A Refusal to Keep Quiet
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell
When surveying the prevailing trends of 2017, especially as reflected in the press and social media, one can only conclude that the 21st century is not destined to be renowned as a shining period of unabridged freedom. All around us, in a number of different spheres, human rights are faltering in varied ways, as a grievous result of being continually assaulted from all sides. Freedom of speech, in particular, is being curtailed and diminished by a heavy-handed gathering of squeamish, strait-laced forces, and could, in the future, be entirely lost.
Any utterance, whether spoken or written, that stands in open defiance to the narrow mainstream of liberal thought in 2017 is certain to be swiftly pounced upon by those who have, quite presumptuously, ordained themselves as the primary guardians of self-righteous acceptability. Thus, the range of what is deemed "acceptable" to the tender minds of the oversensitive masses becomes narrower and narrower, causing clear detriment to the integrity of free discourse. Unfortunately, glaring examples of this sinister narrowness are distressingly abundant.
Nowadays, the casual exchange of endearing gestures between men and women has become nearly as treacherous as walking across a minefield. Hardhearted feminists, in their spiteful, ongoing battle to vanquish the quaint traditions of heterosexual romance, seek to eradicate the expression of even the mildest sentiments between males and females. If a man so much as smiles or nods at a woman, he is likely to be accused of making unwanted advances. If he makes the well-intentioned mistake of courteously praising her appearance, he is asking to be hit with a lawsuit.
If white musicians choose to play the blues (a form of music that is acknowledged as being "black" in origin), they are found to be guilty of "cultural appropriation." (By the same token, it follows that black musicians should not be allowed to perform the works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) If a man who enjoys the harmless practice of dressing as a woman is perceived as an old-fashioned transvestite, rather than as someone who is "transgender," it is regarded as punishable. A woman who sells her body is no longer a prostitute, a hooker, a harlot, or a whore, but is now a "sex worker."
If someone who is undeniably overweight (owing to a habit of gluttony and a lack of exercise) is referred to as being "fat," it is received as a gross error of thoughtless description. In the world of high finance, extreme greed must never be referenced as such, but instead comes under the general heading of "wealth management." When a ruthless corporation rids itself of longtime workers, it is merely engaging in an act of "downsizing." In one situation after another, forthright declarations of unreserved truth are avoided, discouraged, disparaged, and deliberately excluded.
The same trend is evident in other, more serious, realms. Any person who questions the current patterns of worldwide immigration will be branded as a racist. Any person who condemns Israel's vicious persecution of Palestinians in Gaza will be judged as being antisemitic. Any person who objects to the unbending doctrines of Islam (such as women being required to cover themselves, from head to toe, at all times) will be excoriated as a shameless bigot. Any person who denounces the Chinese custom of eating dogs will be seen as bearing deep-seated prejudice toward all Asians.
Any person who opposes abortion, on the thoroughly reasonable grounds that an abortion necessarily involves the willful destruction of a human life, will be scornfully rebuked for attempting to deny a "woman's right to choose." When the Pentagon pursues a savage policy of wholesale violence against civilians in the Middle East and elsewhere, the inevitable casualties will be dismissed from the public mind as being no more than unfortunate instances of "collateral damage," rather than being reported, examined, and discussed as pitiless actions of reckless murder.
It seems that soon, no one will be permitted to express, or indeed, even form within the hallowed privacy of their own mind, a strong opinion in regard to anything, and therein dwells a dastardly threat. Freedom of speech, in common with other modes of freedom, tends to become wan, weak, and worthless when it is not put to frequent use. Freedom can abide, and thrive, only to the extent that it is active, flexible, and unbowed. Other people may do as they wish, but as for me, I value my fundamental right to express myself, and therefore I refuse to keep quiet.
When surveying the prevailing trends of 2017, especially as reflected in the press and social media, one can only conclude that the 21st century is not destined to be renowned as a shining period of unabridged freedom. All around us, in a number of different spheres, human rights are faltering in varied ways, as a grievous result of being continually assaulted from all sides. Freedom of speech, in particular, is being curtailed and diminished by a heavy-handed gathering of squeamish, strait-laced forces, and could, in the future, be entirely lost.
Any utterance, whether spoken or written, that stands in open defiance to the narrow mainstream of liberal thought in 2017 is certain to be swiftly pounced upon by those who have, quite presumptuously, ordained themselves as the primary guardians of self-righteous acceptability. Thus, the range of what is deemed "acceptable" to the tender minds of the oversensitive masses becomes narrower and narrower, causing clear detriment to the integrity of free discourse. Unfortunately, glaring examples of this sinister narrowness are distressingly abundant.
Nowadays, the casual exchange of endearing gestures between men and women has become nearly as treacherous as walking across a minefield. Hardhearted feminists, in their spiteful, ongoing battle to vanquish the quaint traditions of heterosexual romance, seek to eradicate the expression of even the mildest sentiments between males and females. If a man so much as smiles or nods at a woman, he is likely to be accused of making unwanted advances. If he makes the well-intentioned mistake of courteously praising her appearance, he is asking to be hit with a lawsuit.
If white musicians choose to play the blues (a form of music that is acknowledged as being "black" in origin), they are found to be guilty of "cultural appropriation." (By the same token, it follows that black musicians should not be allowed to perform the works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) If a man who enjoys the harmless practice of dressing as a woman is perceived as an old-fashioned transvestite, rather than as someone who is "transgender," it is regarded as punishable. A woman who sells her body is no longer a prostitute, a hooker, a harlot, or a whore, but is now a "sex worker."
If someone who is undeniably overweight (owing to a habit of gluttony and a lack of exercise) is referred to as being "fat," it is received as a gross error of thoughtless description. In the world of high finance, extreme greed must never be referenced as such, but instead comes under the general heading of "wealth management." When a ruthless corporation rids itself of longtime workers, it is merely engaging in an act of "downsizing." In one situation after another, forthright declarations of unreserved truth are avoided, discouraged, disparaged, and deliberately excluded.
The same trend is evident in other, more serious, realms. Any person who questions the current patterns of worldwide immigration will be branded as a racist. Any person who condemns Israel's vicious persecution of Palestinians in Gaza will be judged as being antisemitic. Any person who objects to the unbending doctrines of Islam (such as women being required to cover themselves, from head to toe, at all times) will be excoriated as a shameless bigot. Any person who denounces the Chinese custom of eating dogs will be seen as bearing deep-seated prejudice toward all Asians.
Any person who opposes abortion, on the thoroughly reasonable grounds that an abortion necessarily involves the willful destruction of a human life, will be scornfully rebuked for attempting to deny a "woman's right to choose." When the Pentagon pursues a savage policy of wholesale violence against civilians in the Middle East and elsewhere, the inevitable casualties will be dismissed from the public mind as being no more than unfortunate instances of "collateral damage," rather than being reported, examined, and discussed as pitiless actions of reckless murder.
It seems that soon, no one will be permitted to express, or indeed, even form within the hallowed privacy of their own mind, a strong opinion in regard to anything, and therein dwells a dastardly threat. Freedom of speech, in common with other modes of freedom, tends to become wan, weak, and worthless when it is not put to frequent use. Freedom can abide, and thrive, only to the extent that it is active, flexible, and unbowed. Other people may do as they wish, but as for me, I value my fundamental right to express myself, and therefore I refuse to keep quiet.