Whiny Little Bitches

“Whiny little bitch.” – Bill Maher, describing Donald Trump in May, 2016.

“Irrational, pouty, vain, thin-skinned, hysterical and just not that bright, does that sound like anyone we know today?” he added.

Aside from the admittedly gratuitous pleasure I take in these quotes, they remind me of the incessant bitching about “wokeness” and political correctness. While the YS audience surely skews anti-Trump, the balance of this article will likely draw some dissent.

A New York Times Op-Ed this week, written by a conservative Princeton student, opined that the far left’s insistence on DEI, political correctness on campus, stifling of conservative voices, etc., was pushing everyone further to the right. He worries that “reasonable” Republicans (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are moving toward Trump/DeSantis to escape the suffocating righteousness of progressives.

The author and many of the supposedly left-leaning commenters cited their difficult experience with “dogmatic” diversity training or the instances of discomfort they felt speaking against progressive orthodoxy in classrooms or offices.

Political correctness” is termed that way because it is “correct” to be considerate, generous and sensitive to others. DEI training seeks a more just and inclusive community. Consideration, generosity, sensitivity, justice and inclusion should not be threatening concepts.

One seldom-considered dimension of the issue is that those who bristle most vehemently against “wokeness” have suffered nothing at all. In a legal sense, they wouldn’t have standing because there is no demonstrable injury. They just don’t like it. For example, can you cite one instance of transgender kids harming Ron DeSantis or a Florida legislator?

The column trotted out the Halloween incident at Yale a few years back, when an administrator was excoriated for suggesting that students should be able to choose whatever costumes they pleased. This, of course, was in response to students of color and others objecting to cultural misappropriation or offensive stereotyping.

The idea that requesting sensitive costume choice is suffocating political correctness is just one example of arrogant privilege. It has little to do with First Amendment freedom and everything to do with entitlement. It is saying, “I don’t think you should be offended, and if you are, it’s your problem.” Obviously, in this trivial instance, the entitled little whiners could select from any of hundreds of other costume options. But, in their stunted judgment, the right to offend is a profound principle, and the feelings of the offended are dismissed.

In another recent Times piece, David French proposed that government sanctions on speech were being supplanted by private sanctions, aka cancel culture, imposed by individuals and organizations. His piece was reasonable, but wrong, as it conveyed a very dangerous false equivalence that infects too much political and media analysis.

Yes, the temperature is high on both sides of the so-called “culture wars.” But the expressions are not equivalent. Using explicit racist language may be a right, but it’s not the equivalent of angry protests about racist language. Using hateful language about transgender folks and passing laws that strip them of health rights and dignity are not equivalent to the justifiably angry responses those acts draw.

The author of the first piece wrote, as an example of what pisses conservatives off, “Diversity training sessions blatantly endorse progressive ideas: Espousing a colorblind ideal, for example, is deemed a ‘microinvalidation.’”

Well, yes. The ”colorblindness” nonsense is indeed a “microinvalidation.” On second thought, “colorblindness”is a macro invalidation. It permits the “colorblind” individuals to invalidate the lived experiences of Black folks and deny the toxic impacts of systemic racism.

Diversity training often challenges white participants to acknowledge their own privilege. Resistance to this concept is not equivalent to the concept itself. White privilege is the flip side of racism. You can’t have one without the other. Training that might insistently press for acknowledgement of both racism and its corollary privilege is not shoving progressive ideology down anyone’s throat. It’s trying to shove uncomfortable truth into a closed mind.

French’s column suggests empathy as a way to soothe all this rancor. Again, a very dangerous false equivalence is implied. I certainly agree that empathy might help bigots, homophobes and trans-haters to reconsider their words and actions. But is that remotely equivalent to asking me to have empathy toward the low-information cretins who humiliate vulnerable transgender youth?

Both Times articles and comments in response referred to the overwhelmingly liberal or progressive consensus in higher education. Perhaps it is because a majority of folks in higher education are thoughtful and openminded. But yes, students (and a few faculty members) who feel uncomfortable expressing their conservative viewpoints have a valid point. That’s an educational issue. When I taught in a very progressive school I welcomed conservative views and, if no student could articulate such an idea, I would raise it myself.

Testing one’s progressive values against an intelligent counter-argument is necessary. It can strengthen your resolve or cause reconsideration. Either outcome is productive.

But the vast majority of backlash to so-called “wokeness” is not intelligent counter-argument. It’s whiny bitching.