On Freedom
by Giulianna LamannaAs Americans, we’re used to having the greatest lifestyle in the history of the universe. As a result, we can on occasion take our many freedoms for granted - sometimes to the point of considering that America might not be a utopia. An unthinkable thought to all of us red-blooded Americans, I know, but it’s gaining surprising ground in the more Communist-friendly areas of our great land. Liberals will often speak of “freedom,” but they have no idea what real freedom is. Ironically, as they attempt to impose their Orwellian “freedom” on us, they threaten our own cherished freedom.
For instance, abolitionists. They claimed they wanted all men to be free. But what did they do? They took away man’s freedom to own slaves! And even that wasn’t enough for them. A mere hundred years later, they continued their reign of terror by taking away our freedom to eat, drink, and ride the bus in a Negro-free environment.
The fascist campaign of the left continues to this very day. As of late, we have been forced to come into daily contact with people from distant, smelly, confusing places; people who disagree with us; and people who have different sexual habits from us. My fellow Americans, it is our right to never have to deal with people who make us uncomfortable, unless they happen to be our servants, in which case they know they’re not getting paid to get all uppity. These Satanist liberals are trying to take away that right, under the hypocritical banner of “human rights.” What a laugh!
Well, I’ve got some news for you, you elitist fat cats: we’re on to your little scheme, and we Americans are smarter than you think. We see through your double-speak, and we say no more! No more shall our rights be infringed upon by minorities that make us confused and frightened! No more shall we put up with a world that changes and shifts in unexpected ways! No more shall we be forced to give up our safe cocoon of tradition and warm, mushy cookies the way grandma used to make them!
Get a brain, morans. It’s time for the patriots to start fighting back.
Hey –
hee hee…but… do you really want to accuse those damn liberals of ‘orwellian’ doublespeak? Or are they drawing more from ‘Huxley’s utopia’?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 27 October 2005 @ 3:23 PM
Quiet, Commie.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 27 October 2005 @ 3:34 PM
I hate to say it, and I know that it won’t make me very popular, but I WOULD prefer to live in a world where I wasn’t forced into contact with people who made me feel uncomfortable. On top of this, I think most people would agree with me.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 27 October 2005 @ 9:02 PM
I certainly agree; I, too, would love to live in a world where I didn’t have to deal with people who make me uncomfortable. However, when it comes to race and class, don’t these feelings of being uncomfortable rise from the current social system? I guess what I mean is, the only reason we (meaning white and/or middle class folk) feel uncomfortable around them is because they are forced to do things that we consider unsavory, or unpleasant, or dangerous, in order to make a living?
Not trying to accuse or insult; just making a point.
Comment by Toro — 27 October 2005 @ 9:28 PM
But then who would I be around?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 27 October 2005 @ 10:02 PM
There is no American constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable. You’re permitted to feel uncomfortable all you want. Anything to the contrary is constitutional hallucination. Your right to feel uncomfortable is protected by the constitution - however, via personal growth and activism, you are also permitted constitutionally to feel comfortable - it’s up to you. It is not up to anyone else….
~Crazy
Comment by Crazybaldman — 27 October 2005 @ 10:09 PM
I guess I don’t understand your question.
Who would you be around if the system was differently? Ideally, you’d be around people who don’t have to scrabble for a living, at least not any more than you do; thus, you’d have no reason to be uncomfortable with them, since you and they would share ways of making a living.
I’m afraid that, if you meant something else, I’m not seeing what it is.
Comment by Toro — 27 October 2005 @ 10:11 PM
No, I think Ben was making a joke. Either he’s saying 1. that everyone makes him uncomfortable or that 2. he annoys the crap out of everyone so much that no one would want to be around him.
I can’t possibly image which one of those it would be. Anyone else got any ideas?
Comment by Devin — 28 October 2005 @ 12:07 AM
Ah. A joke. Well, then. I’ll just, you know, go back over here and pretend I knew that the whole time.
*cough*
Comment by Toro — 28 October 2005 @ 12:12 AM
OF course we don’t like being around people who make us feel uncomfortable. That’s pretty much the definition of people who make us feel uncomfortable. But we don’t have a right to never see people who make us uncomfortable; in fact, it’s very good for us to do so. Even more importantly, we have no right to deprive another group of civil liberties simply because it makes us feel uncomfortable.
I’ve heard lots of people, both Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. and Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, talk about their “freedom to live in a godly society.” In other words, their freedom to do as they’re told. That’s nonsense; that’s tyranny masquerading as freedom. It’s like the classic refutation to relativism–if all points of view are equally right, then so is the point of view that all other points of view are wrong. That works if we’re going with classic relativism, but not if we’re trying to engender diversity. Same here; most freedoms create greater diversity. This “freedom” hampers it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 October 2005 @ 8:56 AM
I’m still with Chuck on this one: homogeneity within and diversity without. But both are key, and most fundies tend not to focus on the latter.
Comment by Raku — 28 October 2005 @ 9:34 AM
“Basic” human rights aren’t necessarily all that basic, are they? I mean, that’s a cultural view. Certainly, you may find their roots in- or, at least, you may relate the concept- to the idea that aboriginal cultures generally took (or take) a “live and let live” attitude towards other cultures. However, they also didn’t live among these variant cultures; they lived among people of their own ilk. Thus, they felt no discomfort as a result of being exposed to deviant behaviors and attitudes. (I use deviant in a purely sociological sense here; that is, purely relative to the cultural point of view being taken.)
I mean, I’m not personally against the generally accepted basic human rights. Certainly, I think it’s fine for people to live in whatever manner makes them content. However, I do generally avoid the ones that make me feel uncomfortable, as we all do, I’m sure.
Comment by Toro — 28 October 2005 @ 9:52 AM
As am I–because that engenders greater diversity.
The social group is, after all, a very arbitrary level to examine. Look at your own body; your heart cells need a certain amount in common to form a heart, as do your lungs, or your spleen. By taking a step back in diversity, we get much greater diversity, as multi-cellular organisms allow for a whole new level of diversity over single-celled organisms.
Same with social groups. Many different groups, with different people in those groups, gives you more diversity than just one, big, undifferentiated (but diverse) group. But in order to get that, you need enough sameness within the group to make it an actual group.
So, this isn’t a different principle–it’s, at best, a caveat.
A fine example that our way of life isn’t necessarily wrong, but maladapted to us. These issues don’t come up in a tribal world. It only comes up in the context of the globalized, industrialized world we live in today. It’s a world we’re maladapted to, a world where the very same instincts that once served us well now make us oppressive, mindless bigots.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 October 2005 @ 10:04 AM
All I have to say is
1:Right ON, Guilli!!
2: Death to the New world Order!!!
Comment by Rory — 28 October 2005 @ 1:09 PM
A fine example that our way of life isn’t necessarily wrong, but maladapted to us. These issues don’t come up in a tribal world. It only comes up in the context of the globalized, industrialized world we live in today. It’s a world we’re maladapted to, a world where the very same instincts that once served us well now make us oppressive, mindless bigots.
Werd.
Comment by Raku — 28 October 2005 @ 1:42 PM