Screen-Shot-2014-12-23-at-3.42.49-PM-600x302I’m tempted to think this is actually a bit of satire dangled to cause rational people to become indignant, and stereotypically denounce it. Perhaps it is, but even so, it perfectly represents Progressive thought. Satire, after all, is holding people or institutions up to ridicule by exaggeration or merely telling the truth. If it’s a dangle, they probably think they’re exaggerating their own beliefs. Heh.

So that’s how one respects and promotes diversity, eh? Hiding it from the sight of the public, putting it back in the closet, pretending it doesn’t exist? Preventing the incredibly sensitive sensibilities of the perpetually aggrieved from becoming triggered?

Progressives, for the most part, have no idea what “diversity” actually means. They use the term to mean blind approval of whatever race, sexual preference or practice, political idea, quirk, drug use, or anything else they identify with, do, favor, or temporarily worship. It also refers to unquestioned acceptance of any violent, barbaric, radical group they currently favor, even if members of that group would be delighted to slaughter them in as painful, bloody and humiliating a way as possible.

They believe that diversity, which is usually manifested by having as many people who profess those thoughts, ideas, practices, races, preferences, etc. surrounding them, is in itself an enormously beneficial thing, such that if diversity is not present, those that believe in diversity are being triggered, micro aggressed, made to feel unsafe, and every other contemporary faux horror experienced by the perpetually aggrieved delicate snowflakes capable of holding such ideas.

In a college classroom, for example, in order for everyone to study algebra, there must be Muslims–lots of Muslims–gays, lesbians, trans this or that, BLM activists–these days every other kind of black person is inauthentic–various LGBTQWERTY activists, people who identify as French Poodles, you name it. These people–or whatever they are–surrounding the very few more or less common white bread folk will make the study of algebra so much better for the white bread folk because all of that diversity will have such a diverse effect on the study of algebra, which will make everything so much more diverse. Actually, the only way it could be better is without the white bread people, and then there would be complete diversity.

One suspects that’s really the point.

A quick aside for cosmic irony: on many campuses, black “activists” are demanding actual segregation of the races! They’re refusing to so much as speak with white people. Wouldn’t this rather water down the magical benefits of diversity? After all, if black people won’t so much as associate or talk to white people, how can white people be appropriately diversified? Perhaps by having black people rubbed on their skin like a lotion or other skin care product? Or does “blackness” and diversity somehow suffuse white people by mere proximity, except that even that now seems inappropriate and unlikely…?

But what about the whitebread people that are advocates of diversity? I’m sure they identify as something else, so being white really doesn’t count.

Progressives also have no idea what “character” means. Martin Luther King did. For all of his failings–he was just a man, after all–he understood character and hoped that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. His hopes came true, but many in power seem determined to dishonor King’s hopes and vision. It’s rather hard to build and maintain good character when one’s every waking moment is focused on the glory of their particular flavor of diversity.

Likewise do Progressives misunderstand tolerance, which they see only as fawning approval of whatever they are, identify as, believe in, or support. Anything else must not be tolerated, but ruthlessly suppressed. The practice of actual tolerance takes character, and an honest and open-hearted appreciation for the necessity of allowing diversity–all diversity–so long as it is not harmful to others and does not advocate or engage in unlawful acts. It requires one to be altruistic, kind, thoughtful, and willing to accept that the rule of law–the Constitution–must apply to all, or it exists for only the powerful.

This kind of character and diversity are inherent in Christianity, though all men sin and fall short of perfection. It seems that for “Male Feminist” and those of his–or it’s–ilk the only people not falling under the protection of diversity, the only people and belief not to be tolerated, is Christianity and its observances, particularly recognizing the true reason for the celebration of Christmas. Presumably, the secular benefits and observances of Christmas do not trigger male feminist.

How, pray tell, might one be disturbed by “Christians worshipping on Christmas,” unless one actually entered a church where such worship was occurring? Or would the mere existence of Christians, churches and the light, warmth and song emanating from them be more than enough to breach the wet tissue paper thin boundaries of diversity and tolerance? Or perhaps Male Feminist is most distressed by the existence of Jesus?

Perhaps Male Feminist can learn from the example of Christ. The deity of the social justice movement would surely want to suppress all and everyone it finds disagreeable, yet the Lord has established true diversity, including silly versions like Male Feminist.

There’s a lesson in all for that, I think.