web analytics

Hate

Embarrassed.

That’s how I felt awhile back when I came across the ADL’s (Anti-Defamation League) so-called ‘Pyramid of Hate.’  How could an organization focused on preventing genocide fail to understand how genocides occur, and, with disturbing irony, in particular the genocide against the Jews under the Nazis?  Since they were not ashamed at their ignorance, I was ashamed on their behalf.

The ADL puts ‘hate speech’ at the very bottom of the pyramid (eg, “Belittling Jokes” and “Insensitive Remarks”) and moving up from there we have “Ridicule” and “Slurs” before we get to some of the more serious items, such as terrorism, etc.  This is almost as far from reality as one can get.  It is, in a word, typical liberal/progressive tripe.  Certainly, speech belongs on the ‘pyramid’ but it is not the cause.  It is the symptom.

The closest that the pyramid gets to the capturing the truth is “De-humanization,” which any sane look at the Holocaust and a proper ‘pyramid of hate’ would put at the very bottom layer of the pyramid.  The Holocaust was an outgrowth of an ideology.

The ‘hate speech’ that followed… followed.  It did not lead. The root was the ideology.  One of the first fruits was speech, but it is highly debatable whether or not later fruits were built on speech.  Rather, there was a branch, with many fruits, and ‘speech’ was just one of them.

Fixating on the Nazi’s ‘speech’ as a root cause of the Holocaust is a total swing and a miss.  The focus should be on the underlying ideology.  And that’s where things get really interesting, and really troubling.  The Nazis launched their program for euthanizing the disabled on the basis of an international consensus among scholars that the disabled were harmful to the species, and, at any rate, putting the disabled out of their misery was the humane thing to do.  (Is anything already starting to sound familiar?).  A notable example comes from Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, two German academic luminaries, writing a couple of years before the Nazi party even existed.  Their little book “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life” merely recapitulated a manner of thinking that already had gained broad, international, currency.  When the Nazis launched their T4 program, they were only putting into action the ideology already established as ‘mainstream’ all around the globe.

No surprise, then, that when post-war trials were held at Nuremberg, the accused Germans submitted examples of people having similar beliefs as the Nazis, who, by the way, were not Germans.  (Eg., Madison Grant.)

There was an ideological underpinning to the Nazi extermination of disabled defectives.  There was an ideological underpinning to the Nazi’s anti-semitism.  These ideologies had their critics, no doubt.  But these ideologies were also widely taught in universities across the globe, too.  Even more fundamental than ‘De-humanization’ was the role of the University in cultivating certain attitudes which were presented to young people as facts–indeed, scientific facts.

Hold that thought, and fast forward.

Today, a man attempted to assassinate Republicans.

A couple of months ago, I wrote an essay warning of the coming violence–emerging from the American left–as a result of Trump’s election.  There has been a steady stream of violence emerging from the American left ever since.  On my Facebook, I predicted that there would be Trump supporters dead in the street.  Today, we came very close to seeing that prediction come to pass.

So now we hear all of the same crap that we always hear.  Eg, we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Or, perhaps my favorite, which I heard today, “I wasn’t making an equivalence between left and right wing incitement to violence. I was saying that the right, at present, is worse.”  The right is worse?  HA!

This seemed to be an example of something I’ve heard conservative commentators mention numerous times over the years–that the Left has a habit of accusing the Right of doing the things that in fact are actually done by the Left. (Tucker Carlson talked about it tonight on his show.  It was the segment with the Federalist writer, iirc.  Rush Limbaugh has said it many times)

Or, as it was put on Carlson’s show:  On the ‘right’ we have rhetorical violence… but on the ‘left’ we see literal violence.

But why is this the case?  Why is there a difference?  Why will the difference persist?  I will tell you why.

To hear the pundits and politicians tell it, they will spout out the same line that the ADL did: it all starts with ‘hate speech.’  It’s because of all the invective that is out there, and the hateful remarks, etc.

And don’t get me wrong, I think ‘speech’ is an ingredient.

For example, I think the Democrat’s continued insinuation that Trump has committed actual treason, and the MSM’s continued fanning of those fabricated flames (eg, ‘Russian collusion’) certainly has the power to lead people to reason, “Why, if that’s all true, then by golly, we’ve got to act!”  These ‘low information voters’ don’t understand that the Democrats and the MSM are only using these issues as political bludgeons.  There seems to be no merit to these accusations, but not everyone knows that its merely the same old Alinsky tactics.

But this does not explain the vitriol and violence, the ‘illiberal’ behavior, that has been bursting out at college campuses, etc, supposedly in the name of ‘tolerance’ and in alleged defiance of fascist ‘hate speech.’   This started long before Trump was elected.

What does explain it?

Very simply, all these youngsters were taught to believe these things in the very place that a great deal of history’s greatest atrocities emerged:  the University.  What they learned in the University, the MSM and Hollywood repeated (endlessly).

