Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: maxims ∙ labels

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: George Soros ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ super villian ∙ right wingers ∙ left wingers ∙ labels

❝❝Christianity, the Nation of Islam, atheism, Paganism, these are labels. Now people may use those labels as justifications for their actions, but it is not the label that is responsible. As a Pagan I'm not responsible for the actions of every Pagan out there. I'm responsible for my actions. Since I believe strongly that the measure of a man is in the lives he touches, I'll even accept some of the responsibility for the actions of the people I know and love. But someone I've never met? I can't be responsible for them, no matter what the label they choose. The label isn't responsible, the individuals are.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Redux: Christians & Pagan Tolerance

Tags: maxims ∙ Christianity ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ atheism ∙ paganism ∙ labels ∙ justification ∙ responsibility ∙ measure a man ∙ lives they touch ∙ know and love ∙ individual

The FedGovs.

Tags: murder ∙ theft ∙ vandalism ∙ qualify ∙ labels ∙ bias ∙ complications ∙ lawyers ∙ experts ∙ justice ∙ system ∙ pass-alongs ∙ thoughtcrime ∙ intention ∙ hate ∙ proven ∙ politicos ∙ societal control

Tags: sports ∙ viewers ∙ FBI ∙ Attorney General ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ FOSTA ∙ prostitution ∙ crimminal probe ∙ sucession ∙ Elizabeth Warren ∙ CFPB ∙ Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ conservative ∙ Congress ∙ budget deficits ∙ free range kids ∙ RussiaGate ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ special counsel ∙ labels ∙ pronouns ∙ power over speech ∙ Google ∙ Amazon ∙ EU ∙ Facebook ∙ NOAA ∙ climate change ∙ adjusted temperatures ∙ lawsuit ∙ David Hogg ∙ speech wars ∙ digitalships ∙ double standards ∙ diversity ∙ public safety ∙ Florida ∙ Palm Beach County

❝❝This does point out one weakness of identity politics. The label trumps things like ability, character, and fashion sense. It's always going to be about who is first in the victim hierarchy this week. No members of unapproved victim groups need apply.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ victim group ∙ identity politics ∙ labels

Once you start using force and the rule of law to go after your "enemies," what's to stop you from going after us next?

Tags: tyranny ∙ progressive ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ dissent ∙ rights ∙ rules ∙ labels ∙ game ∙ victim group ∙ let me help ∙ crusade

❝❝The virtue or vice is not in the title. It's in the individual.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ title ∙ individual ∙ labels

❝❝An individual can show virtue. At best, a label must borrow virtue. Labels will hold most of the blame, though.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ labels ∙ virtue ∙ blame

Folks probably already know this, but this brand of revisionism uses hard confrontation with constantly escalating stakes. You can't win against it by being loud, that just makes you the closest and biggest target.

---

There have been many terrible things done in the name of an absolute, "transcendent" morality. Many by Christians. Many by Christians to Christians. And many by Christians to Christians in the last century alone.

A label doesn't define morality. In the words of Mark Twain, "Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often."

I'd rather know what someone has done than what they call themselves.

---

I have defended rights for homosexuals in comment threads on this site.

I want to make a distinction here. What the radical feminists are "fighting" for are not rights, but exclusive and irrevocable privileges backed by the force of law.

Rights do not emanate from a state, nor do they require state sanction or approval.

Most importantly, it's not a right unless the other guy has it too.

I tell people that I am not for Native American rights, homosexual rights, "black" rights, or women's rights.

I'm for human rights.

And you should be too.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ revisionism ∙ hard confrontation ∙ constantly escalating ∙ rights ∙ Christians ∙ labels ∙ RadFem ∙ privilege ∙ human rights

If the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had worked, there would have been a need for another in 1871, in 1875, in 1957, in 1964, a Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Tags: racial discrimination ∙ religious discrimination ∙ protected groups ∙ MLK assasination ∙ privilege ∙ humans ∙ labels ∙ Civil Rights Act ∙ 1866 ∙ 1871 ∙ 1875 ∙ 1957 ∙ 1964 ∙ 1991 ∙ Voting Rights Act of 1965 ∙ Fair Housing Act of 1968 ∙ Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 ∙ stoplights ∙ 13th Amendment ∙ 14th Amendment ∙ 15th Amendment ∙ Constitution ∙ Hammurabi ∙ public accommodations ∙ fair is fair ∙ prohibition ∙ Lawrence W. Reed

❝❝I've met bad Pagans and good Christians, rotten agnostics and good atheists, decent Satanists and iffy heathens. The label tells me almost nothing, but the individual behavior tells me almost everything.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

❝❝There's no virtue or vice in the label. It's our words and deeds that define us.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ labels ∙ virtue ∙ vice ∙ words ∙ deeds

There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.

