I've been thinking about the case of goblin-whacking I posted on here, and the idiotic reaction to it. The excusing, the blaming of the one attacked instead of telling the attacker "You're a dirtbag, and you deserve jail."
I reminded me of something, so I dug around in John Ross' site and found this post of his. He was talking to a man about the opposition in much of the black community to the idea of 'shall-issue' concealed carry permits. Considering how people in that community tended to be more often the victims of crimes and would in many cases be the people with more need of the freedom to carry for self-defense, why would they oppose it so strongly?
"When discussing this matter, people inevitably bring up Missouri's 1999 ballot referendum on Right-To-Carry, which was narrowly defeated (with a dismal 30% voter turnout, I might add.) The fact is that the measure passed in almost every county in the state. The defeat came from the fact that two very large urban precincts in St. Louis and Kansas City were over 90% opposed. At the time, I thought this was vote fraud (and to be honest, I still think that was a factor).
A black businessman (who was one of the handful of St. Louis city residents who voted for the referendum) and I were discussing the recent passage of RTC. I brought up the referendum results, and said I could not understand why blacks had been so uniformly against the measure. The proposal was a "shall issue" one, where if you satisfied the requirements (training, fingerprints, no criminal record, no mental illness, etc.) you couldn't be denied the permit just because the sheriff didn't like the idea of people besides the police having guns. The businessman stared at me.
"I thought you were good at math," he said. I allowed as to how I felt that I was. "Then you must never have taken Statistics and Probability." I told him I had done this also, and that it had been one of the most rewarding math classes I had ever taken (and incidentally was taught by Amherst's professor Denton, who is black.) "Then you must be cowed enough by political correctness to never think of applying statistics and probability to anything involving race." Finally I admitted that this last accusation might be true.
"Then I am going to ask you two true-or-false questions. One: Do blacks in the city of St. Louis have large extended families?" I answered in the affirmative. "Two: Is it true that in St. Louis, over 40% of the black males between the ages of 17 and 25 have criminal records?" I told him that was also true, unfortunately.
"So here is the important question: What are the chances of a black person of voting age in St. Louis having at least one relative with a criminal record? Assume we define 'relative' broadly, to include the young men who father the children of our female relatives, whether married to them or not." He sat there waiting for my answer.
"Are we talking fathers, stepfathers, uncles, brothers, stepbrothers, male cousins, sons, stepsons, nephews, mothers' boyfriends, aunts' boyfriends, sisters' boyfriends, daughters' boyfriends, stepdaughters' boyfriends, female cousins' boyfriends, nieces' boyfriends, as well as anyone actually married to a female relative?" I asked. He nodded. "Then I'd say there's nearly 100% probability that at least one relative would have a criminal record." He smiled at me like a teacher who has just gotten the right answer from one of his slower students.
"So," I said, "I'm to believe that the black sentiment in St. Louis was "I wish young Tyrone would stop robbing people, but I don�t want one of the people he robs to shoot him dead." Is that it?" I asked.
"You've got it exactly," he told me.
"But why? I mean, honestly, if some guy was married to my cousin and mugged people for a living, I'd figure he was making his own choices and could damn well take the chance of being blasted. I wouldn't vote away my rights to help his sorry ass."
"What if it wasn't just your one cousin's husband, but 40% of all your male relatives between the ages of 18 and 25? What if that was, oh, I don�t know, a dozen people?" Suddenly I didn't know what to say.
"You don't feel that way," I said finally.
"I�m an Uncle Tom. I've recently come to realize that I now have very few black friends."
Seems to fit in nicely with the crap the other day. Here we're not talking about some deceased/imprisoned criminal's family protesting "He's a good boy, he just made some mistakes, he hung around with some bad people" or "She's not a bad girl, she was pushed into doing this." Here we've got the whole damn grievance industry coming out in full cry. "Racism! They shot those boys because they were black! They just wanted to buy some grass!" and so on. It's like there's a standard script: "The victims(ALWAYS the 'victims') were black/latino/whatever, so they CANNOT BE AT FAULT! Therefore the one who shot/whatever them is the criminal. No matter what." So we have, in this case, three men broke into a home at 4 A.M., beat people severely, and when they get shot, THEY become the 'victims'. The survivor is a 'victim of racism'. Never mind what they did- and let's not be fooled here, chances of this being the first time they did something like this are just about zero-, never mind the one they beat who'll need care for the rest of his life, the deceased goblins and the survivor are the 'victims'.
I've been reading a book called When She Was Bad, Violent omen and the Myth of Innocence by Patricia Pearson. A big part of the book is on the fact that in domestic violence it's been built up that women are ALWAYS the victim. Doesn't matter what happened, doesn't matter that the husband/boyfriend pushed her or hit her because she was swinging at him- sometimes with a knife or heavy object- because HE is the one with the 'power', so she is ALWAYS the victim. Which means if he calls the police for help, chances are he'll wind up in jail. Hell, it's in law in some places that if the police show up on a domestic violence call, they have to arrest him. Even if he's the one bleeding. Scholars have censored their own work to prevent it being shown that women are aggressors as often as men, that the men in the relationship are often the victims, because it doesn't fit the social picture they want to reinforce.
...A 1978 survey conducted by the Kentucky Commission on Violence Against Women uncovered that 38 percent of the assaults in the state were committed by women, but that finding wasn't included when the survey was released. (The information was discovered some years later by scholars.) In Detroit, a tally of emergency medical admissions due to to domestic violence was widely reported by activists as evidence of injuries to women. No one told the media that 38 percent of the admissions were men. In Canada, the federal government allotted $250,000 to a research project on comparative rates of violence in dating relationships. The lead researcher, Carleton University sociologist Walter DeKeseredy, released his data on women, generating a wave of violence agains women headlines and conveying the impression that Canadian college campuses were bastions of violent misogyny. DeKeseredy didn't mention in his report that he had collected evidence of dating violence against men....
and so on.
You read much of this, there's a remarkable similarity between minority groups and womens groups in making excuses for why they cannot be the bad guys. "Because of past racism/because of the patriarchy, they have no power" and so on. There's always a reason why someone cannot/should not be held responsible for, or even capable of doing bad things.
A lot of people more qualified than I have pointed this nonsense out before. If you claim 'victimhood' as a mantle that protects you from being held responsible for what you do, you have renounced any claim to being an intelligent, capable being and basically said "You can't hold me to the same standards you do others: I'm special." And then you bitch and whine when people don't look on you the same as they do others who don't claim victimhood as an excuse for whatever the current problem is. Much like the 'Jena Six' garbage, if someone is a member of your group it's considered a given that they couldn't have actually done wrong, they must have been the 'victim'. Never mind evidence, never mind a group beating an individual unconscious, that group was black so THEY are the 'victims'.
Hell, look at a lot of media reporting. If someone gets shot breaking into a home or attacking someone, attempting a rape, whatever, if the goblin is a member of a minority group there's a very good chance the reporting will be that they were the 'victim' of a shooting. The fact that they were shot by the actual victim, the one they were attacking, is glossed over. They get a twofer here: deflect blame from the criminal and condemn guns and people who own them.
Solution? More people like Bill Cosby saying "Knock off the crap, tell your kids to pull their pants up and stay in school. And stop letting them feed on the image of gangsters as someone to be like." They'd better have very thick skins like him, too, because they'll get the full ration of crap the RWPPs & Co. threw at him.
No comments:
Post a Comment