THE CRUX OF IT: Your privilege can’t determine if I’m offended or not

 

 

 

 

 

Most of us have jobs currently or have of course worked in the past. Those businesses have likely had some means to express and categorize the expectations of conduct; rule books, guidelines, decency clauses etc. It is necessary to do so to definitively map out requirements as well as repercussions for not adhering to those requirements.

So, why are certain people largely given passes when they have titles such as Governor, Senator, Representative, or some designation of the Clergy?

As an example; Representative Peter King (R-NY) used the ethnic slur “Japs” when discussing Donald Trump’s views on national security. Some would and have argued that the term was at best only mildly offensive and that the “PC Nation” has once again risen up in hypersensitivity.

King defended his comment by insisting that he was “Quoting the guy at the end of the bar.”

That guy is fictitious. The quote was not from an actual person but from a  characterization derived from King’s mind. That fact illustrates that those types of slurs are readily available vocabulary to him.

When a group of people state clearly that something has been derogatory and offensive, why isn’t that enough to take the criticism as legitimate?

It is without a doubt his own privilege that enables Peter King to defend an ethnic slur.

A distinct lack of historical experience is the single factor that allows one to label another as hypersensitive or politically correct. (How likely is it that King has been labeled with a racial epithet?)

The fact that he is a public persona and a US Representative should better inform his conduct. That fact should also require some degree of contrition.