Exceptions to the "Freedom to express" ideas

The following ideas are not acceptable discourse in a perfect liberal society:

You may not discuss the failures of previous liberal programs and ideas, except in a context that makes it clear that conservatives caused the acceleration of the problems to be solved, and that pouring additional funding would have improved the situation.

As part of the above, discussing the record of those politicians who supported such programs shall be construed as a "mean-spirited, personal attack". Discussing the record of politicians that opposed such failed programs must be put in the context of being "proof of their uncaring nature".

You may not posit that all human life is more precious than animal or plant life, unless of course it is in a context of expressing your guilt over the way certain accepted groups were persecuted in the past, continue to be persecuted now, and will continue to be persecuted, so long as conservatives block additional funding for various programs.

You may not present facts that dispute the position that removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens will make them safer against armed criminals. It is especially unacceptable to bring up that violent crime has decreased noticeably in areas where law-abiding citizens are encouraged to arm themselves.

You may not posit that violent acts committed by individuals against other individuals are the sole responsibility of the individuals who committed the acts, except when discussing the effects of "second hand smoking". However, even in this context, you must strongly point out that it is an involuntary act on the part of the smokers, and ultimate blame must be put on the companies who sell tobacco products (except the farmers who grow them).

You may not point out that some differences in pay between individuals doing the same jobs result from factors other than discriminatory practices. Reliance upon factors such as seniority, skill levels, and job record are, in and of themselves, discrimination against oppressed groups.

You may not express concerns about the competence of a member of any protected group, just because they lack qualifications for the jobs they are hired to perform. If such lack of competence results in death or injury, it is acceptable to discuss how discriminatory policies, advocated by mean conservatives, prevented the member the protected group from gaining the skills needed, and how additional funding would have helped identify the safety problem beforehand.

Likewise, you may not express incredulity over the vehement opposition by liberals to any attempt to put a member of a minority with conservative political views into any position of power, no matter what their skills or other qualifications, while they also cry "racist!" at anyone opposing the placement of a minority member with few or no qualifications for the job at hand, so long as they have the "correct" political views.

You may not call the practice of punishing people today for wrongs committed by others in centuries past "unfair", because it has been legally defined as "fair".
[Note: In all cases such as this, the current legal definition of a word supersedes any historical meanings it may have had]

You may not point out that advocates of "reproductive choice" are almost universally and emphatically against the exercise of such choice for cultural reasons, where parents may decide to end a pregnancy because the fetus is of the "wrong sex".

You may not point out the obvious hypocrisy of a liberal special-interest group decrying the "unfair" influence of conservative special-interest groups, even when such conservative groups are routinely ignored by politicians anyway, because they lack the funding of the liberal groups.

Similarly, pointing out that any group that petitions the government for anything is a "special interest group", and not just those that advocate ideas unacceptable to liberals.

You may not point out that atheism is as much a religion as any other, it simply substitutes the absence of a god as the basis for its belief structure. Since it is just as impossible to prove the non-existance of a god as the existance of one or more, atheists must accept and believe that it is true, without question. Sound familiar?

Following the above, it is also not acceptable to point out that imposition of non-belief upon others, such as demanding any reference to "god" be removed from all government buildings, papers, laws, etc., is just as unacceptable as they claim the presence of such references are to them.

And, most importantly: You may not discuss why you are not allowed to discuss something, because you should know already. If you don't, it's only because you are too heartless to know how hurtful such discussions can be to others.

The above started as a tag line, but quickly grew beyond what would be acceptable as "fluff" in a message. It continues to grow...

All of this is, of course, copyright 1999-2002 by Jeff Brenton.
At least people have been curious enough to check this page out. It was last updated on: 25 October 2013.