To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.

Would you accept them passing judgement on you?

---

Ah, I see.

Let me look this over. I'm meeting someone for coffee in a bit, and I may not get back to the computer until this afternoon.

One quick thing though, if you don't mind.

Going by the bit you quoted,

86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual

Doesn't that tie into what I said above about using homosexuality as an excuse?

---

Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia, any more than deer hunting equals school shooting sprees. These are different behaviors, one does not indicate the other. Just because you don't approve of lesbians or pedophiles doesn't mean they are one and the same. Just as not every straight man is a rapist, or every Republican racist.

That doesn't mean that there aren't child molesters using homosexuality as an excuse.

I'll stand with you against sex with kids. But until and unless you can show that every homosexual (or even most homosexuals) target kids, I'll tell you that lumping all gays in with the child molesters is wrong.

---

Should I tell you the things I have seen passed off as the Republican agenda or the Christian agenda?

Do you have any idea the things that are regularly attributed to these groups? The hateful accusations that always seem to end with the downfall of freedom and the enslavement of humanity?

I will tell you what I've told the accusers in other forums.

Show me where everyone or even a simple majority has signed off on this agenda, and I'll look at your accusations again.

p.s. It was done better in The Protocols of Zion. And I didn't believe that one for an instant.

---

"No one is claiming every person with a homosexual problem target kids. Many target adults for sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior, disease spreading, domestic violence, porn, prostitution and murder."

One paragraph and you accuse all homosexuals of Horrors Too Terrible To Mention™. According to you if they don't target kids, they do something else wrong to other people because that is what homosexuals do. If someone can't see it, that someone must dig just a little harder because something ghastly will surely turn up. And if that doesn't work, why, you'll invent something.

There is still not much point in talking to you about it, is there?

---

You really do like to overcomplicate things.

Are there pedophiles who are not homosexual?

Yes.

Are there homosexuals who are not pedophiles?

Yes.

Therefore, homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.

Now, shall we discuss your obsessions?

---

It's not all "queers."

Any more than the exploits of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy make all men serial killers.

The individual is guilty, not the group.

---

A very wise man said "You can't childproof the world. The best you can do is world proof your children."

---

No, it doesn't.

First, lesbians aren't male and aren't banging boys.

Second, most homosexual men aren't banging boys either.

---

No, not really.

For example, if I were to point out (again) that homosexuality does not mean pedophilia, several folks here would chime in that I was all for sex with children.

In another place, if I were to disagree (again) with the notion that Christians should be locked away on general principle, several folks there would chime in that I was all for religious oppression.

The biggest and hardest lesson that I've had to learn is that no one group has THE answer, and no group that says it has THE answer can be fully trusted.

---

You know, people keep acting as if there were some sort of golden age where adults didn't sexually molest children.

Guess what? It happened twenty years ago, it happened forty years ago, it happened sixty years ago, and it happened eighty years ago.

It is not something new, not some sign of the times, not some terrible symptom of a philosophy you do not agree with.

Now, you can spend time lamenting for a time that never was, denouncing all life paths you don't follow, or you can do something today.

If you want to denounce libertarianism for "enabling" behavior you don't like, how is that different from the progressives denouncing conservatives for behavior they don't like?

---

That's not the question and you know it.

Look, it's very simple. I stand for the rights of the individual. He's not guilty because of skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, or net worth.

A person is guilty because of what he has done.

Not because a given label has this "tendency" or because the "common wisdom" says that "his kind" does that sort of thing. That's what progressives do. They do proclaim guilt based on skin color, sexual preference, religious choice, and net worth.


And yet we still have innocent people accused of crimes because you don't approve of their life style.

It's not because they have committed a crime, it's because you think there is an outside chance that they may.

You seem to think I am defending homosexuality. I'm not.

I'm taking a stand against slander. Well, technically in this case it's libel. Let's settle for defamation.

