Fairness is an illusion. Absolute equality is categorically impossible. It simply cannot be. Even if each human being was an identical clone of the other, each raised in a controlled environment, the universe would confer fortune upon some and misfortune upon others. Experiences would differ, even if only slightly. Each person would still be unique and thus the Progressive concept of privilege would still exist.

How much more of an illusion is fairness, then, in the world we actually live in?

In this world, women are different than men. Tall people are different than short people. Dark-skinned people are different than light-skinned people. People in one geographic location are different than those in another. It isn’t necessarily that people of one group are better than one another, for that is a blanket statement, and one which has led to all sorts of racial supremacy (none of which has ended well, so far as I know).

But still, differences abound. Is the tall person better than the short person? At some things, naturally. If you are playing basketball, it is an advantage. If, on the other hand, you have to survive in a low calorie environment, being smaller, and having lower calorie requirements, may be better. It is amusing to me that Progressives deny this, for it is the natural consequence of the theory of evolution by natural selection. If human beings evolved, and were not created, then they necessarily must have such variations as a result of environmental adaptation.

Of course, it is a taboo subject. Even talking about it opens one up to cries of racism, sexism and homophobia.

Let us follow the chain of reasoning further, however. If human beings are necessarily different, both as individuals and as demographic groups, then it must follow that equality of outcome is extremely unlikely, even in an environment free of authoritarian restrictions. Short people will gravitate toward the things that they are better suited for, and tall people to other things.

So when we see that there are more male engineers, and more female nurses, what should we make of this? If you’re a Progressive, this is proof of rampant sexism in the first instance, and proper diversity in the second. When there are more individuals of a “victim group” within a particular field, it is good. When there are less, it is bad. In simple terms, the NBA is a properly diverse organization, for it has a large number of tall black men employed in it. Universities are doing better (though not good enough) now that women are more than 60% of the student body.

Irony abounds here, though. In the link above, we see that Progressives are complaining that the male/female imbalance has driven “hook up” culture, which supposedly sees women as sex objects. You just can’t win with them.

Anyway, when Anita Sarkeesian tells us that “everything is racism, everything is sexism, everything is homophobia,” she actually has a point, though not the one she was evidently trying to make. If everything is racism, then it follows that everyone is a racist. After all, how could everything be racist if some people are not racist? Anita failed to think her statement through to its logical conclusion. If everything and everyone is necessarily a racist, she must be one also.

And there’s actually a kernel of truth in that. Everyone has preferences of some sort or another, even if they are loathe to admit it. The question becomes whether or not there is a moral imperative to do anything about it. Progressives certainly think so. One particularly tranzi (stealing your term, Tom) believes that family life is an unfair advantage. If I read to my child, which I do, I am conferring upon him an advantage over those children who do not have a father that reads to them. It becomes “family privilege” and is a sin in the church of Progressivism. He suggests that the state should consider raising the children, to eliminate that particular advantage.

Of course, my Spanish in-laws would consider mass murder before giving the children of our family to the state.

Practical concerns over implementation aside, what would it mean for humanity as a species if family life, something that demonstrably increases a child’s potential, was destroyed? Would humanity gain from this action, or lose? Tranzis pretend to be concerned about the Earth, and the entire human species. Yet they fail, again, to think this through to completion. Does a species gain from restricting its best and brightest?

Never does this particular tranzi ask himself the reverse question. If family life is so good for a child, why are we not spreading this concept to those who don’t have it? Instead of destroying families to “level the playing field” why are we not encouraging more individuals to choose family life over the welfare state? Naturally, not all will choose this, even if pushed to do so. But certainly more would, which would be a net benefit to the species.

Look at the NBA. Progressives have no issue with the favoritism that benefits black basketball players over their white compatriots. So they aren’t even objecting to advantages as a concept. They only object to advantages that do not directly benefit them. Since Progressives are more likely to originate from broken families, single mothers, etc… they seek to spread this misery to the “other” side in order to deprive them of an advantage.

Anita should have said “everything is political.” It would be a more accurate description of Progressive thought.

An analogy is possible. When driving my souped up Mustang, I can occasionally be goaded into racing. I know, it’s stupid and irresponsible, but there it is. Anyway, among gearheads there is an acknowledged way to “roll race” (that is, to race while already moving). You match speeds, making sure both cars are roughly parallel, and one chooses to honk three times. Then you go until one car is clearly ahead. After the first race, you do it again, with the other person getting to honk three times to start.

Most of the older guys, especially muscle car guys, are very consistent about this. But a lot of the younger ricers like to give themselves an advantage. They will come up from behind you at a higher rate of speed, then honk once as they pass you. If you don’t gun it, you are a “pussy” but if you do gun it, you have to make up the speed differential before you can even start to gain on him. If you fail to do so before reaching too high of a speed, then you “lose.” If you complain about this later, you are a “little bitch.” So your car needs to not only be faster, but considerably faster to “beat” them. When that happens, the other driver doesn’t even look at you. They pretend the whole thing didn’t happen at all. It’s a neat little way to avoid the emotional penalty of losing, even after cheating.

Progressives, despite their mouth-noises about fairness and equality, do the same thing in the political arena. They confer as many advantages as possible upon themselves, and demand that the other side deliberately handicap themselves, or they are “privileged racists.” It is not hard to imagine that, if they did succeed in eliminating the family, they would confer advantages upon those children who naturally demonstrated Progressive inclinations, and heap disadvantages on those who did not. Anybody who complained would be a “white supremacist” or something else equally unpleasant.

They don’t want a level playing field. They are merely complaining that the playing field doesn’t favor them exclusively.

So, in effect, Progressives use your empathy and sense of equality against you. Empathy, for them, is a weapon to be employed by those who do not have it, against those who do. Don’t let them do this to you.

Absolute equality is categorically impossible, and any means they devise to “achieve” it is merely a ruse to confer privileges upon themselves, and deny you the same, they very thing they accuse us of. It’s another case of Vox’s saying “SJWs always project.”

%d bloggers like this: