You wouldn't be white middle class male would you? geniune question!
Wouldn't this very question be discrimatory?! Because it sounded as if you made a generalization there based on colour of the skin and social status.
I don't think Sophocles is mocking activism. But here is the thing with some forms of activism: it outcasts anyone who thinks differently. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction- people react without even thinking. Look at the reactions on this thread at people who just thought that the court shouldn't renamed (even expressing their thoughts that it is wrong being homophobic, but pointing out other reasons they disagree with renaming it): they were instantly accused of being homophobics, narrow minded and reactionary.
The problem with a lof of the PC activism is that it, at some point, takes a bad turn. How did the gay rights movement started?! With people questioning the status quo, questioning what was accepted to be the truth and "correct" moral way of living life. The problem, to me, arrives when the issue becomes holy moral territory- when nothing that concerns the issue can be even debated.
For instance: in my eyes, society evolved enough for us to acknowledge that prejudice towards gay people is wrong. Period. And when people act with prejudice towards them, they should be called out. Society should react against it. The entire question about "should tennis australia rename the court" revolves around the following "how should society react". Should the courts be renamed?! And here comes the catch: one can be against bigotry but can also think that erasing an entire person's life work isn't right. But this very proposition seems to stir people up. As if either you are "with us or against us". I mean, if they first named the court "Margaret Court" it shows that this woman did some good things in life. Should it all go down the toilet because on a particular issue she is, in today's society eyes, wrong?
Specially when you consider that the very discussion about homosexuality has numerous loop-holes. My view on human sexuality is simple: it is none of my business what two (or more!
) consenting people do in the bedroom (or other venues, for that matter). And it has no bearings in the person's carachter: being a jerk has no relationship with being straight, gay or bisexual. Therefore I see no reason why we should treat gay, straight or bisexual differently. However, it comes from a standpoint that human sexuality and moral behaviour are not linked.
To try to make my point clear I ask the following: what if Margaret said that she is against people being promiscuous and having multiple sexual partners, and that people who act that way shouldn't be allowed to get married. Would the reaction be the same?! Would people ask for the courts to be renamed?! I mean, the logic is the same: people shouldn't be discriminated because of their sexual behaviour.