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

If you think that any of what I said is insubstantial – by all means feel free to point out examples. 1) I made no stand-alone arguments as to why heightened sensitivity is good for society because I was not asked to provide any. I'm happy to oblige, however, and I will catalog some of the benefits of a heightened sensitivity below. My counter-argument is perfectly relevant because your position is that we shouldn't be sensitive to issues of race/sex; the entire thrust of your argument was a complete dismissal of paying attention to those issues as hysterical overreaction. Once again: HOW do people sensitive to gender/sex issues "impose" their views? You've provided no context or explanation for what you mean outside of a couple of factually-incorrect isolated examples. Would you post a link to the "Killing all Chinese Commies" debate so I can read it? 2) Your previous examples do not suffice. Larry Summers' resignation from Harvard was, AS I SAID, predicated on FAR MORE than his comments. A lot of academics came out in support of him (like Steven Pinker). Read up on Summers: http://en.wikipedia.org... Steve Lyons was not an anchor. He's not vital to our democracy. Do you know what he's said? He made fun of a blind guy during a game for wearing a visor that helps him see the field. The joke wasn't even funny. More to the point – the entire premise of your argument is flawed. Nobody has stopped Steve Lyons from making his comments. All that changed was the people paying to provide his platform decided they didn't want to keep doing so because it would cost them money. That's it. Nobody is stopping you from expressing "the truth" in public. What happens is that for-profit entities are unwilling to subsidize any controversial speech that threatens their audience. It wouldn't matter if you were telling bad jokes about white people or midgets or space aliens; if they turned off the audience – you'd be out of a job. What you have an issue with is the for-profit media system. I'm curious: are you opposed to obscenity advocates boycotting media outlets that show content they deem to be objectionable? Are you opposed to political activist groups boycotting media outlets that engage in business practices they find to be objectionable? Acknowledging truths (like statistical facts about the minority prison population) is one thing – stereotyping all people accordingly and discriminating against them based on those statistical facts is entirely another. 3) Reinforcing stereotypes through racist/sexist portrayals or humor LEADS to actual injustice. That's the problem. Humor doesn't exist in a vaccum; if you tell enough sexist jokes – it modifies our perceptions of women and reinforces discrimination against them. That's why people are sensitive. Furthermore – here's a major fault with your argument: "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." None of the examples you've provided were a careless slip of the tongue. They were deliberate comments made on purpose; and that's the point of your argument – you're claiming that people should have the right to say things that are considered by some to be racist or sexist. Do you even have any examples of people who have accidentally said things they don't mean and been subject to this "oppression" you're talking about? Your claim that we can't discuss social injustice in public is total bunk. Those discussions go on every single day; listen to NPR for an hour. Moreover, though, you're not advocating for the right of people to have honest, open discussions about why inequity exists – you want the right to tell racist/sexist jokes (which do nothing to address the root causes of inequity) without reprisal. 4) Carlos Mencia's show is still on TV – in fact Comedy Central just ordered another season of it for 2008. Nobody is censoring or oppressing him. You have absolutely zero point; he's being allowed to say the controversial things he wants to say. (As was Dave Chappelle, who voluntarily decided to end his show). The point you're trying to make with Mencia doesn't work because his humor is intended to illustrate how stupid and invalid stereotypes are (like Chappelle's; which were so spot-on that I've frequently used them with classes I teach). You're talking about people being allowed to perpetuate empty stereotypes. Heightened sensitivity to sex/race issues has been the impetus for the equalizing of the inequitable situation; so my argument is predicated on the idea that equality between the sexes/races is a good thing. If you disagree with that premise, we can pursue that line of discussion (as I'm prepared to make that case as well, especially in the context of the increasingly global economy): 1) With respect to gender/sex, the United States has a long history of inequality for the sexes. Women have long been treated as second-class citizens, only earning the right to vote in 1920. This election year is a perfect example of how pervasive sex inequity is; it's 2008 and we finally have the first viable female candidate for president. Here's a great link that catalogs the history of sex inequity in the workplace (http://www.infoplease.com...) that still exists today. It is only because of a heightened awareness of sex biases that women have been able to start making progress toward normalizing the wage gap (women still earn 76.5% of what men earn for the same work: http://en.wikipedia.org...). In addition, the feminist movement has enabled women to begin to ascend past the glass ceiling that used to keep them out of leadership roles. This sensitivity has prompted a holistic approach that has examined a variety of ways in which gender stereotypes are reinforced; one powerful mechanism is advertising. Through Standpoint Theory, feminist theorists in the 70s prompted advertisers to re-examine the content of advertisements and as a result our attitudes toward gender roles has changed accordingly (for the better). It is now considered acceptable to see women in positions of power and authority because attention has been paid to the visual portrayal of women and the language used to talk about women. 2) With respect to race/ethnicity, the United States has a long history of inequitable treatment of various racial or ethnic minority groups that persist to this day. Without people speaking out against negative portrayals of black people in the media, we would never have had shows like the Cosby Show (which had a profound effect on changing stereotypes about blacks). This election year is also a perfect example of how pervasive racism still is; it's 2008 and we finally have the first viable black candidate for president.