"Clouding the Issue", or White Cognitive Dissonance

First Amendment Violations

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I was originally going to do a "break down" post of the First Amendment.  But as I was doing my research and prepping my framework, I suddenly realized that the First Amendment wasn't the main point I needed to get across here.

The First Amendment was primarily designed to allow people to criticize their government without recourse.  So when the Dixie Chicks went abroad and criticized the Bush Administration, not only were they invoking their Constitutional right, but they were invoking it in the manner of its original intent.

While racial slurs (e.g. "nigger") are not protected by the First Amendment, opinions of racism and hate speech are loosely protected by the First Amendement.  I say "loosely" because while a person can express an opinion, the moment that opinion incites people to violence, its utterer is immediately liable under the law.

So for white people who've uttered racial slurs, paid fines and/or gotten your asses kicked, and then watched your ass-kicker go free, it's not because "the race card was played" or because the person of color in question played on the court's sympathy.

It's because you violated federal law.

"Diversity of Opinion"

This phrase, along with "out of context", has been steadily growing popular over the past couple of years.  I find this ironic because the people who grasp for the "diversity of opinion" defense are usually the ones opining against diversity in the first place - in all its forms.  They don't think that millions of individual women, with their individual rights and beliefs, should have the right to decide individually what happens to their own bodies.  They don't believe America should be home to more than one religion or color of people.  They don't believe America's politicians should be anything but white (and male, in some cases).  They don't believe homosexuals should have any rights whatsoever, least of all, the right to exist.

I could go on and on, but I think you catch my drift.

One of the names I've noticed attached most often to this popular phrase is Sarah Palin.  Her defenders have stated that people hate her because she's a woman.  And a Republican.  And pro-life.  And pro-guns.  And Christian.  Meanwhile, millions of white, non-white, male, female, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-guns, anti-guns, Christian, non-Christian, American, and non-American people all loathe Sarah Palin because they think she is an idiot.  Not because of her beliefs and her opinions - many actually share the same beliefs and opinions - but her inability to fluently ar-ti-cu-late them, and her obvious lack of qualifications for political office.  And when this is pointed out, the "diversity of opinion" a.k.a. "the dying man's final grasp" is invoked to protect her (as is the "out of context" defense; you know...because an entire horrendous interview - twice - can be taken "out of context").

Now, the reason this all happens has to do with the ultimate irony: people who constantly invoke the First Amendment and the "diversity of opinion" defense are doing so - not because they're not being heard, or because they feel they're not being allowed to disagree - but because they themselves cannot stand being contradicted.

In basic psychology, this referred to as "projection"; it's the tendency to accuse of others of feeling/doing what you yourself are feeling/doing.  The reason many white Americans, for example, "project" this onto people of color during racial discussion pertains to yet another psychological phenomenon: cognitive dissonance (yes, you've heard of it).

White Cognitive Dissonance

Most people of color avoid racial conversations with white people.  It's not because we're afraid (again, that's white projection).  It's not because we "don't want" to be disagreed with; we're more than used to that.  In fact, to meet a white person who doesn't disagree with us is often shocking.  People of color generally don't jump to engage white people in racial discussions because we don't want to deal with "the nervous breakdown" which we know is coming at some point.  Once again, in the very rare instances we meet a white person who doesn't have "the nervous breakdown", it's highly shocking to us.

In basic psychology, cognitive dissonance is simply experiencing discomfort after hearing a new idea which contradicts an old one you're used to.  In America, white aesthetics, intelligence, honor, etc. is considered "the standard" (i.e., universal desirability).  White Americans are conditioned from childhood to think they are "special snowflakes", that they are always in the "right", and so upon meeting a person of color who thinks differently - and who openly states so - they can't handle it.  They're not prepared for rejection.  They expected to voice their opinion and simply "win".  They weren't expecting to have their argument "corrected" or opposed in any way.

In their minds, a person of color is not supposed to have an opinion, and is certainly not supposed to express it.  They are horrified to voice their opinion and have someone not care about it (i.e., not be impressed/intimidated).  So some white people simply shut down, as though traumatized (and no, this is not an exaggeration).  Others try to "convince" the person of color of "white" rightness (by any means necessary, mind you).  And when attacking the person's idea fails, most white people then switch to attacking the person (condescension, hipster racism, etc.).  In essence, they cannot simply agree...to disagree.  They cannot live and let live.  They have to "win", even if winning isn't applicable to the scenario.

Sometimes, it isn't even a difference of opinion which brings about this cognitive dissonance.  Everyone has a right to an opinion - this is true.  However, just because you have an opinion, no one is obligated to actually listen to it.  And when people of color invoke their right to not listen to a white person's opinion on race, most white people cannot handle it.  To have their opinion dismissed or rejected at once by a person of color is an incredibly jarring experience for them - and most of them don't even realize why.

Conclusion

This is just another derailing tactic; they're committing the classic faux pas of making a racial discussion all about them.  Because when a white person utters their opinion and is disagreed with, they often change the conversation to being about their right to an opinion...when their right to an opinion was never an issue.  They got to voice their opinion, after all.  No one silenced them.  Their First Amendment right was never violated; the First Amendment doesn't even apply to this type of situation (i.e., they can't haul you off to court for ignoring/disagreeing with them).  They got to say what they wanted, and if they're mad because nobody cares about what they had to say...they just have to deal with it.

Fashion tip from Moi: This is nothing new; it's a merely a "new twist in an old snake" and should simply be handled the usual way.  If you are a comment moderator, just delete the derailing comment and kindly inform the original poster of their error.  If the racial discussion is in person, firmly remind the person they got to say their piece.  If no one co-signed, then they need to grow up and deal with it gracefully.  They're not supposed to "win", this is not a competition, and so if they're expecting an "All Hail the Conquering Hero", they need to grow up and get over themselves.

White folks, if you're going to disagree, then be ready to agree...to disagree.