Pam’s House Blend: The Voice of Politically Correct Fascism

Sometimes intolerance comes in such a pure an unadulterated form that it has special interest -- more or less as a Weberian “ideal type” of political correctness.

Thus we have Pam’s House Blend.

The links post is an extended discussion of how views that Pam doesn’t like need to be shut up.

She starts off with the usual list of views that she thinks ought to be suppressed.

If you look on the Internet today, you can find lots of “White Power” racism and Anti-Semitic horror writing and preaching. Christianity backs up the hatred on these websites. Yet no mainstream church admits these jerks in their sanctuaries, prayers, dogma, General Sessions, writings, or websites. No city’s newspaper grants them stories or will accept their ads. They are “shut up” in the USA.

You can even find pro-slavery advocates on the Net, I bet. But they too would not be allowed lectern space on any university campus in the USA.

Of course, any church has the right to ignore or refute any ideas they don’t like. And newspapers get to decide for themselves what opinion pieces they want to print.

So far so good.

But Pam’s point is that certain views should be banned from universities. Further, she doesn’t bother to distinguish between private universities (which can ban ideas they want to ban) and public universities (which are bound by the First Amendment).

But she is just setting the stage for an idea she really hates: the view that homosexuals are not born with a fixed (hard wired) sexual orientation that cannot change.

The American Psychiatric Association and all scientific associations and reputable medical groups in the Western world agree . . . homosexuality is not a sickness, an illness, nor an abnormality. Homosexuality is completely normal.

Some religious leaders label homosexual acts as sinful to their god. Some religious leaders label homosexual orientation as intrinsically evil. So be it. Many religions agree that homosexuality is completely normal and a real blessing.

Science and religion don’t always agree. Surprise, surprise.

The conservative Christian author of a book disputing science “The Born Gay Hoax” sought an invitation from the Republican Club at Smith College. During his speech to the women students, lesbian entered the hall, beat pans, and chanted. The speaker could not continue. He left the hall. The lesbians effectively silenced him.

She goes on to make it clear she approves of that.

Just like we would stifle speech advocating slavery, anti-Semitism, or racism. When Andy Humm, the host of Gay USA on Free Speech TV, found himself on a TV Talk Show opposite a reparative therapy counselor, he refused to speak with the counselor. Instead he spent the entire time speaking with the host of the show. He wanted to know how the host dared invite such an irresponsible person as the reparative therapist to the TV show. Andy went on and on about how the therapist and others like him hurt so very many people ... but he never engaged the therapist ... he ignored him completely.

I think Andy’s tactic was brilliant. I have to admit, I think those bloggers who criticized the Smith women were wrong. The Smith lesbian were right on the money. We do NOT need to invite crazy people to our campuses, churches, or civic centers. The whole western world already knows that homosexuality is completely normal. The jury is back, the verdict is in, the case is over. Case closed. Debate over.

The wingnuts can argue among themselves. They can hold the debate right along side an explanation of the world being only 6,000 years old and the earth being flat. Have at it.

But not at respectable universities, in respectable newspapers, or in the town square. The case is over and the wingnuts lost. If the wingnuts try to speak there, I will be there hitting pans and chanting with the lesbians!! It seems to be the only thing the wingnuts understand.

This sort of thinking is all too common on the politically correct left, including Marquette. As we have discussed, about two years ago, the then president of the Gay/Straight Alliance at Marquette proclaimed that no speaker opposing gay marriage should be allowed on the Marquette campus, since any such speech would constitute “hate speech.”

And the notion that “science has spoken” is echoed by the advocates of anthropogenic global warming -- who are also intent on shutting up debate.

“Science” in modern society has a certain mystique, but the simple fact is that, when science approached political issues, it is typically contaminated by three factors.

• Ideology. Scientists, like other academics, lean to the left and instinctively favor “findings” that help the left. Where homosexuality is concerned, that means promoting the agenda of the gay lobby. Where global warming is concerned, it means loudly insisting on massive government intervention in the economy.
• Careerism. If there is money to be made, articles in prestigious journals to be published or promotions to be gained by pushing a particular point of view, plenty of them will do it.
• Groupthink. Like any other group, scientists tend to live in a rather isolated little world, and tend to believe and accept what “everybody says.”

Historically, the same sort of people who are now telling us about anthropogenic global warming were, 100 years ago, promoting eugenics. In the 70s they were promising a “New Ice Age.” In the early 70s there were promising the collapse of civilization due to the depletion of natural resources (check out the Club of Rome Report). A few years before that, there was The Population Bomb. Disaster, we were told, would come from a rapidly expanding number of people in the world.

The politically correct, of course, ignore science when it’s inconvenient. Economic science says the minimum wage is a bad idea. The lefties could care less.

Of course, if the mass of the evidence really was on one side of these issues, the people on the side of the evidence would welcome the opportunity to debate, since they they could routinely win the debate.

We, for example, love to debate liberals on the issue on the death penalty.

But the politically correct don’t want to debate issues. They want to shut up the other side.

Which tells us that, deep down, they actually have little confidence in the positions they so loudly proclaim.