They learned that certain things were true… were facts… were scientific facts… in their classrooms.  Honestly, it begins even before college.  It starts as early as elementary school and I can give personal examples of this mindset being propagated in high schools.

This is why there is no good reason to think that the American left will cease being violent–education in America is almost completely dominated by leftists, churning out a particular ideology, which, as it happens holds that dissenters are hateful fascists–and what does one do to fascists?  This meme that I saw last year sums it up:

And that’s why the “Right’s” violent rhetoric will probably remain nothing more than rhetoric; ie, it is actually intended as rhetoric, as evidenced by the fact that when you probe the underlying ideology, you will usually discover that most people on the ‘right’ have no desire whatsoever to act violently, because, generally speaking, they genuinely believe that people have intrinsic value–created in the image of God, if you will.  Thus, to actually harm someone flies in the face of one’s actual ideology.

But the Left’s literal violence, will persist, because according to the ideology that people are actually being taught, people who disagree with progressives HAVE IT COMING.  Obviously, there is nothing in any curriculum as direct as that, but just as there are those who don’t understand that the Democrats accusations of ‘treason’ are mere political tactics and, on their own, draw out the implications, so too the professors (etc) don’t need to spell it out, either.  Their students put two and two together all on their own, thank you very much.

So, you can have two people saying exactly the same thing:  “I’m going to kill you!” but one offers it out of exasperation, while the other actually means it.  The only way to know which is which is to look at the underlying ideology.

The rhetoric is a problem, but it is not the problem.  The problem is the ideology.   There is no indication yet that leftists have any inclination to re-think their ideology.

Will today’s assassination [attempt] diminish the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the American left?

Yes, probably.  At least temporarily.

But will today’s assassination attempt cause anyone to evaluate their ideology?

I doubt it.

And since the ideology remains, it is reasonable to expect the behavior to return.

Share

22 comments

Skip to comment form

    • End Bringer on June 15, 2017 at 8:13 pm

    “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.” Matthew 15:17-18

    Sounds like the ADL could use a crash coarse in this lesson.

    • Anthony on June 15, 2017 at 8:25 pm
      Author

    Very good, EB.

    • Dannyboy on June 24, 2017 at 11:56 am

    Points taken in order:

    It’s ok to be embarrassed about not knowing what a pyramid chart means, but a simple google search could have helped you out. A pyramid chart illustrates a hierarchy – not, as you seem to think (or at least imply that the ADL think), a causal relationship. In this case it seems to be a hierarchy of increasingly serious offences against a particular demographic group. I don’t think that the ADL would necessarily disagree that “hate speech” is symptomatic of other societal problems, and not the actual root cause of genocide. Nice of you to be ashamed on their behalf, but I think as well as being massively presumptuous (“educating” a Jewish organisation with your superior understanding of the Holocaust) it is also probably unnecessary. This may be the blog post in which you officially jumped the shark in terms of Christ-splaining genocide to the descendants of concentration camp survivors. Congratulations! 🙂

    As usual, your laser-like focus on the relatively small part of the historical picture that most benefits your worldview is inerrant. Centuries of Christian (and particularly Lutheran) anti-semitism – irrelevant. Church complicity and acquiescence in purging Europe’s Jewish population (when they HAD actually taken a strong and principled stand against the T4 programme which seems to be the only salient Holocaust precursor for you) – not worth mentioning. Everything that you said about the Nazi ideology was true, but so selective and deliberately exonerating of your own belief system that I cannot think of your account as anything other than wilfully dishonest.

    Back to the present day.

    You are TOTALLY right to seize on this example of a person on the political Left committing violence against people on the political Right as being 100% representative of current political trends. Of course, you’re not partisan. You have rightly and proportionately neglected to make ANY comment on the (inconveniently right-wing) Portland train attack (2 dead), Manhattan sword attack (1 dead), Quebec mosque shooting (6 dead), Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting (3 dead) or Charleston church shooting (9 dead), in favour of devoting a blog post to this shooting which – as reprehensible as it was – resulted in ZERO deaths, in part because of the life-saving efforts of a gay Black female special agent whose marriage to another woman the victims of this outrage would very much like to overturn. Life comes at you fast, eh?

    So, since I am the author of the quoted comparison that you so derisively referenced (although without providing any substantive refutation, I noticed), I thought it was my place to respond.

    Yes, I stand by the statement that the Right is worse than the Left at the moment in terms of inciting political violence. You (yes, you) have elected a president who – apart from his other manifold failures as a human being – has a long history of inciting political violence at his rallies. Might the reason that you are picking a strawman fight with the ADL be because they had the temerity to examine the distribution of deaths from political violence in the US over the last decade and concluded that 74% came from Right-wing extremists, 24% from Islamic extremists, and a huge 2% from Left-wing extremists? I can see how you might not like that, given the pre-determined conclusion of all your political discussions.

