2013 was the year of the bigot. There were many examples of alleged media fueled bigotry. The most famous were from celebrities such as Paula Deen, Alec Baldwin and Phil Robertson. However, there were millions and millions of less publicized examples throughout the country last year.
Personally, I feel everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Until that opinion becomes action, it’s just that: an opinion. Merriam-Webster defines bigotry as a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. They expound by saying it’s also a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group.
The media and progressive liberals have done a great job in their continued quest to demonize groups and individuals that have differing opinions from their own, under the guise of inclusion.
Calling someone a "faggot" in 2013 is grounds for denigration and discipline. Doing so can possibly get you fired and will result in social scorn, and rightly so. Using that word is meant to insult a group of Americans that share a different moral lifestyle than the speaker through the use of negative connotations.
If this is truly the new standard we’ve established in this country, then we need to have a uniform policy that deems all behavior like this unacceptable. If using certain words that have the hateful purpose of denigrating specific groups and individuals in this country are wrong, then we need to be consistent.
Now that we’ve established that it’s bigoted to use language that denigrates certain members of society by using negative connotations, then why is it okay to describe Phil Robertson as a "hillbilly"? That word serves the purpose of having a negative meaning to a specific group of people.
Why is it okay to call someone from the south a "hick" or a "redneck"? Why can certain people in this country use the hateful term "Bible thumpers" to describe someone they disagree with on a religious basis?
Why it is acceptable for liberal politicians in America to describe members of the Tea Party as "racists," "anarchists," "arsonists" or "terrorists"? These hateful terms are used with a negative connotation towards a specific group of people. Based on the standards we established earlier, shouldn’t these words be considered bigoted and therefore wrong?
Why do people get a pass when they describe rich people as "greedy" or corporate "fat cats"? These aren’t compliments. In fact, they’re hateful adjectives used to put down our fellow Americans due to financial differences of opinion.
Alarmingly, President Obama has even gotten into the act when he negatively described certain Americans as part of "the flat earth society" and famously said many small town Midwesterners like to "cling to their guns and religion." Our own President singled out groups of Americans he disagrees with and used negative connotations to deliver hateful and bigoted speech directed at specific groups of people.
The blurred lines of society currently have created a situation where it’s unacceptable to call someone a "fag," yet perfectly fine to call another a hillbilly. Both words are used to describe a person the speaker disagrees with and carries negative connotations. The double standard involved here makes me wonder why one is okay and why the other will potentially get you fired from your job.
I have a theory. The liberal media in this country currently drives the obsession of deciding what is acceptable and what is deemed hateful. The examples I listed are obviously targeting conservatives that have different moral, financial, religious and political viewpoints than liberal America. The media and progressive politics have created an environment that it’s acceptable to denigrate conservatives through hurtful and bigoted language.
If white southerners were part of the liberal coalition, does anyone honestly think terms like hillbillies, hicks and rednecks would be socially acceptable? This mentality has created a double standard that serves to control certain societal narratives.
To summarize, liberals aren’t any better at being inclusive than conservatives. They just have the advantage of possessing a bias and compliant media eager to further the liberal agenda through Alinsky-like tactics. Based on the standards that have been established, everyone is a bigot, but only half of us are held accountable.
1 comment about this article.
Post your comment/review now
Disclaimer: Please note that Facebook comments are posted through Facebook and cannot be approved, edited or declined by OnMilwaukee.com. The opinions expressed in Facebook comments do not necessarily reflect those of OnMilwaukee.com or its staff.
Recent Articles & Blogs by John Mumper
Published Nov. 17, 2016
American politics has moved from working together to benefit all involved to becoming a team sport, creating a distinct set of winners and losers - a trend that many founding fathers warned about excessively.
Published May 6, 2016
Consider this John Mumper's official endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. He certainly didn't think it would come to this. Endorse Hillary? What on Earth? A vote for a third-party choice isn't going to be enough repudiation of Trump conservatism.
Published Nov. 15, 2013
I'd like to first start by thanking you for your investment in Milwaukee baseball. I'm old enough to remember the glory days, as well as the dry spell that came afterwards. As a diehard baseball fan, I appreciate all you have done to return Brewers baseball to respectability. It's with the goal of keeping the Brewers relevant in the long term that I write this letter.
Published Nov. 3, 2013
I was intrigued for several reasons by the recent comments from Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Burke. Most surprising was her courage in finally taking a stance on any topic related to Wisconsin politics. However, it was her comments about education, and her trust in mother government, that got my attention.
Published Oct. 18, 2013
I must make a confession. At the risk of being labeled a RINO, I need to express my support for universal health care. Before being trashed by my fellow fiscal conservatives and being hailed by hapless progressives, let me explain.
Published Oct. 9, 2013
The Boston bombing incident highlighted a new and disturbing trend in America. As the Boston police searched for the remaining suspect, they proceeded to enter homes in a forceful and right-seizing manner. While many residents willingly allowed heavily armed police to enter their home in the frantic search, others weren't allowed their constitutional rights.
Published Aug. 6, 2013
The media has spent the last few years doing a great job of redrawing the lines of bigotry. It used to be that action predicated bigotry. Today, simply having a religious belief that opposes gay marriage will brand you as a bigot. This subtle change is no mistake and has been effective in turning the conversation of bigotry from actions to beliefs.
Published July 12, 2013
A recent Journal Sentinel watchdog article highlighted one of the many problems with how residents qualify for financial assistance. This article revealed how landlords and the self employed can receive state aid based on the honor system. In essence, we're talking about receiving thousands of tax payer dollars without being verified that economic assistance is even needed.
Published June 26, 2013
Recently, Madison Mayor Paul Soglin presented an idea that caught my attention. In a nutshell, he wants to require city contractors to disclose money contributed to political groups. The result would be that the mayor could then cherry pick which groups the city works with based upon political ideologies and not who is the best company for the job.
Published June 13, 2013
The Edward Snowden case is a fascinating look at the changing political climate in America. People who base their political outlooks on the Constitution are up in arms. The outrageous invasion of privacy is nothing new but is, all the same, alarming. I cannot support any policy that allows the government to freely spy on Americans not suspected of a crime.