Cadeveo said...
It's always the thing that they want you to believe is reasonable that gets paraded out first.It's called the "Yes frame" in hypnosis.
You string together a bunch of non-threatening/non-controversial/seemingly reasonable statements together that you can be assured the average person will say "yes" to...then you slip in the suggestions you want them to go by. If the average person's already been saying "yes" to whatever you've been kicking out for awhile, the rational filter tends to shut off, s/he becomes suggestible, and it is harder for him to pause and say "no."
Yes, it's reasonable that someone should not be beaten up simply for "who they are". Yes, it's reasonable that someone should not be the victim of violence due to who they "love".These are non-controversial sentiments taken alone. But from those statements to the proposition that there should be such a thing as "hate crime" that is legislated against is another thing.
Who decides what is and isn't a "hate crime"? Will you be really surprised when the definition of such gets modified to criminalize the greatest number of actions, thoughts and statements possible?
I sure won't. If it is already a crime to assault someone, murder someone, stalk someone, etc., what is the real point of these redundant "hate" crime designations?
To further reduce the rights of the people to free speech, for one. Just look to Europe. It is considered a "hate crime" to be a Holocaust denier there. Now, that's problematic. One, because it's apparently only a "hate crime" to deny one very particular Holocaust while you can deny the Holocaust the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians or the U.S. government against the Native populations of North America or the Holocaust the British perpetrated against the Irish by orchestrating the so-called "Potato Famine", for example, all the live-long day without anyone so much as making a gas face.
I may not "like" that someone would claim the Shoa didn't happen, but that's a far cry from them shooting up a synagogue (which is crime enough without calling it a "hate" crime).
That's where this "hate crime" concept inevitably leads. Today, it's used to increase penalties on already existent crimes strictly based on the thought processes of the perpetrator--one guy gets twice as much time for the "same crime" simply based on the "thoughts" he had while doing it. Where it ends, is that the "thoughts" themselves become illegal.
That's dangerous shit, especially when you think about who will determine the thoughts to be rendered illegal. Say hello to the Global Fascist Corporate State. It will be just as much a thought crime to question the violence IT perpetrates against the masses as it is for someone to believe some dumbass racist/sexist/whateverist story.
22 comments:
You sure seem obsessed with gayness DV. I think it is cool to accept people as they are. Whatever they might flow like; God judges them. So long as they aren't a rapist or a child molester, or a liar I'm cool with a person.
Sista M.
Come on now. We've been talking about this for a minute.
This has nothing to do with "gayness" (whatever that means).
I think you know that.
It's about the use of propaganda masquerading as Identity Politics to achieve a secondary agenda.
CNN did a piece called "Black In America".
Remember that?
Then they did "Black In America II".
Remember that.
Next is "Gay In America".
Why?
By equating Gayness and Blackness as separate but equal competing groups you neutralize the political power of the real group: Americans.
"A Hate crime occurs every hour ..."
A "Hate Crime"?
What is that?
Are there "Love Crimes"?
There are a million people in prison for nonviolent drug crimes ... does that qualify as a "hate crime"?
That little black boy in Chicago ... got hit in the head on the way home from school ... was that a Hate crime?
Why not?
If he had been a gay 16 year old kid, would it have been a Hate crime?
OK.
I see.
It's a Hate Crime when certain people are victims of the crime.
If you bust a regular black kid in the head you get 3 years. If you bust a gay black kid in the head you get 7 years.
If the kid had been Jewish would it have been a Hate crime?
You see the problem with establishing different laws for different groups?
It's a trick.
A head fake.
They get you to go along with some super sympathetic shit like in the video ... "Oooohhhh DV! What do you have against Gaaaaay people!! Come on! Why shouldn't we rubber stamp this propaganda?"
It's a trick M. Hegelian Head Fake.
There are a million people in prison for nonviolent drug crimes ... does that qualify as a "hate crime"?
-Of course. Hate crimes are typically against a certain group of people.
If you bust a regular black kid in the head you get 3 years. If you bust a gay black kid in the head you get 7 years.
- I see where you're going here. RuPaul is no more important than the homie Paul.
By equating Gayness and Blackness as separate but equal competing groups you (okay)
"neutralize the political power of the real group: Americans."
-You lost me. Expound.
M. Rigmaiden,
The problem with fanatical homosexual sympathizers is that they spiritually and intellectually ADOPT the radically autonomous worldview of the devout homosexual.
For instance, they will AGREE that greater punishment should be meted out to those that violate homosexuals FOR BEING homosexual.
Or, they will claim homosexual coupling to be equal to marriage.
Or, they will say two dads are equal to a mother and father in the rearing of children.
And so it is one thing to accept people as they are BUT it is a whole other thing to say that speaking out against those attempting to fundamentally alter our society in a HOMOSEXUAL WAY is bigoted, hateful or wrong.
Because you do the second while the reality is that most homosexuals live in incredible freedom (excluding their homosexuality), you paint yourself as a homosexual radical.
The only thing that stops you from full blown autonomy is your stand against abortion.
It is your unprincipled exception.
""neutralize the political power of the real group: Americans."
-You lost me. Expound." O. Mahogany
Here's what iThink:
Divide n Rule is an effective tool. When you split people up according to their social and/or biological differences, its called the ghettoisation of a pple.
Those that hold power can continue to oppress the pple in their smaller groups and the pple can't mobilise collectively to topple the oligarchs because the groups are too busy fighting for their own rights and fighting against each other to realise they have a common oppressor.
Gay Rights, Black Rights, Women's Rights, Human Rights, Animal Rights...Military Gay Rights.
The more you divide, the more differences you create to rule effectively.
Those who 'celebrate' their differences and 'don't see colour' are politically neutered sheep ready to be tossed into the monocultural melting pot of 'Americanness' which is what Whoopi and friends are doing in this vid...its beyond being gay.
And please note I'm not saying all Rights activism is irrelevant, but when its paraded as a celebration of multiculturalism/multisexualism of a ghettoised and martyred group as this...it is.
Its like the silliness of 'its cool to be Black these days' has become 'its cool to Gay these days' or like all those warm fuzzy feeling commercials: "iAm an American", "iAm Tiger Woods" or "iAm a PC."
I dig it.
This is a matter of great concern when it comes to lawmaking and congress. Lobbyists for this org and that org are like whores on the stroll to congressman. They've heard it and had it all. The gv'ment issues out grants and tax breaks for starving rights groups who end up dying anyway due to lack of funding and lack of support..
They get you to go along with some super sympathetic shit like in the video ... "Oooohhhh DV! What do you have against Gaaaaay people!! Come on! Why shouldn't we rubber stamp this propaganda?"
Plus using celebrities makes it easier to brainwash people. " Hey Whoopi says it's okay so ....."
Whatever mane! I got more things to worry about than who is screwing who. And since I don't watch television and seriously filter out all media played in my home, best believe I am careful what I allow my boy to see...I'm just telling it like it is...YES the emphasis on being over sexualized in our society is large, as you've pointed out. It isn't just regarding homosexuals, it's also with heteros and bis as well. The reason is that we are labelling ourselves by whom we choose to screw as base as it may sound...and until we get away from labelling ourselves in this way we will still be tripping off of who is sleeping with who.
I don't give a good damn who is screwing who UNLESS we are talking about rape or child molestation. You'd probably do well to implement a similar policy along practical lines.
M. Rigmaiden,
Again, you attempt to moderate someone's deeper truth with an acknowledgement that you refuse to look at the problem clearly. The homosexual agenda isn't about who they do, but about who we are.
And that's where DV's dialectic breaks down. It breaks down at the homosexual level because devout homosexuals perpetuate the most radical meme. The devout homosexual believes in radical autonomy. The devout homosexual SEEKS an existence without the impediment of God and His restraint. Radical autonomy is the nature of the devout HOMOsexual. But ultimately, because God exists, the radical autonomy of the devout homosexual becomes a drive towards self-annihilation. Because God exists, death becomes the only path to true freedom and the isolation it will bring with one's lack of faith but true belief and longing for radical autonomy. An existence with no relation.
It's always the thing that they want you to believe is reasonable that gets paraded out first. It's called the "Yes frame" in hypnosis. You string together a bunch of non-threatening/non-controversial/seemingly reasonable statements together that you can be assured the average person will say "yes" to...then you slip in the suggestions you want them to go by. If the average person's already been saying "yes" to whatever you've been kicking out for awhile, the rational filter tends to shut off, s/he becomes suggestible, and it is harder for him to pause and say "no." Yes, it's reasonable that someone should not be beaten up simply for "who they are". Yes, it's reasonable that someone should not be the victim of violence due to who they "love". These are non-controversial sentiments taken alone. But from those statements to the proposition that there should be such a thing as "hate crime" that is legislated against is another thing. Who decides what is and isn't a "hate crime"? Will you be really surprised when the definition of such gets modified to criminalize the greatest number of actions, thoughts and statements possible? I sure won't. If it is already a crime to assault someone, murder someone, stalk someone, etc., what is the real point of these redundant "hate" crime designations? To further reduce the rights of the people to free speech, for one. Just look to Europe. It is considered a "hate crime" to be a Holocaust denier there. Now, that's problematic. One, because it's apparently only a "hate crime" to deny one very particular Holocaust while you can deny the Holocaust the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians or the U.S. government against the Native populations of North America or the Holocaust the British perpetrated against the Irish by orchestrating the so-called "Potato Famine", for example, all the live-long day without anyone so much as making a gas face. I may not "like" that someone would claim the Shoa didn't happen, but that's a far cry from them shooting up a synagogue (which is crime enough without calling it a "hate" crime). That's where this "hate crime" concept inevitably leads. Today, it's used to increase penalties on already existent crimes strictly based on the thought processes of the perpetrator--one guy gets twice as much time for the "same crime" simply based on the "thoughts" he had while doing it. Where it ends, is that the "thoughts" themselves become illegal. That's dangerous shit, especially when you think about who will determine the thoughts to be rendered illegal. Say hello to the Global Fascist Corporate State. It will be just as much a thought crime to question the violence IT perpetrates against the masses as it is for someone to believe some dumbass racist/sexist/whateverist story.
Cadeveo, you are right inasmuch as the framing and hypnosis is concerned. This is why it is crucial to moderate media that you allow your children to see and that you allow your own self to see!
TD you are reaching. You are putting words in my mouth. Whatever. Just mind your own business and focus on raising your own kids. I'm certain they'll do better with one on one attention.
I will raise my boy the right way and you guys can raise your kids the right way. Anything else is conversation.
In the end, I really don't care who is sleeping with who nor do I want to hear about it either. This is why I don't own a television.
I put my money where my mouth is and don't allow this shit to be seen in my home. Can you say the same?
Damn. And I didn't separate out the paragraphs in my other comment. Now that'll make something look like a paranoid rant quicker than anything...
Cadeveo its all good. Sometimes we need to rant to get our feelings off the chest!
This is why it is crucial to moderate media that you allow your children to see
Now, that's a meme.
For as much as someone would want to limit the propaganda TV induces to their children, it is impossible to completely avoid the influence of it in their daily lives.
Unless they live in a box.
I don't think TV is the absolute manipulator of a child's mind either.
It is more society itself.
How do you moderate that?
How would you avoid an homosexual teacher in a elementary school?
How would you avoid your children to be influenced by that?
Being that, an indirect or direct influence.
It is impossible M.
The propaganda matrix is where we live.
We are part of it.
We cannot avoid it.
We can only confront it.
You can only prepare your children for the battle or act like there is no war; avoid the reality and then let them out of the cage with no mind-sword to fight.
The predominant collective mind is easily persuaded by the mass propaganda hypnosis, those who try to avoid it or question it are to be crucified for their logic.
Thought police at work.
There is no way to avoid it.
We are the slaves of our own rights.
Cadeveo,
"Hate crimes" is just a tactic. The aim is much more radical. Listen to the prop again.
We need "hate crimes" legislation so we can be "equal."
We need punish those who THINK bad of homosexuals with extra severity SO WE CAN BE "equal."
We will be "equal" when we punish those as they have punished us for thinking bad of them for all of history.
The devout homosexual thinks his homosexuality is true, right, normal AND EQUAL to heterosexuality. He and his "ancestors" have been punished throughout history by the heterosexual. The primacy of union reigned over the desire for autonomy. But now the primacy of autonomy is destroying the primacy of union. The homosexual nature is asserting itself like never before AS IT IS LAY AS THE FOUNDATION OF MODERN LIBERAL ORTHODOXY. Radical autonomy is the devout homosexual's nature.
Ces, don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to shield my son from interactions with homosexuals at all. We have family members who are homosexual. I was simply saying that a lot of what is on the media is oversexualized bullcrap and that it is important to filter what you allow your children to see. Yes the world is around us but a home is a sanctuary; a place of peace and that is what I want to provide for him,as my parents did me.
I realize I cannot hide him from the evils of the world but I can certainly prepare him for whats out there without flooding him with images of ill repute!
M, I don't think I misunderstood you.
Maybe I didn't used the right example to express what I was trying to say.
I like your statement.
Home is a Sanctuary.
Streets not so much.
Halloween costumes are over-sexualized also.
All I am saying is that as much as parents try to filter what their children see, they always find a way to uncover the mysteries parents hide from them.
And it could be more damaging.
Don't get it twisted though.
I am not telling you how to raise your child.
LOL.
I have none. :(
Yet.
Ces what you say has merit; more or less it is the fine line between studying evil and becoming part of it. I can certainly allow my child to see all types of images to prepare him for what's out there, but then again they could easily brainwash him. This is a very fine line because via children at school etc he is likely to hear about the latest sexualized bs du jour and I have todeal with that as it comes. But that does not mean that I have to allow it in my home.
My parents ran a tight ship. All the kids at school were singing songs like "I'm a Sex Shooter" in third grade. They saw the song on cable and heard it on the radio. My parents turned the channel when it came on the radio and we didn't have cable so could only watch videos on Saturday mornings or Friday nights on network television and they were more censored.
When we asked my parents about these topics, they didn't mince words but explained why they thought these songs were inappropriate etc.
So, my boy will certainly be exposed to things I deem objectionable. BUT with a firm foundation and rooting into what is right and what is wrong, I think he will be okay.
DV has older children and it must be hard for him to raise him in these chaotic times. Our society is much too preoccupied with sex and sexual relationships.
We need to evolve so that it is not an issue (unless we're talking about non consensual or emotionally coercive sex of underage or mentally slow people).
We need to move pass these preoccupations into better territory; mainly how we can support each other as humans through these rough times.
For every meme like the subject of this post, a countermeme should be introduced into the family's consciousness.
...
"Nino and Scoop!!" "Fight!" "Fight!" screamed some kid down the hall, followed by a herd of teenage feet pounding on the schoolyard pavement. I looked to my after school class of drama students, hoping they had not caught on to the commotion outside. Of course they had. Their tan and mocha faces lit up and almost instinctively they leaped from their desks and ran through the nearest exit door. I followed behind like a helpless lackey. I had only been at Marshall Middle two weeks. As far as they were concerned, I hadn't earned any right to stop them.
Outside in plain view were two boys mounding their fists in each other's face. I hadn't had the pleasure of ever seeing the boys before today. I would hear more than enough later however, more than likely over gossip in the teacher's lounge.
Then a cattle of boys on either side of the two joined in the fight ripping and pulling each other a part. I noticed one of my boys, now in the mix, had literally stamped his footprint in another child's chest. Most of the girls stood behind watching.
"This is the second race riot this year," one of them said.
"Race riot?" I asked.
That's when I noticed that "Nino" was a giant of a twelve year old black boy and "Scoop" was one of the few Mexican boys with tattoos. The mob of other boys had, prior to jumping all over each other, arrived divided at their respective races' side.
Race riot. The words were used again that night on the local news and again in the LA Times, the Gazette and as usual, the teacher's lounge. No wonder these kids knew the term. But was this 1965? Was there some political injustice as the impetus for this fight? The passion and pure vengeance in their eyes while beating each other was terrifying to watch. I felt cheated that I couldn't produce the same raw emotions from them in my drama class. But this wasn't about me. This was about two groups of people who actually thought they were each other's enemy. They lived in the same neighborhoods, ate the same shitty government funded lunch, collected benefits from the same welfare system and were bused, due to abstract zoning policy, to the other side of town everyday to attend the same school. I was from Gainesville, Florida wasn't I the one who knew more about race riots?
No. I could consider myself educated. My lesson was simple:
The great thing about youth is that they learn at such a fast pace. The dangerous part about being a youth is that they move a lot faster.
In the criminal justice system we have a tier of crimes for homocide ..from 1st degree to 3rd degree murder yet there is no outcry or concern about these extra penalties...
Why should we give a person a free pass to assualt and kill another person because of thier gender, race, class???
Hate crimes punish not reward people for thier selective criminal behavior..
Post a Comment