Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
I said on Monday that "it is common in our culture for people to use their suffering to oppress others." This was underlined last week in a whining screed by a recovering alcoholic. Starbucks should not serve alcohol, he says, because it will be a temptation to people recovering from alcoholism.
So because some recovering alcoholics find it difficult to be around alcohol, everyone who could potentially enjoy a glass of wine or a high-quality beer at Starbucks must be denied the opportunity to enjoy an alcoholic beverage. It is the same mentality that has led government to require that everyone buying certain cold medicines to "show their papers" because some people use it as the primary ingredient to manufacture meth.
At least the government is not prohibiting Starbucks from serving alcohol - not yet, anyway.
I understand that alcoholism is a physical addiction as well as a social and psychological addiction, but many recovering alcoholics are capable of being in a place where alcohol is served without relapsing. It is easier to avoid the temptation completely, sure - but part of being an adult is exercising self-control (even when that is extremely difficult) instead of denying other people the opportunity to enjoy something you cannot.
It is good that we as a society are sensitive to those who are hurting or those who face unique challenges, but we have become so perverse that weakness and victimhood are now weapons to oppress others. We have gone too far in the direction of sensitivity, and we should not allow ourselves to be defined by our "victim identity."
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
Thank you for your cooperation.
, Mike Newton said...
Who's "oppressed" if a food chain stops selling booze? Have good Xians like yourself run short of alcohol? You really should consider curbing the ridiculous hyperbole. Of course, the the other extremists might shun you.
, Scott Tibbs said...
"Unfair" certainly applies.
op·press - to treat (a person or group of people) in a cruel or unfair way
, Scott Tibbs said...
I don't drink. I'm not a teetotaler - I just cannot stand the taste of alcohol.
The point I am making is that it's wrong to deny choice to everyone just because you don't like something.
"I can't have X, so nobody can have X."