This morning, I was perusing the news networks to find something to rant about, and I came across this article discussing the growing diversity of the Republican party. The first thing that struck me, though, was that the Republicans' "diversity" stems only from the color or nationality of the person you see on the ballot. And while racial diversity can bring a lot of richness to both a country and a party, why does a measure of "diversity" always stop there? If we're a truly color-blind society, why does race remain the one true measure of a diverse culture?
I have a problem with that idea of diversity: it ignores almost everything that actually makes a person who they are. The color of your skin is just one part of you...and sometimes, it doesn't even mean that much. Real diversity comes from including many different kinds of people, not kinds of skin color. The way we view the world is shaped by our childhood, and to a degree, genetics, and while race might play a part in that, it's playing less and less of one in a modern society (don't get me wrong, it's a good thing that race is no longer a reliable indicator of your background). But why are these indicators never discussed?
If a party (or university or church or any other group) wants to create true diversity within itself (and I could go on for ages about why that's a good thing), it needs to include people who are truly different: rich, poor, atheist, religious, scientific, literary, gay, straight, etc. In our society, it is those things, those true deterministic factors that make up who we really are, that creates the multifaceted jewel that is America.
The color of your skin doesn't make you different: what you hold in your heart and mind do.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Dusting off the blog: Clint McCance
Wow...it's been so long since I tinkered here that I couldn't remember the url off the top of my head. Lazy much?
Anyway, back when I made my first half-hearted attempt to start my own electronic rants, I never really gathered much steam. Now, though, I have a lot on my mind, and what better way to say it? I'm gonna start with something very close to my heart: Clint McCance's rants, and especially what they mean for free speech.
First off, a source, so that you know what I'm talking about: this video by Anderson Cooper does a great job.
Ok, yes I obviously feel very strongly about this issue because I'm a gay man (and counter to stereotypes, I am in a very fulfilling and monogamous relationship), but that's not really the thing that's been ticking me off. What got me going was seeing some of the comments on stories related to this. After quickly filtering through the obvious stupidity or trolling and ignoring the Bible thumpers trying to ram their religion down our throats, I came across a number of comments lamenting the death of the right to free speech. It is to those people who might complain about this supposed death that I really write this post.
Do you know what it means to have freedom of speech?
From what I've seen, the resounding answer is "no." Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without having to fear reprisal from the government; nothing is an illegal topic. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from public opinion. Indeed, just because you are protected from the government (and rightly so), it doesn't mean you are protected from the opinions of your fellow citizens. In fact, just as you might have a freedom to say what you think, I have a freedom to voice my opinions of you because of it.
With great freedom comes great responsibility, and so with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the repercussions of what you say. Clint McCance said things that are absolutely abhorent, and now he must own what he said and face the public scorn that he is (rightfully) receiving. Moreover, as a public official, he must accept that what he has said has shaken the public's confidence in his ability to serve as a member of a school board. Just as he has a right to say what he did, we as the public have a right to say we don't want someone like him in public office. So no, the outcry over his statements is not "trampling over his free speech"; it is merely holding him responsible for what he has said under his rights for free speech. No one is suggesting he be arrested or that he broke any law (and as much as I disgaree with him, I would disagree more with such a call), and that's the only way his rights would truly be broken.
Say what you want, but be prepared to be judged for what you say. You cannot have one without the other.
Perhaps this is symptomatic from what is wrong with our country (conservatives especially, though I am likely biased): we demand the rights, but refuse the responsibility. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Anyway, back when I made my first half-hearted attempt to start my own electronic rants, I never really gathered much steam. Now, though, I have a lot on my mind, and what better way to say it? I'm gonna start with something very close to my heart: Clint McCance's rants, and especially what they mean for free speech.
First off, a source, so that you know what I'm talking about: this video by Anderson Cooper does a great job.
Ok, yes I obviously feel very strongly about this issue because I'm a gay man (and counter to stereotypes, I am in a very fulfilling and monogamous relationship), but that's not really the thing that's been ticking me off. What got me going was seeing some of the comments on stories related to this. After quickly filtering through the obvious stupidity or trolling and ignoring the Bible thumpers trying to ram their religion down our throats, I came across a number of comments lamenting the death of the right to free speech. It is to those people who might complain about this supposed death that I really write this post.
Do you know what it means to have freedom of speech?
From what I've seen, the resounding answer is "no." Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without having to fear reprisal from the government; nothing is an illegal topic. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from public opinion. Indeed, just because you are protected from the government (and rightly so), it doesn't mean you are protected from the opinions of your fellow citizens. In fact, just as you might have a freedom to say what you think, I have a freedom to voice my opinions of you because of it.
With great freedom comes great responsibility, and so with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the repercussions of what you say. Clint McCance said things that are absolutely abhorent, and now he must own what he said and face the public scorn that he is (rightfully) receiving. Moreover, as a public official, he must accept that what he has said has shaken the public's confidence in his ability to serve as a member of a school board. Just as he has a right to say what he did, we as the public have a right to say we don't want someone like him in public office. So no, the outcry over his statements is not "trampling over his free speech"; it is merely holding him responsible for what he has said under his rights for free speech. No one is suggesting he be arrested or that he broke any law (and as much as I disgaree with him, I would disagree more with such a call), and that's the only way his rights would truly be broken.
Say what you want, but be prepared to be judged for what you say. You cannot have one without the other.
Perhaps this is symptomatic from what is wrong with our country (conservatives especially, though I am likely biased): we demand the rights, but refuse the responsibility. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)