    You are right to say that speech can be an ingredient of de-humanisation. Is that why you’re so silent about Trump’s incitement to violence against protestors, or Trump Jr’s statement that Democrats are “not even people”, or Ann Coulter’s encouragement of more violence from Trump supporters, or Ted Nugent being invited to the White House despite a long track record of violence-inciting remarks, or “Coach” Dave Daubenmire saying that Gov. Jerry Brown should be “hanging from a rope”, or the Oath Keepers guaranteeing a civil war against Muslims, or Wayne Allyn Root ranting about the need to violently destroy liberal groups? Or is it that you only care about dehumanising language when it is directed at conservatives? That would make you kind of hypocrite, wouldn’t it?

    By the way, I notice that in the process of taking a worrying lurch towards theocratic Islamist governance, and also while imprisoning thousands of journalists (who were no doubt accused of peddling “fake news”) Turkey has banned the teaching of evolution in all state schools. Maybe it is worth contemplating the plank of totalitarian liabilities in your own belief system before… well, you get it.

    “The rhetoric is a problem, but it is not the problem. The problem is the ideology.”

    I agree Pot – couldn’t have said it better myself.

    “Will today’s assassination diminish the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the American left?”

    Not to diminish the reprehensibility of what occurred, but it can’t really be an “assassination” if no one died. And I would pose the question in return – will any of the attacks by right-wing extremists (mentioned above) diminish the violent rhetoric (unnoticed by you) coming from the American Right?

    No, probably not.

    • End Bringer on June 24, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    “A pyramid chart illustrates a hierarchy – not, as you seem to think (or at least imply that the ADL think), a causal relationship.”

    And it’s being called out that the ADL’s portrayal of that hierarchy is simply dead wrong. As evidence by the fact their hierarchy has ‘de-humanization’ FOLLOWING rhetoric instead of being more the other way around. As well as simply not including certain primary elements anywhere on the pyramid. For instance I would certainly put ‘lack of belief in intrinsic value of life’ as being one of those elements that belongs on the base of the hierarchy that leads to genocide. Or even just appearing at all.

    But then you get into some implications on where that intrinsic value has to come from, and what ideology has been pushing that lack of belief for over 100 years.

    “This may be the blog post in which you officially jumped the shark in terms of Christ-splaining genocide to the descendants of concentration camp survivors.”

    And believing that being those descendants alone automatically gives them a better insight than others who have studied that period (or even more importantly the decades leading up to it) is probably itself just as presumptuous.

    “Everything that you said about the Nazi ideology was true, but so selective and deliberately exonerating of your own belief system that I cannot think of your account as anything other than wilfully dishonest.”

    Or one can acknowledge that this single blog post is topic specific, and see that there are more than several dozen other posts that may deal with the overarching topic in a more nuanced fashion, rather than just jump to making disparaging conclusions based on what’s not addressed by said single blog post.

    “You are TOTALLY right to seize on this example of a person on the political Left committing violence against people on the political Right as being 100% representative of current political trends.”

    I think rather than this single example being representative of political trends, the genuine trend of violence (rhetorical and actual) from the Left is a pretty good indication of that trend, or in case you haven’t noticed from all the rioting counter-protests in the streets and college campuses where people are pepper-sprayed and assaulted, open hopes of assassination from Hollywood figures, fake severed heads, the almost literal frothing at the mouth in Washington (though this isn’t limited to Liberals) whenever Trump does anything major (ill thought out and clumsily executed as they are), and yes the targeting of a single party for murder that didn’t become even more of a tragedy by the heroic acts of the police and the grace of God while some Democratic aides are “glad” it happened,… well… let’s just say we’re not seeing the “tolerance” so often championed as embodied by liberalism.

    Note this doesn’t even cover how before the election we were seeing similar behaviors and rhetoric aimed at the police.

    Yes, DB. You can sight examples of violence being perpetuated as well from people on the political Right. I’ve yet to hear anyone advocating that being on any particular side makes one a Saint compared to the other. The difference being, and what ties back to the blog post, is which ideological leanings encourage and promote violent extremism rather than the fact violent people exist in any political spectrum.

    And as much as you deny it there is much greater encouragement for such behavior from the Liberal side where there is no inherent belief in the intrinsic value of human life (at least no non-arbitrary underlining principle), combined with the moral equivalency seen in justifying any and all forms of liberal progressivism as universally good, while any idea opposed is bigoted, fascist, and evil. As such, cases of violence from the Right will always be cases in isolation, while the violent trends in the Left will indeed be a trend.

    “Yes, I stand by the statement that the Right is worse than the Left at the moment in terms of inciting political violence.”

    Like the man said- HA!

    “You (yes, you) have elected a president who – apart from his other manifold failures as a human being – has a long history of inciting political violence at his rallies.”

