Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society. (2)

Thank you for taking this debate. Inundating the opposition with volume instead of arguments might be an effective tactic, after all, if you have a lot to say you must know what you're saying right? However in this case you will find length will prevail you not. And you will also find that length is never a substitute for substance. Rebuttals 1) To start, you have made no independent points of your own. You have made no discrete claims as to why those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are good for society. The statement "Conversely, I would argue that a complete lack of sensitivity to the myriad inequities in our society that bear out by race and gender is dangerous" is completely IRRELEVANT. The topic of debate does not relate to the converse. If I were arguing fanatical religious fundamentalist conservatives are bad, stating that fanatical tree loving people haters are bad does not either have any impact on my argument. Of course there is no requirement for you to deliver your own independent points, but without any independent points, you are obligated to successfully rebut each and every one of my points in order to declare that those with heightened racial/gender/etc." are not dangerous to society. Pro Arguments: 1) "being sensitive to issues of race and gender does not automatically prescribe action" -- here I would like to reference Con's earlier remark: "a complete lack of sensitivity ... is dangerous". In essence they are two sides of the same coin. Just as the lack of sensitivity promotes extreme inactivity, too high a level of sensitivity promotes excessive activity. To say heightened sensitivity does not necessarily dictate action is to say heightened hate of African Americans, or intense dislike of Asian Americans, or fierce loathing towards Jewish Americans does not necessarily dictate action. I would like to point out the UNCONTESTED point that those of heightened r/g/etc. sensitivity attempt to IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS of what is "racially appropriate" on the general population. My opponent seems only concerned with the style in which they impose their viewpoints. Which he claims are not oppressive. Which he claims because I did not provide any specific examples of oppression and that if I did they would be isolated examples. So here's one example: Recently there was a debate on Debate.org. It was a faux-racist debate where another individual and I were debating the merits of "killing all Chinese Commies". We were both poking fun of traditional stereotypes and common misunderstandings. Then came Mangani with her accusations of racism. Although there was plenty of commentary (not just on my part), criticizing her accusations, nevertheless the moderators canceled the debate, as is their right of course. Wouldn't you say she was being oppressive in her actions? 2) My opponent claims my accusations of censoring free speech is not validated. If my previous examples did not suffice, well, this one should. Of course private enterprise should have the right to censor what they publish, and what their representatives say. And most will in a heartbeat censor or fire whoever or whatever to absolve themselves of liability. That's the nature of companies, organizations that often put their interests ahead of everything else, including the public good. And when you make them think they are both serving the public good and their private interests, well, that's just plum on the pudding. "Lawrence H. Summers, former president of Harvard resigned" is an absurd response. And it's good you didn't hinge yourself on that. By all means Harvard had a right to dismiss him, or force him to resign. But what's at issue here is not the university's action, but the action of those who put pressure on Harvard to force him to resign. I have nothing against the cowardly actions of private enterprise to safeguard themselves. I am however against those of heightened r/g/etc. sensitivity who put pressure on private institutions so thus causing both Summers and Lyons to be fired. The fact that Fox fired him even before a large outcry could happen is downright frightening. It's frightening because it means the fear of public outcry has already caused companies to clamp down on what their employees are allowed to express in public. A legislator, or a News anchor should be able to speak the TRUTH, even if it's distasteful. The majority of crimes in America are committed by African-Americans. Lot's of gay people tend to be effeminate and/or flamboyant, and share more in common with females than males. But to state statistical generalities about different people? Nope, no public figure dares to do that. And what is that except censorship? The inability to express your beliefs, or the Truth for that matter, in public? 3. You wish my premise was based on that. Read my argument carefully. I said shutting down truthful observations about the differences between race and stirring racial tensions obstructs the progress towards the resolution of racial tensions. Of course they should be vocal. ABOUT INJUSTICE. Vocalize about the pay difference between men and women. Vocalize about the disproportionate funding between inner city schools and schools in suburbia. These are the real issues, and granted they are also issues hard to address. On these issues politicians and private enterprise are reluctant to expend effort, but these are the issues that need the voice of objection. When protests and rallies are instead expended to an innocent slip of tongue caused by a careless moment, they create enemies not allies and the social injustices remain not addressed. Now addressing the correlation/causation point. Your absolutely right. Blacks make a higher percentage of the incarcerated population per capita. It's a social phenomenon with a wide range of causes such as perhaps the rate of poverty, the rate of education, the disproportionate targeting, or maybe blacks are inherently predisposed to crime. Let's figure it out. Let's speak about this fact in public and discuss it openly on a public forum. Except we can't. Because it's insensitive to discuss this issue in public. 4. I do not downplay the power of humor. In fact, that is of all things the greatest misrepresentation of my position. Humor has the power to bridge hatred, bring people together, build friendships, and bolster relationships. Watch Carlos Mencias. Does he spare anyone with his mockery? As to the disempowering effects of humor, do you know why the humor, as it is, is so disempowering? It's because of its taboo status in society. Because it's not widespread in public, it gains power in private, and the power it gains in private makes it not only powerful but also poisonous. Only when exposed to the air of public understanding does it gain the ability to help people laugh instead of cry. Suppressing these jokes, for that matter suppressing any word, only gives it the power to hurt. For these reasons I am proud to support.