Amy Schumer's Prejudice

Let's take apart a quote by Amy Schumer because it's rather instructive of what is wrong with liberal "thinking." Read this from the New York Post:

Amy Schumer says she “really feel[s] for the woman” who recently accused her friend and fellow comic, Aziz Ansari, of sexual misconduct. “I identify with all the women in these situations,” the Trainwreck writer and star told Katie Couric on the February 1 episode of the latter’s podcast. “Even if it’s my friend, I don’t go, ‘Oh, but he’s a good guy.’ I think, ‘What would it feel like to have been her?’”

Do you notice anything wrong with this? How about this: it's pure sexism. Schumer says straight up that she will always identify with the women in a sexual harassment situation. Stick in the word "man" and she would be screaming that this is unholy sexism of the worst order. Stick in "white person" and it becomes pure, evil racism Yet, she doesn't even blink to admit that she will take the side of the woman.

This reminds me of several female attorneys I've met who claimed with no sense of irony at all, "I want to handle divorces, but I only want to work with women clients because men are sexist." So not self-aware! That's unethical, by the way, but they don't care. Indeed, this is one problem with the victim mentality, it lets liberals pretend that they aren't acting in ways they demonize others for doing. In fact, they become quite proud of doing things they otherwise call evil.

Back to Schumer, notice that her method of judging an allegation of wrongdoing runs contrary to classic Western thought. Western thought says to examine the evidence as dispassionately as possible. Counsel may be biased in presenting the case, but the judge may not biased in deciding it. Bias is wrong, prejudice evil. In fact, the people who tried to change the system away from the two thousand year march toward rational consideration to appeals based on identity fill history's books as villains... Nazis, Jim Crow juries, rigged local courthouses, Soviet show trials, etc.

Yet, Schumer proudly tells us that her method for evaluating such claims involves identifying with the women and trying to "feel" it from the woman's perspective. Again, how would she react if a juror said, "I always look at it from the white guy's perspective." She would be howling. Yet, here she's not even aware of how f*cked up she's acting. Rather than judging this situation on the facts and some rational basis, she is admitting that she has prejudged the situation by deciding which party she will believe and then she examines any evidence presented through the eyes of whatever woman was involved. That's called prejudice. What's more, she tries to feel the situation rather than examine it rationally. Hence, things like logic and standards of evidence vanish into the ephemeral "this is how I want this to end."

And let me suggest that this is the common way liberals approach pretty much anything. They pick a side and then try to decide how they would feel if they had been in that person's place. There do not weigh facts. They do not consider multiple perspectives. They use emotion rather than logic. The result is the crazy, biased, hysterical judgments that liberals issue on all matters. They pick a favorite and then feel their way through a decision... and, like Schumer, they are completely oblivious to how biased they are.

Thoughts?