Skip to main content

"Political correctness just stifles white heterosexual Christian males."

On The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore last night, I was struck by a quote from renowned conservative stand-up comedian Nick DiPaulo in the discussion portion of the show and felt the need to comment on it.

The central focus of last night's show was political correctness, the word police, and whether or not certain words should be off limits in most (or all) situations if not outright banned. Overall, the group of guests (as well as the host) seemed to believe that while people should become more culturally aware and sensitive given our ever diversifying country and we should refrain from saying certain words, it'd be a potentially dangerous slippery slope to actually start banning these very words.

DiPaulo then went on a mini-rant, saying that political correctness always stems from the left, dealing with racism, sexism, and homophobia. He followed that up with this gem: "Political correctness just stifles white heterosexual Christian males."

Now, let's get something straight here - sometimes the word police go way too far with their supposed political correctness ("bossy" and "crazy"? Really?), but the main purpose of political correctness is to find a way to be sensitive and inoffensive to different groups of people. Yes, sometimes, like I said, some go way too far in an attempt to achieve the impossible of not offending anybody, but the intent is still good, and we should at least make some kind of an effort to not be insensitive to people different than us.

Having said that, DiPaulo's comment is both ridiculous and sad. Yes, white heterosexual Christian males had more rights (and privileges) than any other group of people in this country for quite a number of years, and as statistics would show, that's still the case, but the gap is closing. What DiPaulo and his ilk don't seem to understand is that women, homosexuals, blacks, Muslims, and other minorities aren't asking for more rights and respect than white heterosexual Christian males; they're asking for equal rights and respect. Just because women got the right to vote, that didn't take away men's right to vote. Just because African-Americans were allowed to drink from any water fountain didn't mean whites couldn't drink from these same water fountains. Just because Muslims are allowed to build and worship in mosques doesn't mean Christians can't do similarly with and in churches. Lastly, just because homosexuals are able to legally marry in some states, that doesn't take away the right of heterosexuals to marry. This "liberal political correctness" Mr. DiPaulo is talking about and seems to despise isn't about trampling the rights and respect of white heterosexual Christian males; it's simply about trying to provide all other groups of people similar rights and respect.

According to DiPaulo, it seems that Section I of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says the following:

"All white heterosexual Christian males born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any white heterosexual Christian male of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any white heterosexual Christian male within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm sorry to disappoint him, but it actually says this:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Well, I must be going. I'm going to try and prevent Florida Governor Rick Scott from stifling intelligence by banning the term "climate change." Wish me luck...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"