> We aren't even allowed to talk about or aknowledge differences in people without being politically incorrect or hurting the self esteem of all the people who don't have that specific trait, yet we're supposed to celebrate those differences.

My answer to this paradox is that there isn't one. People don't think. People are swayed by what sounds good and, as a result, adopt views in natural conflict with one another. In today's culture, feelings and egos are of paramount importance. Great sacrifices in other areas are made so that nobody feels bad. Consequently, it is nice for someone to be able to "fit in" and be an accepted part of a crowd, because that sounds good. But it is not so desirable to "blend in" and "lose one's individuality" by being "yet another" element of a social "system." At the same time, it is good to "dare to be different" and "express your individuality" and understand that you are a "unique" person...but it's not so good to be given "special treatment" or considered an "outsider." You can be normal but not abnormal, and extraordinarily but not ordinary. Connotation is everything. Denotation counts for little.

Logic has lost the battle that an overzealous catering to people's feelings has won. This permeates not just a social mindset but has been enacted into our laws as well. We have sacrificed the natural right the rightful owner of a business has to hire whomsoever he pleases so that no one seen as "different" can be discriminated against. Yet, in the same system, we have special organizations and privileges given to these same people by virtue of what makes them often seen as "different" in the first place. Why? Because this is the system that makes people feel good. It would be nice if there were never such thing as "discrimination," but "privilege" is a good thing. Yet both essentially boil down to the same system of thought.

Darien has a classic example of this logic-sacrificing feeling-based thought. At his old school, some students got together and pushed this "Bill of Rights" thing through the student government. This "Bill of Rights" included the right for anyone to say hatever they want. The "right" immediately following was a rule saying that no one could make discriminating comments on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. It apparently never sunk in to any of the proponents of this document that one cannot have both rules. If you have true freedom of speech, then you have the right to make not just discriminating but outright *hateful* racist or sexist remarks whenever the heck you want to. But it sounds good to say you have "freedom of speech" and it sounds good to say that "remarks that discriminate against a particular group are prohibited." Isn't that the best of all possible worlds? It would be if such a thing were possible. And yet, it's easy to reword these things in such a way that *nobody* except those that sit down and actually THINK would condone them. You just reverse the connotation. "Everyone shall have the right to make even hateful, derisive, and ridiculing remarks, even unfounded ones, without legal penalty or consequence. However, free speech is prohibited when those who hear it take exception when statements are made that are not complimentary towards someone." It's just as logically flawed, as the two statements are still in diametric opposition to one another, and yet, as with the original two rules, they are in accord as far as how "good" they sound. I wonder, also, how many people adopt, simultaneously, the pairs of "conflicting proverbs" given on the "Fun With Words" page here?

So getting back to the "different is good" vs "different is bad" debate, it all depends on how you word it. Too few people actually think about the philosophies they condone and promote, and too many philosophies are condoned and promoted purely *because* they help somebody, somewhere, feel a little better about themselves. A smart person will sit down and think about meaning first. Maybe different is just different, neither inherently good nor bad (well, depending on the difference -- one of a different race is neither inherently better or worse, while a stronger than usual moral character can be considered a good difference), and it is how those differences are used or not used that makes the difference.

Oh, but that doesn't "feel" good at all! That implies that one is "accountable for one's actions." Then again, maybe all that means is that we are "responsible adults" and "given a chance to exercise our strengths for good." Whew. Now it's ok.

S "not good or special because he chose 'green saw'" am