a major role in dramatically heightening the already tense political climate over the last few years. So, knowing this, let’s delve deeper into how the Left uses these terms to give bigots a free pass while giving concerned citizens a damning label.
How the term Homophobia strengthens anti-gay bigots:
- It implies that people who have a deep-seated hatred for homosexuals are instead simply afraid.
- There are places in the world where you are thrown off of buildings if you are gay. That is not an irrational fear, but rather people acting on their hatred with violence.
How the term Homophobia hurts those with legitimate caution/concern/critique:
- People who disagree with homosexuality are deemed “homophobic.”
- People who disagree with smoking and choose not to do it are not smokephobic.
- It’s not a matter of fear, but preference and perhaps a traditional moral code.
How the term Xenophobia strengthens racists:
- There are people who hate brown people, Asian people, or just anyone who comes from a less developed country.
- By labeling it an irrational fear, people choose to dismiss the actual hatred.
How the term Xenophobia hurts those with legitimate caution/concern/critique:
- Citizens have the right and the duty to care about their country’s immigration policy and decide how many people come in.
- Xenophobia dismisses actual arguments about immigration’s effect on the economy and safety as well as arguments on how immigration policy should be changed/improved.
How the term Islamophobia strengthens bad guys:
- Islamophobia dismisses actual hatred toward brown people, religious people, or people of different cultures.
- These hateful bigots get a free pass and are never actually challenged.
How the term Islamophobia hurts those with legitimate caution/concern/critique:
- Dismisses legitimate concerns over fundamentalism, real-world oppression, and violence as an irrational fear.
- Once again, it is used to dismiss people’s legitimate arguments and concerns.
The common practice of labeling people with “phobias” strengthens hateful bigots by severely reducing the seriousness of their hatred and labeling it as an irrational fear instead. It also weakens those who have legitimate arguments or concerns by equating those problems with an irrational fear, resulting in those people being refused an opportunity to share their thoughts.
The use of the aforementioned phobias are doubly dismissive:
- They dismiss real, dangerous hate.
- They dismiss real, legitimate caution, concern, and critique.
Political discourse should be free from all ad hominem attacks, and that includes name-calling. Unfortunately, shaming, rather than substantive arguments, has always and will always be the main strategy of the Democratic Party. Conservatives should stop defending themselves when the Left throws around outrageous accusations and dismissals and should go on offense instead. Do not simply call them out. Attack them relentlessly with legitimate arguments. Their nonsensical arguments will only carry weight for as long as they go unchallenged. Don’t be afraid to talk back. Don’t be a closet conservative. Don’t let them unfairly brand us so they can dismiss anything and everything we say.
The question is not when they are going to stop, but who is going to stop them.
Feel free to attack Ryan Marhoefer on Twitter @itsyaboymarhoef