Friday, December 01, 2017

Yes, I Am Biased

I know that I am biased.
I am biased against people who discriminate.
I am biased against people who want to deny my existence.
I am biased against people who want to make me a second class citizen.
I am biased against people who are islamophobes.
I am biased against people who are racists.

We can argue all day about big government v. small government, taxes, and the environment, but when it comes anything about human rights I don’t give any quarter. It is not open to discussion.
Will You Admit You’re Biased, Have Preferences And Discriminate?
Social Justice Solutions
By Kelly Mitchell
November 30, 2017

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Discrimination: the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste.
[…]
Ah, but then there’s our first definition of discrimination up there at the top of this piece. This is the definition of discrimination we are likely to want to distance ourselves from; well most of us. We could argue that someone like the current President of the United States is discriminating when he puts forward an, “America first” agenda, or proposes legislation that bans people of certain countries from flying, and of course there is his plan to build a wall separating his country from Mexico. Discrimination? Absolutely! Yet there he is at the very pinnacle of power and influence. So, holding such a polarizing view can get you to the top and, apparently, allow you to stay there too; at least for a while.
A friend has a saying “When you hear mean, intervene”

Many of you probably have heard about what happened at the University of Connecticut the other day. Lucian Wintrich, who is a white supremacist gave a speech at UConn where a fight broke out, a woman stole his speech off of the lectern and he grabbed her and pulled her back.

The Hartford Courant had this editorial today…
Free speech is American to the core. Voicing opposition to the mainstream is a guaranteed right.

But when debate devolves into shout-downs, then there are problems all around. And that's what happened at the University of Connecticut on Tuesday night.

The university's College Republicans invited a young man to campus who is more provocateur than pundit, a choice that from the start did nothing to foster robust debate and instead seemed designed to inflame.

Lucian Wintrich, who writes for "The Gateway Pundit" website, seems to specialize in rhetorical bomb-throwing. He gave a speech titled "It's OK To Be White," which was advertised with posters that bore striking similarities to posters from Nazi Germany. Hundreds packed an auditorium on campus Tuesday night to hear it, or to condemn it. Clearly, Mr. Wintrich and the College Republicans wanted to provoke rancor.
[…]
Mr. Wintrich's schtick is an attempt to divide along the lines of race. In the online transcript of his speech (which he recited mostly intact on Tuesday, extemporizing from time to time), Mr. Wintrich describes an "America run by illegal immigrant tranny communists."

He claims "the left" tells "black people ... that they are oppressed minorities who are subjected to incredible — but unperceivable — human injustices on a daily basis and that they'll never be able to get ahead because of the systematic oppression that looms over this entire nation."

Unperceivable perhaps from Mr. Wintrich's white point of view, but daily human injustices can be rather obvious for African Americans. Not surprisingly, much of the audience responded with howls when he delivered that line.
FREE SPEECH!

We have a right to say what we think!

Well no, you don’t and the Supreme Court agrees that there are limits to free speech.

There is a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the Supreme Court said,
Brief Fact Summary. An Ohio law prohibited the teaching or advocacy of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism. The Defendant, Brandenburg (Defendant), a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech promoting the taking of vengeful actions against government and was therefore convicted under the Ohio Law.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and it is likely to incite or produce such action.
[…]
Held. Yes.
(Per Curiam) The Act properly made it illegal to advocate or teach doctrines of violence, but did not address the issue of whether such advocacy or teaching would actually incite imminent lawlessness. The mere abstract teaching of the need or propriety to resort to violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action. Because the statute failed to provide for the second part of the test it was overly broad and thus in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Concurrence.
[…]
Discussion. In order for “incitement to violence” speech to be constitutionally barred, Brandenburg sets a new standard. The language must (1) expressly advocate violence; (2) advocate immediate violence and (3) relate to violence likely to occur.
I think that condition “3” has been met since violence did break out.

No comments: