Joke of the Day

So today's "Joke of the Day" was kind of stupid:

Q. What's the difference between a boy and a girl?
A. A boy is 8 times more likely to be convicted of murder.

The "joke" isn't even funny, but it does serve as a nice spring-board to analyze some things in our culture. Despite the fact that it's true, in the context of today's culture, this joke is a smear on men. Don't believe me? Imagine if the question had been re-written thus: "What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" See the problem? The second version would be considered to be ipso facto racist. The fact that black men are more likely to be convicted of murder would be explained away as being the result of poverty, white oppression, and a slew of other explanations that all serve the same function: to deflect blame away from the individuals actually committing murder. The knee-jerk reaction is to look for explanations of the criminal behavior when it is committed on the part of a minority--and it's even better if the "explanation" lays the blame at the feet of one of the usual suspects: caucasians, males, big business, or the military-industrial complex. The question of other possible non-racist explanations the phenomenon isn't even taken into account.

The Left has so dominated the culture with political correctness that in many circles, even University level academic circles, it is near impossible to be understood to have an intellectual disagreement with the politically correct norm. Failure to subscribe wholesale to the politically correct explanations of why more blacks are in prison or women tend to make less money is immediately labelled racist or sexist. Those labels are warrant enough to dismiss the position of the heretic outright.

For instance, at a recently scheduled debate between Yaron Brook and Carl Braun of the Minutemen, a leftist student group planned a protest which effectively caused the debate to be cancelled due to "security concerns." ("Security Concerns", is the new cover-all term that is used to describe our country's lack of willingness to defend its citizens rights to free speech.) First--what were they going to protest? A debate? Why do you protest a debate? If you believe that one of the debaters is intellectually mistaken, then a debate is the best thing that could of happened. If you believe in open borders (as this student group apparently does), then the best thing that could happen would be if Yaron Brook--an intellectual giant compared to many of the leaders he's debated--solidly trounced the representative of the opposing view in an intellectual cage match in a public forum. If you have any respect at all for ideas--

ahh, there's the rub. The protesters web page exhorts the student body to "Say No to the Hate." See--they can't conceive of a set of intellectual reasons for wanting to stem the flow of immigrants into the US, so any contrary position must be racist. The anti-intellectuality of their protest is further demonstrated by their instructions: "Bring banners, noisemakers, bullhorns, whatever--all are welcome!" They not only don't want to hear what the man has to say (which is their right), but they want to violate the rights of others to hear what the man has to say. They want to use a physical attack (excess noise) to destroy an intellectual discourse.

Further still, "hate," like "security concerns," occupies a curious place in our political culture--it is the adjective used to justify the abrogation of free speech. So the action and the justification are delivered together. The Minutemen's "message of hate" (i.e., contrary position on immigration) must be silenced (by force or otherwise) because it is "hate."

Some of the students did understand the importance of ideas. In a letter to the protesters the organizer of the debate wrote:

Although I understand your passion about this issue--indeed, L.O.G.I.C.'s official position and motivation for hosting this debate is to promote free immigration and open borders--I would advise you to conduct yourselves with respect. Do not misunderstand--L.O.G.I.C. disagrees vehemently with Mr. Braun's position, but the purpose of inviting him to UCLA was not to give his ideas sanction. On the contrary, the purpose is to flesh out the concerns that many people have about immigration as thoroughly as possible, and for our speaker, Dr. Yaron Brook, to show why Mr. Braun is wrong. Our strategy of pitting our position against the strongest opposition can only yield success if the debate is uninterrupted. By disrupting the event--either inside or outside the venue--you will compromise the validity of our position in the minds of observers. You will make the pro-immigration side seem like nothing but a bunch of hooligans. This is unacceptable and intolerable. Be advised--we have police security at the event, and if you cause a disruption, you will be subject to arrest. That having been said, the best that you can do to support free immigration and to show your opposition to Mr. Braun is to respectfully sit in the audience and clap loudly for Dr. Brook. (Booing and jeering when Mr. Braun speaks is not acceptable either.) I hope that you will attend and remain respectful. I don’t want to see my event--and my pro-immigration cause--be compromised by any sort of disruptions.

Of course, it's almost better when the opposition doesn't speak (the organizing student group was L.O.G.I.C.:

Hey white boy. Your club name logic stands for Liberty, objectivity,GREED, individiuality andCAPITALISM????? OK heres the problem. Your club thinks capitalism and greed is best for the Raza? Dude thats how we got where we are in the first place. In case you havn't heard 99% of the Raza believe in collectivism, socialism and communism and anarchism. You think all I want is a good job and a big house for myself? Youre wrong. I want it all for my people!! And Im not sharing nothing with the white invaders. Sooner or later you'll all have to get back on your boats and go back to wherever names like yours got thought up. And take your capitalism with you. we dont need it, you guys are the ones who thought it up to keep the raza down.

So, given all of this hyper-sensitivity, how is it that a joke like the one above could make it onto my google homepage? Because it's okay to bash whites, men, and (big-) businessmen. No one blinks an eye at that. On almost all sitcoms involving a married couple today, the wife is the "smart" one. (That there should be a "smart one', or conversely a "stupid one" in a married couple is itself great fodder for another post.) I don't know who to credit with saying "Men are not just defective women," but the quotation captures exactly the quality of some of the messages my culture sends to me and other men. You won't see me out marching in the streets about it though. I believe in the power of ideas--so as long as the tattered remnants of the 1st Amendment still hold sway in this country, I will rationally argue my position to any willing listener or reader.

Thank you.