    This sound suspiciously like the justification ‘look how she’s dressed, she was clearly asking for it.’ Also for a guy who seems to be so incensed by leaving facts out, you might want to note all the Liberal protesters showing up at those rallies to block traffick, or (apparently paid) to deliberately start trouble.

    “Or is it that you only care about dehumanising language when it is directed at conservatives? That would make you kind of hypocrite, wouldn’t it?”

    SJ pretty much already addressed this. Try reading the post again and note the acknowledgement of violent rhetoric on the Right while he underlines the ideological differences being why one side will remain largely rhetoric while the other won’t.

    “Maybe it is worth contemplating the plank of totalitarian liabilities in your own belief system before… well, you get it.”

    What are you talking about? You just sighted an example of what happens when Big Government takes full control of it’s school system. You should be the one standing up and applauding. Maybe you have a problem with the specific decisions being made themselves, but I hardly see how the WAY Big Government acts when given full control absolves the side advocating giving them that full control. Which ain’t the smaller government side, buddy.

    • Dannyboy on June 25, 2017 at 3:44 am

    Hi EB,

    Both of you are reaching pretty hard to find ways to criticise the ADL over this pyramid, but it still isn’t justified. The page on their website where this chart is presented explicitly states that this is a hierarchy of BEHAVIOURS which increase in complexity and damage done to their target as you ascend the pyramid. It suggests that the behaviours may follow one another in time – i.e. if a population normalises systematic discrimination against a minority group then they may later come to accept violence directed against them – but not that they actually cause one another.

    “…the ADL’s portrayal of that hierarchy is simply dead wrong.”

    No, YOU are dead wrong. It is a hierarchy of behaviours which doesn’t imply causation. You and Tony’s wish for it to incorporate the ideological underpinnings, or flat-out misunderstanding of the relationships implied, is not a legitimate criticism because the chart and accompanying text do not pretend to represent any such thing.

    “I would certainly put ‘lack of belief in intrinsic value of life’ as being one of those elements that belongs on the base of the hierarchy that leads to genocide.”

    So make your own pyramid and include those ideological elements. Don’t criticise others for not doing something that they never (in this particular instance) claimed to have done.

    I’m sure the ADL would appreciate your input. It’s a strong point about a belief in the intrinsic value of life – that must be why genocide has never been committed in or by any majority-Christian societies. Except for the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo, etc…

    I hear what you say about not characterising someone’s entire work and/or claiming to have identified gaps in their knowledge from a single blog post (or, perhaps, from a single pyramid chart?). However, I think that we have been arguing this topic long enough for me to know that when one of you presents a summarised account of what led to the Holocaust, it isn’t an accident that centuries of Christian anti-semitism get left out. You guys are in the business of weaponising history in the service of your religious and political beliefs, and that requires you to be highly selective. That’s your privilege of course, but I decline to treat you as objective historians when that is clearly not what either of you are.

    You show the same interpretive flair when attempting to weaponise current events. There is violence, both in rhetoric and action, from all sides of the political spectrum, and all of it should be condemned. Funnily enough though, it only MEANS something about people not actually involved – according to you and Tony – when it comes from the Left.

    “As such, cases of violence from the Right will always be cases in isolation, while the violent trends in the Left will indeed be a trend.”

    There you have it – the perfectly unfalsifiable interpretive framework guaranteed to avoid the discomfort of political self-reflection and allow your opponents to always be shown in the worst possible light. Bravo! You have successfully insulated yourself entirely from troubling facts.

    Gosh EB, it almost sounds like you’re saying that people on the Left are really dangerous to the rest of society. Should we lock them up, do you think? Or would it be cleaner and simpler just to execute them?

    “Try reading the post again and note the acknowledgement of violent rhetoric on the Right while he underlines the ideological differences being why one side will remain largely rhetoric while the other won’t.”

    I guess you completely ignored the respective death tolls associated with Left and Right-wing extremism. That’s some really harsh rhetoric you have over there on the Right, given the much larger numbers of people who are apparently being killed by it.

    “You just sighted an example of what happens when Big Government takes full control of it’s school system.”

    Amazing.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2017 at 11:50 am

    “Both of you are reaching pretty hard to find ways to criticise the ADL over this pyramid, but it still isn’t justified.”

    There’s no reaching, as we’ve explained why this viewpoint (which isn’t limited to this pyramid) simply misses out on where the root of such BEHAVIORS really starts, and where it’s primarily promoted. If anything you’re the one who’s going to lengths to defend them, when you don’t even dispute the main thrust of SJ’s criticism.

    “- that must be why genocide has never been committed in or by any majority-Christian societies. Except for the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo, etc…”

    You forgot to include all the Biblical examples in your rant, though in those cases whether human beings were valued or not had nothing to do with it. *wink*

    In your usual manner of trying to point fingers by painting whole societies with a generalization without really disputing what truly motivated them (you ignore how much evolution played a part in justifying which groups were a ‘sub-species’ in the Holocaust, and you could call the U.S. today a “majority-Christian society” but I sure as hell wouldn’t), nothing you sight really disputes my argument. And the reason for that is because, unlike you, I can sight how such behavior is NOT in keeping with Christian principles but actively violates them. All you can do is invoke arbitrary emotional appeals, and in evolution’s case try to argue that ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t necessitate such measures at minimum, even while offering nothing that prevents them.

    Like we’ve said DB, the difference is in the underlining ideology.

    “You have successfully insulated yourself entirely from troubling facts.”

    My views are that people are flawed creations that will inevitably do wrong, and thus need to have as limited ability to harm others as possible. Government being the greatest vehicle for causing harm to many people, no matter WHO is behind the wheel of it, it thus needs to be as limited as possible and kept in constant check.

    Sorry DB, but I fail to see where in that view I need insulating from troubling facts. If anything my view seems to revolve around them, which is why if anything your attempts at finger pointing is only proving my views right rather than wrong.

    “Gosh EB, it almost sounds like you’re saying that people on the Left are really dangerous to the rest of society. Should we lock them up, do you think? Or would it be cleaner and simpler just to execute them?”

    Where has your head been all this time? We’ve spent YEARS discussing how Liberalism (as it’s currently expressed) is inherently dangerous. And for years we’ve outlined not only how and why it’s dangerous, but on what’s the best method of dealing with it. If you can sight anywhere that it’s advocated locking people up and executing them over it, please, go right ahead. I’ll wait.

    “I guess you completely ignored the respective death tolls associated with Left and Right-wing extremism. That’s some really harsh rhetoric you have over there on the Right, given the much larger numbers of people who are apparently being killed by it.”

    Like polls and the MSM, I take them with a healthy dose of skepticism. And given all you gave is percentages, one could presume the reason Leftist violence hasn’t been given a more substantial bump, is because it’s been at this level for quite awhile.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    I’ll just leave this here…
    https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/

    • Timaahy on June 26, 2017 at 2:39 am

    The conversation so far…

    DB: The pyramid describes increasing levels of behaviour, not causal relationships.
    EB: Yeah but it doesn’t show that it’s all caused by a lack of belief in human life.
    DB: Yes I know, it’s not supposed to.
    EB: Yeah but it doesn’t show that it’s all caused by a lack of belief in human life. Also people are flawed creations that will inevitably do wrong, and thus need to have as limited ability to harm others as possible. Except for guns. We should give everyone guns.

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 7:44 am
      Author

    I see the conversation so far more as:

    DB: Throws a bunch of rubbish against the wall, hopes some of it will stick.
    EB: Observes that none of it sticks.
    DB: Insists it is sticking.
    Tim: Arrives with gasoline.
    sntjohnny: Arrives with firehouse (good for gasoline and cleaning walls).

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 8:08 am
      Author

    I’m just going to make a few comments here.

    First, I would like to note the initial comment by DB:

    “A pyramid chart illustrates a hierarchy – not, as you seem to think (or at least imply that the ADL think), a causal relationship.”

    Do you work hard to miss the point, or does it just come naturally?

    You are trying to tease out of this the idea of a ‘causal relationship’ as if that’s the really important part. It isn’t. The important part is that there are a thousand other things they ought to have put in their pyramid if they were really concerned about preventing genocide, and left them out. Too bad, since those other things played more of a role in bringing about genocides than the rest of it, and oh, by the way, those things are currently percolating violently within American liberalism today.

    I don’t really think your objection here is important enough to deal with at length, so instead I’ll just give you some words by the ADL itself:

    Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs, and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide.

    Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination—particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd—all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence.

    Clearly, they believe that the items in the hierarchy are linked to each other. Its not just a series of discrete boxes, shaped in a triangle. Words and phrases like “build on one another” and “support” and “enables” all very much “imply” causation. And then there is this:

    “Laws alone, however, cannot cure the disease of hate. To do that, we need to change the conversation.”

    If they do not believe the nature of the speech is a CAUSE, then it would be dumb (really, really dumb) to think that the “disease” can be cured by “changing the conversation.”

    Now, interestingly, if we take their explanatory framework seriously, then I suppose his next lines, when compared to the anti-Trump rhetoric, should be cause for concern:

    he rhetorical excesses by so many over the past few weeks give rise to a climate in which prejudice, discrimination, and hate-fueled violence can take root.

    If I have learned anything, in the world of liberal progressives, anything a conservative says or does is bigoted, racist, fascist, etc, but they can say and do anything, and its perfectly righteous and totally justified. That’s ideology.

    Anyway, I agree with the man when he says that laws won’t “cure the disease” But it is equally dumb to think that “changing the conversation” will do it, and it is undeniable that that is precisely what they think.

    No. Its the underlying ideology that really matters. Always: Yesterday, today, tomorrow, the same.

    Oh yea: https://www.adl.org/blog/when-hateful-speech-leads-to-hate-crimes-taking-bigotry-out-of-the-immigration-debate

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 8:27 am
      Author

    DB: “Christ-splaining.”

    Meanwhile, DB is lib-splaining. Irony! Sad!

    I have another essay that has been in the works that I think will better address this idea. Obviously, there is a lot of the typical progressive junk embedded in it (ie, “defer to experts! Who are you to think for yourself! Damn you, DEFER!”), with the added idea that you cannot speak about a matter unless you’ve gone through it yourself. Which is also ironic, since, I note that you assume that I don’t actually have holocaust survivors in my ancestry. The fact that you don’t know anything about my own ancestry and what it has endured, but yet you still think you have a right to speech criticize my speech illustrates well, I think, the hypocrisy embedded in the very fabric of liberalism.

    Anyway, I have another way that I want to approach this topic, at another time. I expect it will still enrage you, but I would prefer to set the table for myself, before I invite you to knock over all the plates in your righteous indignation.

    DB: “- that must be why genocide has never been committed in or by any majority-Christian societies. Except for the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo, etc…”

    My response to this would also be in the aforementioned essay I’d like to write, and EB is handling this fine, but I would like to at least point out how this statement is again highly hypocritical. Ie, you feel that you can speak about these issues, and yet I’m pretty sure you that you and none of your relatives lived through any of them.

    Now, you can either try to understand how genocides really work in history or not try, and if indeed one must have experienced the genocide to begin with as a pre-requisite, then of course it means one cannot try at all. For, even in the case of the ADL, their own experience is tied to the Holocaust, and not, say, to Rwanda. So, on your own distorted approach to reality, the ADL could not speak to any other genocide apart from the Holocaust, and we should have to defer to what our Rwandan experts say when it comes to Rwanda. At this rate, we could never discuss genocides as a totality–which the ADL in its hubris (on your view) aimed to do.

    We could never discuss these genocides or their causes, since we did not live through them, or have family that did. We could only discuss the genocide that we ourselves live through. This is basically your view. You will not be surprised at the pejoratives I should like to lob at this view, but in view of our friendship, you’ll just have to imagine them.

    Additionally, since I would very much like to NOT see another genocide unfold for me to have to live through in order for me to speak competently about, you’ll have to forgive me if I dismiss this whole line of argument altogether and carry on.

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 8:35 am
      Author

    A very quick further follow up to this again, by DB: “- that must be why genocide has never been committed in or by any majority-Christian societies. Except for the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo, etc…”

    Of course you ought to remember that I dispute the degree in which Nazi Germany was composed of Christians. As a Christian myself, I am competent to speak to that. Since you are an atheist and not a Christian, you will have to abstain from atheist-splaining on anything having to do anything related to Christianity, past, present or future. Thanks.

    Secondly, I would be careful opening this door, unless it is only to really understand genocides (which, having not endured a genocide yourself, I don’t know how you’ll ever be able to do it, but still). My post was basically in reference to the current situation in Western Civ and its current fascination with raising superficialities up as foundational matters, but if you want to expand it to the globe, I’d be happy to include Rwanda… and also atheistic Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc… and then we can stack up the bodies, and see which stack is higher.

    In doing so, we’d only be illustrating my argument for Christianity: All people are fallen, all people are sinners, all people are inclined to violence and evil–yes, Christians too… that’s kind of the POINT. LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLLOLL

    LOLOOLOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL

    LOLOOLOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL

    LOLOOLOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL

    LOLOOLOOOOOOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL

    And yet, as such, recognizing that mankind is evil is itself a check and balance against the worst abuses that man can do–hence why the stack of bodies accumulated by adherents of the ideology that man is essentially good is much, much larger than the stack of bodies by adherents of the opposite idea.

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 8:38 am
      Author

    “”Will today’s assassination diminish the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the American left?””

    “Not to diminish the reprehensibility of what occurred, but it can’t really be an “assassination” if no one died.”

    Seriously?

    I understand that I singled you out in this post, so I expected a pointed response, but this is an obvious lack of charity, don’t you think?

    Only a sentence or so later, I then say:

    “But will today’s assassination attempt cause anyone to evaluate their ideology?”

    I think you know very well that I meant to put the word ‘attempt’ in the sentence, and somehow it didn’t make it. Don’t you.

    • End Bringer on June 26, 2017 at 8:42 am

    It probably also should be noted that the very concept of a pyramid does indeed imply a casual relationship, as the top is made to stand only due to being held up by a broader bottom. If it was really a simple ‘hierarchy’ of intesity as DB insists it’d be illustrated better as a straight vertical climb like a ladder or temperature gauge.

    But again, this is a tangent at best.

    • Dannyboy on June 26, 2017 at 10:22 am

    “I’m just going to make a few comments here.”

    Lol, no you very much aren’t! This is a keyboard rage essay if ever I saw one. 🙂

    Look, imagine that the pyramid wasn’t about behaviours leading to genocide. Imagine it was about underage sex or something – a chart helping teens to understand what kind of things to look out for that could otherwise lead to them having sex before they’re ready. Low down on the pyramid would be flirting, a little higher up kissing, removing clothes and then right at the top, sex. This would be a useful real world tool to help young people identify activities which alone might not seem too significant, but which if not checked could lead to really disappointing outcome measures for the local abstinence-only programme. Nobody wants that!

    How much sense would it make to criticise such a pyramid by saying that it ought to include teenage hormones and lustful thoughts (or sin, if you prefer)? You can’t see any of those things, so they’re not very useful as practical warning signs. While the critic might be quite correct about the root causes of underage sex, their specific criticism of the chart would be unfair, because it never purported to represent those things in the first place. And although the items on the pyramid would obviously be associated with each other, it would also be unfair to imply that it’s authors intended to suggest that flirting is the root cause of underage sex.

    ?That’s what you did. I said that I thought you were wrong, and now you say that it isn’t important. Ok then, glad we got that sorted out.

    Just out of curiosity, how would you hope to influence ideology, if not by changing the conversation?

    Psychic powers? :)?

    “DB: “Christ-splaining.”?Meanwhile, DB is lib-splaining. Irony! Sad!”

    I just thought of the expression, and it made me chuckle. Plus I knew that you would LOVE it. I also enjoyed getting the chance to use the phrase “jump the shark”, which I believe is originally a Happy Days reference – set in Milwaukee! A vintage Wisconsin motif, just for you.

    But no, just to dispense with 50% of the rest of your response, I don’t believe that only people who have actually experienced something have a right to speak about it.

    ?”Of course you ought to remember that I dispute the degree in which Nazi Germany was composed of Christians.”

    Ah, the “No True Christians” debate. Yes I remember it well. It is not an unreasonable argument, although as we progress further down the rabbit hole one could start to wonder what you think the ACTUAL Christian population of the world is. Does it still deserve to be counted as a major world religion, since so many of its self-proclaimed adherents can be ruled out of contention (when convenient)?

    “…you will have to abstain from atheist-splaining…”

    ‘Lib-splaining’ was better. ‘Atheist’ has too many syllables. These things matter dude.

    ?”I’d be happy to include Rwanda… and also atheistic Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc… and then we can stack up the bodies, and see which stack is higher.”

    Would you care to do that with extreme Right-wing vs extreme Left-wing violence in the US? I think it’s the only bit of my remarks that you have not responded to, so should I just assume that you know the respective domestic death tolls go against your thesis?

    ?I like that you accused me of an “obvious lack of charity” in the same breath as putting the worst possible construction on my words. No, I didn’t notice that you correctly referred to it as an “attempted assassination” further down, and so I didn’t realise that the first use was a typo rather than a deliberately political use of language.

    Here’s another way that exchange could have gone:

    ?DB: It can’t really be an assassination if no one died.
    SJ: My bad. I accidentally left a word out – meant to say “attempted assassination”.
    DB: Ah, ok. That makes sense now.
    SJ: No worries.

    Maybe next time, hey?
    ?

    EB,

    One thing you said:

    “Government being the greatest vehicle for causing harm to many people, no matter WHO is behind the wheel of it, it thus needs to be as limited as possible and kept in constant check.”

    Government is also the greatest vehicle for helping people, so while there can definitely be too much of it there can also certainly be too little. The odds of any of us having survived past the age of five were hugely improved by the fact that we grew up in countries with large & functional governments that ensured safe water supplies, prevented violence, restricted pollutants etc. If you think you didn’t benefit from that then you’re deluding yourself. So tell me how small you want government to be, and then we’ll talk.

    Oh yes, and this:

    ?”If you can sight anywhere that it’s advocated locking people up and executing them over it, please, go right ahead. I’ll wait.”

    ?Where have I ever said anything like that either? He who lives by the slippery slope, dies by the slippery slope. Unless the government have installed handrails or something. Then he’ll be free to complain bitterly about them throughout his long and lucky life.

    • Dannyboy on June 26, 2017 at 10:24 am

    There’s a lot of weird extra question marks in that response for some reason.

    • Anthony on June 26, 2017 at 11:03 am
      Author

    “Lol, no you very much aren’t! This is a keyboard rage essay if ever I saw one. ?”

    No, really. I forced myself to not reply to a ton of stuff. Also, I copied and pasted from the ADL. So, it just looks like a lot.

    “Look, imagine that the pyramid wasn’t about behaviours leading to genocide.”

    Sorry, but as EB says, the reason why its a pyramid in the first place communicates a relationship between the items. I copied the ADL text to make it clear that they did in fact see that one thing tended to lean towards the next thing, with genocide at the top and, in the main, weird liberal talking points at the bottom.

    “Just out of curiosity, how would you hope to influence ideology, if not by changing the conversation?”

    Now THAT is a good question. Finally!

    “I just thought of the expression, and it made me chuckle. Plus I knew that you would LOVE it. I also enjoyed getting the chance to use the phrase “jump the shark”, which I believe is originally a Happy Days reference – set in Milwaukee! A vintage Wisconsin motif, just for you.”

    heh

    “But no, just to dispense with 50% of the rest of your response, I don’t believe that only people who have actually experienced something have a right to speak about it.”

    Following from the shark reference, I’m not sure I want to take the time to ‘fish’ it out, but I’m pretty sure you have made comments precisely of that sort. But perhaps I’m thinking of Tim, where I am CERTAIN of the case.

    “Ah, the “No True Christians” debate.”

    No, actually. It was a, “You apparently have no idea just what the status of Christian adherence was in Germany at the time–even among ‘Christians.’ May I suggest–again–that you begin your attempt to ground your views in the actual historical reality with the life and times of Rudolf Bultmann.

    “what you think the ACTUAL Christian population of the world is.”

    Ah, well, I should think that ACTUAL Christians ought to believe in God and that Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, for starters.

    Just like you think that ACTUAL atheists should not ACTUALLY believe in God.

    But, you are close kin with someone who does not believe in God but who nonetheless is a pastor, right? So maybe that explains why this bit of logic is hard to accept. 🙂

    “‘Lib-splaining’ was better. ‘Atheist’ has too many syllables. These things matter dude.”

    Fair enough, but “ath-splaining” could be misconstrued if said aloud, so I decided against it.

    “Would you care to do that with extreme Right-wing vs extreme Left-wing violence in the US? I think it’s the only bit of my remarks that you have not responded to,”

    Say what? You said a lot of… oh, well, I suppose my comments could be construed as being so powerful and encompassing that they neatly dealt with nearly all of your comments. 😉

    I don’t think I will respond to this until I’ve spent some time detailing my views on ‘Right-wing’ vs. ‘Left-wing.’ For example, you include the KKK as ‘Right-wing’ which is a curious thing to do, since it was founded by leftists and remained indisputably Democrat territory until the 1960s or so. (That it is now the accusation that the GOP panders that way is irrelevant to this point, so follow along). My guess is that you would add all of the people lynched by the KKK in, say, 1890, with the ‘right wing’ and all of logic and the real historical record would put it on the ‘left.’

    You also put the Nazis and fascists on the ‘right’ whereas I firmly believe they ought to be seen as offshoots of the ‘left.’ So, I’m happy to have that conversation, but not until I’ve penned a more thorough treatment on the ‘right’ vs ‘left’ paradigm. Hint: I don’t think the paradigm is very helpful, except in very, very broad terms. Unfortunately, its all that I have to work with until I take the time to distinguish my own views.

    “No, I didn’t notice that you correctly referred”

    Far be it from me to assume you read what I wrote, carefully, before replying. 🙂

    • End Bringer on June 26, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    “Government is also the greatest vehicle for helping people, so while there can definitely be too much of it there can also certainly be too little.”

    And it’s in the cause of helping people that has lead to the greatest acts of suffering for the multitudes. Road to Hell and all that.

    The difference is in acknowledging the fact there are people who aren’t at all interested in ‘helping people’ or the simple fact the most well intentioned person will screw up. Faced with this reality, one must come to terms that the best way for a government to ‘help people’ is to largely stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. ‘Helping” really shouldn’t be what a government is about. There are plenty of other avenues and institutions for that (mostly when aide and charity begins with the citizen, not a bureaucracy).

    “The odds of any of us having survived past the age of five were hugely improved by the fact that we grew up in countries with large & functional governments that ensured safe water supplies, prevented violence, restricted pollutants etc. If you think you didn’t benefit from that then you’re deluding yourself.”

    I’d say the acts of individual ingenuity played a larger role, and that this statement only applies in the context of specific societies that largely prospered because they didn’t start out as all that large. Why don’t you pose your question to people from North Korea or even Venezuela? I think you’ll find many who’d gladly trade all that if it meant reducing government power.

    • Timaahy on June 26, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    “It probably also should be noted that the very concept of a pyramid does indeed imply a casual relationship”

    Um… no. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs…? The Food Pyramid? Human Pyramids? The list is endless.

    Also… as a Christian, I didn’t think you’d be into casual relationships. 🙂

    • Timaahy on June 26, 2017 at 7:32 pm

    “But perhaps I’m thinking of Tim, where I am CERTAIN of the case.”

    Haha, no that’s not me either.

    • End Bringer on June 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Trust me Timmy, when you’ve had bratworst, apple cinnamon pancakes with strawberry syrup, and creamed toast for breakfast, that Food Pyramid can be described less as a ‘casual relationship’ and more of a ‘loud angry sex-marathon’ right in your colon.

    • Timaahy on June 27, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    HAHAHAAA… EB… credit where it’s due… that made me lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.