Recently there was (yet again) outrage in a city in the United States when apparently several nooses had been hung on a tree.
For some reason (I don't really know why) the far left in the United States has decided that nooses are a racist symbol because sometimes slaves who escaped were hung. It doesn't matter that hanging was in no way an execution form exclusive to, or even particularly common, to black slaves, and pretty much anybody who was sentenced to death (by law or by mob justice) was usually hung, if not shot. (I assume hanging was common because it was deemed as more "ceremonial" and visible, and thus acted as a warning to others, especially since the victim would be in public display for quite some time, as a reminder of what happens to those who commit such transgressions.)
As far as I know, this decision to make nooses a symbol of racism is very recent. I don't think that just a mere 10 years ago nooses were generally seen as such. (In fact, I don't think they were seen as any sort of symbology at all.)
Anyway, that's not the point of this post.
The point is that those "nooses" appearing on that tree caused, yet again and unsurprisingly, outrage among the far left, who took it as their jackpot and golden opportunity to show how "racism" is rampant (because they are starving for examples). Even the mayor of the city made public speeches about it.
Turns out that the "nooses" weren't actually hung on the tree by members of the KKK or neo-nazis. Turns out they were actually intended to be rope swings, and were put there by a black man. Their resemblance to "nooses" was extraordinarily far-fetched.
Did this placate the far-leftist mob? Of course not.
Even the mayor of the city doubled down on the outrage and made a speech after the investigation was over and claimed that it didn't matter who put the "nooses" there, or for what purpose, or whether they even resembled actual nooses at all. What matters is the effect that they had on people, and thus all the outrage is justified.
This isn't unique to that city mayor. It has become yet again one of the pet ideas of feminist academics: Intent doesn't matter. Who commits the "hate crime" doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's all just a huge misunderstanding and that it can be demonstrated with 100% certainty that nobody did any sort of "hate crime" even by the loosest possible definition. The only thing that matters is the effect it has on "marginalized people" (ie. "victims"). If it causes emotional trauma to "marginalized" people, then it's a severe transgression and a "hate crime" just by its mere existence, completely regardless of intent and who did it.
Yes, that means exactly what you might think it means: If you are accused of a "hate crime" then in the eyes of the far left you have no recourse. None. Context does not matter, intent does not matter, who you are does not matter. You are guilty, period.
If, let's say, you just say "hello" to someone, especially if it's a person they say belongs to a "marginalized" group, and that person takes offense and thinks that you are a racist, you have no recourse. It doesn't matter if saying "hello" to people in that very context is appropriate, polite and to be culturally expected. It doesn't matter how politely and innocently you said it. It doesn't matter what your intents were. It doesn't matter who you are. This especially if you are a white person (which immediately settles it, without any question).
You have zero recourse. There's nothing you can do. You are 100% at the mercy of the person accusing you. Literally nothing else matters in the situation, according to the far left. The person accusing you has 100% power over you, and you can do absolutely nothing about it (if the far-leftist mob gets to make and enforce the rules).
I wish I was making that up.
Comments
Post a Comment