Home » Politics
Category Archives: Politics
It never fails. On every article, video, etc., of safety tips or techniques for women on self defense, someone will say something on the variation, “Why don’t we just teach men not to rape?”
Oh my goodness, what a brilliant idea! I can’t believe no one ever thought of this before! Why stop at rape? We’ll just teach everyone not to do bad things. We’ll include character development and ethics in schools, and pretty soon we won’t have to worry about crime ever again. We’ll be able to spend all day holding hands and singing Kumbaya and we’ll have world peace.
If only someone had pulled young Adolf Hitler aside and told him that genocide is wrong. Then the Holocaust never would have happened, right?
Bad people do bad things because they are bad people. The want money, power, or that’s how they get their jollies, or whatever. They don’t rob, rape, and murder people just because they don’t know any better.
Not to mention that saying we should just teach men not to rape assumes that every man is a potential rapist, which is both insulting and sexist.
Let’s look at the case of Brock Turner. Turner was a 20 year old freshman at Stanford, when he was discovered by two other Stanford students sexually assaulting a young woman who was passed out, drunk. Turner was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months. Many people were furious that he got such a light sentence. Even worse, he only served three months of that sentence, getting out early for “good behavior.”
Turner’s father had pleaded for leniency for his son. He claimed that prison “…Is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 year life.” “20 minutes of action” is quite the euphemism for rape. Unsurprisingly, many people were livid and horrified by this casual dismissal of sexual assault.
Turner tried to blame it on the alcohol. His victim explained in her statement “That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.”
Now let’s go back to the “just teach men not to rape” claim. If it’s true that we just need to teach men not to rape, and then everything will be hunky-dory, then we would accept Turner’s claims about alcohol at face value. He was confused and didn’t know any better. Therefore, we should all be satisfied with his three month sentence, secure in the knowledge that now that he knows better, everything is fine.
But people aren’t fine with it. Why not? Because people don’t really believe that Turner just didn’t know any better. Because rape is a heinous crime and should be treated as such, and not excused as “20 minutes of action.”
It makes sense, in a world that contains people like Brock Turner, to teach people how to protect themselves. There is no magic wand to rid the world of evil. No amount of education or “raising awareness” will eliminate people who prey on other people. The best recourse is to take measures to protect yourself. It isn’t sexist or victim-blaming or perpetuating rape culture to teach young women (or anyone else) how to not be victims.
Whining about how we should just “teach men not to rape” is fairy-tale virtue signaling that accomplishes nothing. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are other people who are actually trying to help.
Don’t be a victim. Fight back.
- Psychological Factors Underlying Criminal Behavior, by Melita Schmideberg (pdf)
- Article from Psychology Today
I’m sure you’ve heard about the riots at UC Berkeley. Milo Yiannopolous was invited to speak there. Students rioted, throwing bricks and fireworks, attacking students who tried to attend, and calling Milo fascist and hateful. UC Berkeley failed to give Milo sufficient police protection, and instead the event was canceled.
If you look on social media, you’ll find people disgusted by the actions of the rioters and the spinelessness of the university.
There are also plenty of people applauding their actions, for expressing their views and protecting others from hate-speech.
It must take a lot of double-think to call someone else fascist while threatening and attacking others and destroying property to keep someone from expressing their opinions.
Not to mention, Milo is not a policy-maker. He’s also not an American – he’s from the UK. He has zero ability to directly affect American laws and regulations. He’s a journalist and senior editor for Breitbart News. What was he going to do at UC Berkeley? Talk. That’s it. All he was going to do was present his opinions. Contrary to the accusations, Milo has not advocated for violence against anyone. (If you don’t believe me, go find out for yourself.) Non-violent talk never merits a violent reaction.
The riot and cancellation say a lot more about the rioters than the speaker. If you become so unhinged at just the thought of someone articulating an opinion contrary to your own that you start throwing things and attacking people, I suggest you seek professional help. If this was a calm and calculated decision, you are a psychopath who needs to be in jail.
The school claims it wasn’t Berkeley students who were the rioters. Their evidence? “That’s not our students’ behavior.” But, since the individuals who started the violence were masked, and not arrested (reports vary between zero and one arrest), I can’t say that the university’s assertion (repeated as fact by the left-leaning media), is terribly convincing.
Back to the irony of violent protestors calling someone else a fascist. Fascism means (according to Merriam-Webster): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”
I’d like to highlight that last part: “Forcible suppression of opposition.” Which side of the political spectrum is actually practicing the forcible suppression of opposition? It certainly wasn’t the Republican club on campus who invited Milo to speak.
If you really are confident that you are right, why not let someone else speak? If you are right, and they are wrong, other people will be able to figure that out, and they will side with you. If someone is resorting to violence to prevent someone else from speaking, maybe it’s because they know, deep down, that they aren’t so right after all, and they’re afraid that if they let someone else speak, other people will realize it too.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide who really is the fascist.
- Milo’ Addresses the UC Berkeley Riots
- UC Berkeley’s statement about the riots
- Breitbart’s commentary about UC Berkeley’s statement
- Mercury News: UC Berkeley riot raises questions about free speech
Ah, yes, the old “liberals are compassionate, and conservatives are selfish” canard.
See, this is why conservatives can’t have a decent debate with a liberal. If we disagree with you on anything, it must be because we’re horrible people. It couldn’t possibly be for any other reason, such as, oh, I don’t know:
- It’s a nice idea, but we can’t afford it
- You’re making the “problem” into a much bigger deal than it really is
- Private enterprise will provide a better and more efficient solution
- Government “solutions” tend to create just as many (if not more) problems than they purport to fix
- Once you create a government bureaucracy, it never stops growing
- Government power corrupts – even if you have good people administering a government program right now (and that’s a big if), you can’t guarantee the power will never be usurped by someone who will abuse it
- We’re pretty sure it’s just a shameless power grab
- We value liberty, just like our Founding Fathers did, and we believe people are capable of making their own decisions
I’m sure other people have yet other reasons for opposing an ever-larger government. We won’t know until we ask them.
That’s what you need to do. If someone has an opposing opinion to your own, ask them why they think that way instead of assuming it’s because they’re stupid, or selfish, or bigoted.
But that takes time. It requires effort and genuine compassion to get to know someone and fairly consider their contrary views. It’s much easier to call them names and declare that you’ve “won.”
Whatever happened to the famed liberal “tolerance”? I guess it only applies to people who agree with them.
So, a friend of mine on Facebook posted this meme. Naturally, I had to comment. One of her other friends responded, and we went at it for a little while. Here is the conversation, verbatim:
Me: So tired of this pity party. No modern American is a slave owner or a slave. I have never heard any American say slavery is acceptable or anything but a horrible practice. I refuse to feel guilty or over something I had nothing to do with.
Other gal: You have everything to do with it IF you do nothing!!!! Segregation was as recent as the 60s. Think about that. Watch “The Butler” no one is asking you to feel guilty. But you might want to examine your defensive towards the thought of even being faced with the facts.
Me: I’m fully aware of the facts of slavery. If you think no one is trying to make me feel guilty, reread your own post. You seem to think I’m responsible by saying I need to do something about slavery and segregation, both of which are already illegal.
Other gal: I said “if” you do nothing, so IF you do nothing then you have nothing to feel guilty about. So good. Im just trying to get you to understand that your defensiveness is for what?
Me: If you don’t see how much the left loves to wallow in white guilt, then I can not help you understand. Have a nice day.
Other gal: Im not the one who feels guilty
I didn’t respond. But if I did, it would have been something like: As I already stated, I do not feel guilty. Also, I don’t like my own comments on Facebook. Narcissist much?
Seriously, she liked her own comments. (As in, clicked “like” underneath them.) I actually laughed out loud when I saw that, and that was what really made me decide to no longer respond to her. Someone that narcissistic is not going to give you a very good conversation.
I also didn’t add in the grammatical errors. Those are all hers.
Now, I would also like to add in a few other points.
The left (of all colors) truly does love to wallow in white guilt. Here are a few examples:
- “10 ways white people are more racist than they realize” from Salon
- “9 clueless things white people say when confronted with racism” from The Daily Dot
- “Yes, All White People Are Racists – – Now Let’s Do Something About It” from the AlterNet
- “Why all white people are racist, but can’t handle being called racist: the theory of white fragility” from STATE OF OPPORTUNITY
- “29 Stupid Things White People Do and What We Can Do Instead” from Baltimore Racial Justice Action
As you can see, there is definitely a chunk of public opinion that says white people are racist, end of story. Even being liberal won’t save you from being called racist. Then there are those who only call whites who are conservative racist. Disagreeing with a liberal means you are racist.
I refuse to wallow in white guilt. I am responsible for my actions. So is every other human being on the planet. People of German ancestry are not responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust. People of Japanese ancestry are not responsible for Japanese war crimes during WWII. People of Russian ancestry are not responsible for Stalin’s purges. I could go on, but I think I make my point. We are not responsible for atrocities that occurred before we were even born (or when we were small children).
Segregation was not a conspiracy of white business owners. It was state-mandated. White business owners couldn’t make their businesses non-segregated even if they wanted to. Segregation had the force of law to support it, just as slavery had until it was abolished. This demonstrates the need to abolish government overreach just as much as it is evidence of racism.
It’s interesting that, in the meme, the word free is in quotation marks. The creator was trying to make a snarky point that black people aren’t really free right now, because of racism. Let’s ponder that for a moment.
Government welfare now provides health care, food, housing, and education to those who can not afford it for themselves, provided the individuals show themselves to be poor enough.
Do you know who else provided food, clothing, and shelter for their dependents? Slave owners.
Indeed, dependency on the government makes you, regardless of color, a slave, and the government your master. We would all be better off if everyone, rather than trying to blame history, took responsibility for their own lives.
So, it all started with this meme. We know about memes. Memes are meant to convey a single point in a concise way, and usually try to be clever about it. A friend of mine posted this one to Facebook. It sure generated a lot of action.
Multiple times, my friend clarified that he does not include rape victims who get pregnant and similar situations, but, rather, a need for the average person to make responsible choices before getting pregnant. On one particular thread, this conversation happened:
Other guy: Then, your MEME is a terrible representation of that, and lacks any kind of context for nuanced discussion.
Also, what about the girl who was raised in a very sheltering community and once she gets out into the world as a young adult believes a guy when he tells her that he can’t get her pregnant because he was in an accident and had his spleen removed. (I know someone who this happened to.) And got pregnant anyway. What about that 19 year old girl? Is it still her responsibility because her parents and community failed her?
Me: The meme is clear. It refers to the choice to have sex. Obviously that disincludes rape.
Other guy: The MEME is not clear. Because the picture of the woman holding the sign is anything but clear. Can you tell me what her motivation is for standing and protesting? Nope. Because you don’t know what it is. “MY BODY MY CHOICE” could mean, “I have the right to an abortion” if I want, or “I have the right to have unprotected sex, and then abort the baby because it’s inconvenient,” or it could mean, “It’s my body what choices I make about my body, no matter what those choices happen to be are nobody’s fucking business but the people who I choose to include in the discussion, period.”
That’s part of the problem with this kind of one-or-the-other image. It isn’t meant to foster discussion, or critical thinking, or compassion.
Me: Those three options you listed all boil down to the same thing. Guess you really did understand the meme, you just don’t like what it has to say.
Other guy: Can’t decide if you’re trying to troll or just being obtuse, because if you think option three boils down to the same thing as the other two, it makes me think you’re really not looking at the greater scope of the issue, and not even interested in looking at this in anything other than “right” or “wrong” and if it disagrees with my version of “right” it’s “wrong.”
Tell you what. Go read some of the other discussion points on this thread, and get back to me when you have responses to all of the situations and scenarios I brought up.
Me: All three options boil down to “I can have an abortion if I want to, and you can’t say anything about it.”
Other guy: Okay. So, it’s obtuse.
Me: You call for compassion, but when I disagree with your analysis, you call me stupid. Very compassionate of you.
Other guy: No. I did not call you stupid. If I was going to call you stupid, I would have said stupid. Also, when I first mentioned it, I said, “Can’t decide if you’re trying to troll or just being obtuse,” which doesn’t speak to how you are approaching this discussion, not any sort of commentary about you as a person. When, in my response, I said, So, it’s obtuse.” I was just reaffirming my previous statement assessment about this discussion.
With that, I think that you’ve got too many emotions wrapped up in this discussion so I’ll leave it at that.
Then I blocked him.
There you have it, folks. Another example of liberal hypocrisy at its finest. Call someone names, then deny it and call them emotional when they call you on it.
I actually wrote this post a few years ago, but never published it, knowing the backlash I’ll probably get. Here it is anyway.
I was talking to a young liberal acquaintance of mine about what she wants to do with her life. She said she wanted to study abroad. I was responding politely when she suddenly mentioned that she will possibly study in Dubai.
“You heard about the Norwegian tourist who went do Dubai, didn’t you?” I asked. I’d mentally debated whether or not I should say anything, and decided to mention it out of a feeling of responsibility towards my (apparently very naive) friend. She answered that she had not heard about the tourist. So I filled her in.
A Norwegian woman went to Dubai on vacation and was raped. When she reported it to the authorities, she was thrown into jail. (For more details, see this article on BBC News)
My friend’s reaction?
“Well, I’m going as a student, so that’s different.”
Right. I’m sure the rapists will stop to ask you what kind of visa you have.
“I don’t know about their culture, about their beliefs.”
You know enough to know that rape is wrong. If this had happened in Texas, you’d be cussing out Republicans, petitioning Congress, and leading protests. And well you should! Because what happened to this woman is a heinous crime! But, because this happened in a predominantly Muslim country, apparently it’s okay. We just have to understand their culture and beliefs.
“I wouldn’t go to any country without learning about their culture.”
I’m sure the rapists will stop to ask you how much you know about Islam.
The verdict is in. Apparently, rape is okay if it’s part of your beliefs and/or culture. Or, maybe, if we “understood” more about Islam, somehow incidents like this wouldn’t happen.
That would be because no non-Muslim would ever travel to a Muslim country.
Not to mention that this is implying the Norwegian woman was raped because she didn’t understand the culture. That sure sounds a lot like the “blaming the victim” thing that liberals supposedly don’t like.
Before anyone decides to call me a bigot (too late), I’ll say this: of course not all Muslims are rapists. Nevertheless, the United Arab Emirates is ruled by a monarchy with law based on Sharia. Perhaps that has something do with Marteh Deborah Dalalv’s experience? No western country would throw a woman in jail for being raped. Sounds like Sharia law allows rapists to get away with their evil acts.
Pretending Ms. Dalelv’s experience doesn’t matter helps no one. Not Muslims who are good, decent people, and not innocent women. Throwing a woman into jail for being raped is not okay. It’s so far from okay that I’m surprised anyone could act as nonchalantly about it as my friend did.
My point isn’t to say that Islam is bad. Many Muslims are perfectly nice people, just trying to live their lives like the rest of us. My point is that institutionalized Sharia law is a problem, particularly when it comes to how it treats women and crimes against them, and yet a typical liberal response is to pretend this isn’t a problem for the sake of not appearing “inclusive” and “tolerant.”
I’m sure I’ll get called many names for this post, but it needed to be said.