Quote from nutmeg:
"It's ironic that the same people who want to ban un-PC viewpoints will also argue that it is an outrage to end public funding for artwork that insults religion. Unless of course that religion is islam, then it is an outrage to disrespect it."
It is a commentary on who has the power. What is political correct or not is determined by who has the power.
Not always Nutmeg. Often the squeakiest wheel get's the grease.
Nixon's "silent majority" get the shaft.
A couple of years ago I had the unfortunate but neat experience of being a Congressional candidate in a suicide run.
No one knew I was alive. In big cities like NY, L.A. and Chicago, cities who may have a dozen or more Congressional's occurring within their metro areas, coverage is slow for the uneventful shoe-in races.
But then I made some remarks about Islam. Nothing over the top. Certainly not the type of stuff I say fucking around with people's heads on ET. Just pedestrian thoughts like expansionist Islam is a threat, we should monitor activity in rogue Mosques, that kind of common sense.
Then CAIR called a press conference. Who the hell is CAIR? By the end of the week I was in newspapers and right-wing websites, shit I was listening to NPR one afternoon and some sandal wearing pinko called my dialogue "hateful."
Within weeks a newspaper falsely attributed a quote to me as saying the teachings of Islam itself (the Koran) promotes violence. I never said anything (nor do I believe that) of the kind.
What was ironic was that CAIR didn't respond to my remarks as much as challenge my right to
make those remarks.
When people label statements as "insensitive" or "hateful" they're merely dodging the debate over the validity of the comments in question.
People have a
right to hate. People may have a
reason to hate.