I've noticed a meme spreading among beardo progressive types—who seem especially vulnerable to swallowing dumb memes so long as it helps them feel warm 'n' snuggly cocooned within their ideological ingroup—to reduce any criticism of PC totalitarianism as a "90s thing."
Obviously we're dealing with pop-culture inbreds whose thinking is so superficial, they view even political debates as fashion trends. "Dude, criticizing PC witch hunts went out of style around the time Bob Mould went solo."
I must have missed the report that came out in 2000 that irrefutably proved blank-slate human equality. And I must be imagining that the American media, which is funded in large part by globalist oligarchs, is screaming daily about racism and homophobia and "white males" with more shrillness than they even did in the 90s.
I keep challenging progressives to debates because I'm confident their thinking is shallow and emotion-based rather than a logical belief system. There is no proof of human equality, either among individuals or groups, yet they shriek like clubbed seals when you dare challenge their most sacred pseudo-religious notions. This is why it'd be fun to debate them in a moderated forum where the debate could be recorded for posterity—I'm confident I could easily peel through their flimsy notions of culture, race, and equality and unmask them for the sloppy thinkers they are.
I've noticed that progressives—who talk mighty shit and then run, because they're ill-equipped to really deal with any challenges to their holiest precepts—never seem capable or willing to actually debate their fundamental beliefs. I've concluded it's because deep down, they're not entirely secure with their beliefs. Their beliefs are the result of New Agey wishful thinking rather than logic. This is why they must declare certain topics to be forever settled and beyond debate. Because, let's face it, the idea of "equality" withers and dies under the merest scrutiny. Such are the delusions of "liberal creationism," which posits that evolution is real, yet it somehow magically stopped the moment all the world's diverse social groups arrived at the finish line simultaneously.
Modern PC witch-hunting is far worse than McCarthyism, which is why it needs to be addressed, challenged, and smothered with logic wherever it appears.
Why is it worse than McCarthyism? How dare I equate the two, much less allege that what's going on now is worse?
Because in the 1950s, communists were actually killing people in the millions. Mao's Great Leap Forward took tens of millions of lives in the late 1950s. People were being worked and starved to death in Soviet gulags. Political dissidents in communist countries were sent to prison or mental hospitals. Imagine that—a political belief system founded on the notion of human equality resorted to totalitarian tactics in order to maintain itself. Of course it did! That's the only way to maintain a fraudulent belief system—by silencing all dissent.
These days, actual racially motivated white-on-black violence is so rare, the witch hunters have to pretend an obviously Peruvian guy is white merely to maintain their hopelessly outdated narrative. They also have to turn a blind eye to nearly daily black mob attacks on whites in order to keep reminding everyone about 100-year-old lynchings. If I'm stuck in the 90s, why do you keep talking about racially motivated violence that happened 100 years ago while I keep talking about incidents that happened this week? Who's truly stuck in the past here?
PC witch-hunting is also similar to McCarthyism in that people are losing their jobs and facing group ridicule and ostracism merely for thinking differently. In 1950s America, if you diverted from the herd's beliefs about capitalism, you were a pariah. Same goes today if you dare question modern orthodoxies about race. So it's a mortal sin to not tolerate different skin colors but somehow righteous to be stubbornly intolerant of all ideological dissent? Is trying to destroy someone's life because they think differently somehow better than not hiring them for being gay or black? If so, I'm not seeing it. I believe in freedom of association and that people should be able to hire (or refuse to hire) whomever they want. But growing up Catholic—and leaving it once I peered through its illogic, just as I fled liberalism so many years ago—I formed a strong distaste for moralistic witch hunts. All this screeching about "racism" is always framed in moralistic rather than logical terms. Hence, you have people who say "race doesn't exist," but somehow they magically see "racism" everywhere, yet they're blind to how retardedly contradictory such propositions are.
So many of you still scream about the blacklisting of communist screenwriters in 1950s Hollywood. Funny, I don’t see many “racist” screenwriters getting jobs out there these days. Of course the liberal witch-hunters emulate McCarthyism, with one huge difference—communism was stacking up far more bodies in the 1950s than “racism” is today.
Progressives seem capable of either tremendous self-deception or staggering naïveté. It's common knowledge that they're capable of boundless hypocrisy. What they've proved consistently incapable of doing is defending their beliefs using logic rather than emotion.