How many identities has the political correctness movement been able to synthesize?
So, there are blacks and maybe brown people, though the latter tend to be foreigners, and we seem to be killing them in large numbers; there are a number of sexual disorders which have received the blessings of the PC; and there are the women who, though a majority, have been lumped by feminism into a single homogenous mass. Seriously, is that all?
Consider Jerry Seinfeld’s stand-up routine on immigration:
I am for open immigration but that sign we have on the front of the Statue of Liberty, “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…,” can’t we just say, “Hey, the door’s open, we’ll take whoever you got?”
Do we have to specify the wretched refuse?
I mean, why don’t we just say, “Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, people that can’t drive, that they have trouble merging, if they can’t stay in their lane, if they don’t signal, they can’t parallel park, if they’re sneezing, if they’re stuffed up, if they’re clogged, if they have bad penmanship, don’t return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving;
in other words, any dysfunctional defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over, we want ’em.”
Why aren’t the PC defending, for example, all of those miserable bastards? Why aren’t they legitimate (and oppressed) identities?
Or take Ko-Ko’s little list of society offenders, including “the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs; all people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs”; etc.; why aren’t the PC championing them?