Arguing against ideas espoused by the left doesn’t mean you’re some Ultra-Conservative Ben Shapiro Lib Owning Keyboard Warrior ravaged by a “moral panic over communism.” No, it means you’re skeptical. I say this not only to reassure myself, but to reassure thousands of others.
Why rally against ideas usually associated with love and peace? Because these ideas convince you that you’re doing the right thing, and that there are no dire consequences to doing such right things.
Ideas like inclusivity, diversity, etc, should never be exempted from any degree of skepticism. The right, the conservatives, keep alive the flames of tradition. The left, though they don’t like admitting it, does the exact same thing. The left treats inclusion, diversity (of all but thought), and equity as traditional values. So why is it so unpopular today to thrust attacks upon these traditions of the left?
And neither should skepticism ever be lowered to the level of conspiratorial thinking. There is a difference between the two. Here, I’ll demonstrate the most important one: you’re more than welcome to correct me where I’m wrong. I’ll listen with open ears and heart.
Inclusive bias-free language: some people (how many? 400?) are bothered by “biased language.” Therefore, everybody (how many? 300 million?) must use “bias-free language.” Phrases like ‘birthing person.’ Will you be my “best person” at my wedding? It took a lot of “personpower” to build that bridge.
The biased part: man/woman. That’s the baby to be tossed out with the bathwater.
You see, people, as a species, can be just as biased as men and women. Yet here we are dropping ‘person’ at the beginning of every word.
I can’t think of anything less inclusive than the demand that everybody must conform to your worldview. Inclusivity: we include all those who accept only this worldview. On second thought, this makes sense: The group consisting of those who should conform to the bias-free language worldview includes everybody.
Why should inclusive bias-free language be mandatory?
As stupid as the phrase is, why can’t ‘birthing people’ and mothers coexist?
Can inclusive, bias-free language just, you know, be optional? Is that too much to ask?
My biggest problem with “bias-free language” and other happy-go-lucky nonsense from the left is its steadfast belief that it’s going to save us from ourselves. It won’t. It can’t. It never will. Do you really suppose that just because someone’s using your bias-free language that they’re all of a sudden a good person? Maybe they’re using your language out of spite. If you’ve worked for a boss you secretly hate, you know what I’m talking about. “Ugh I might as well call her a birthing person if it gets her out of my hair” – that sort of thing.
No, you might say, we want more people using bias-free language so as to simplify the task of identifying those who don’t. But why work towards such a task in the first place? Why work so hard to create a system in which two categories are setup: people who use inclusive language versus people who don’t? Well, you can’t find out who your enemies are without useful distinctions. Categories help with that.
The left’s favorite hobby is to provide people with rules for the future.
But what will happen to people who choose to break those rules?
Will the rebels be allowed to play?
Will the rebels be included?