Prove that every homosexual is a pedophile. Prove that every pedophile is a homosexual.

If you can't do that, then the rule of law has no meaning.

---

It's not moral equivalence.

It's a matter of injustice to claim people are guilty before they've committed a crime just because of a label.

Innocent until proven guilty.

If you can't show that every gay is a pedophile, then you have no authority to treat them as if they were guilty.

Anymore than the RadFems have to the authority to treat every man as a rapist.

---

The percentages don't matter.

All that matters here is that someone can be gay without being a pedophile and someone can be a pedophile without being a gay.

That means that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. People can be one or the other but not both.

ETA: That last sentence is missing a word. It should be

"People can be one or the other but not necessarily both."

Sometimes my fingers don't work. Sorry.

---

Again, if there are homosexuals who are not pedophiles and pedophiles who are not homosexuals, that's beside the point.

Do all Baptists eat chicken? Are there non-Baptists who eat chicken? Is chicken uniquely Baptist?

That's the same silly game that you're playing.

You don't like homosexuals. I understand that. But if you "associate" them with a crime BECAUSE they are homosexual, you do no honor to yourself or your cause.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ homosexuality ∙ pedophilia ∙ labels ∙ rule of law ∙ mass shootings

❝❝The man has not even been sworn in yet. Nobody knows what he's going to do. Some this this same stuff was going around about both Bush the Elder and Bush League, it didn't happen.

Personally I'm a little tired of being lectured about which Tragic Victim Group I'm supposed to genuflect before to show my compassion this week. The second someone escalates their victimhood over all others because of a label is the second I lose interest. Might-be-victims are even less interesting.

You have rights because you are human. Not because you are gay or transgender. Not because you are pagan or Navajo. And not because you are a man or a woman. Because you are human.

I won't defend rights because of labels. I won't fight for privilege that comes at the expense of others. I won't acknowledge group rights. I won't accept responsibility for things I didn't do or say.

I won't feed the victimhood anymore. But I WILL take a stand for human rights. Talk to me when someone has been denied their human rights and we'll see what we can do then. If that's not enough, I can't help you.

Until then, it hasn't happened and I'm not going to worry about it.❞ class="ghoster">❞

❝❝

Tags: victimhood ∙ Bush League ∙ Bush the Elder ∙ labels ∙ might-be-victims ∙ genuflect ∙ human rights ∙ privilege ∙ group rights ∙ gay ∙ transgender ∙ pagan ∙ Navajo

Comments

❝❝…restricted groups…

Curious choice of phrasing there.

Okay, here's the NeoNotes™ version. In three parts.

---

Part the First — Labels don't define people, labels describe people. Just because one Democrat orthodontist Mets fan beats his wife and kids does't mean that all Democrats do. Or all orthodontists do. Or all Mets fans do.

It means one person does.

Until you can show that ALL individuals within a group are equally guilty of all crimes, then you can't link group membership to the crime.

---

"The word is not the thing." "The map is not the territory." The person is not the label.

Not all cancer victims smoke. Not all people wearing pants commit armed robbery. Not all American males like football.

You do not control people by slapping a on a label.

---

Part the Second — No matter how much you disapprove of someone's behavior and personal life, if it's not against the law it's none of your business.

Remember that last bit.

It's none of your business.

Make it your business for whatever reason, and you open yourself up to people poking in yours.

---

Depends on the behavior.

Molesting kids, that is against the law and I accept that law as a workable compromise.

Laws against what consenting adults do, well, that is bad law. I don't care if it's a home brewery, scrapbooking, or sex, it's none of your business.

See Part the Third.

The law has no virtue because it is law.

---

Part the Third — There are limited times ANYTHING should be against the law.

If it doesn't threaten another's person or property, then it probably shouldn't be a law.

Just because your religion says it's not right doesn't mean it should be illegal. Unless you want to be controlled by another's religion.

I think we should compromise and at least try to protect children.

Anything else should be hands off.❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

This particular thread inspired the name.

❝❝Perhaps we could just say stuff happens and individuals need to be held responsible.

The trends argument is the same justification that the RadFems use against males in general. You can pick and choose bad examples and ignore the good examples. That way, you never need to talk about individuals, it's about trends and statistics and who is the greater "danger to the community."

Why is it better when conservatives use that justification against whatever Label X is this week?

Until and unless you can show that all of Label X engages in Action Y AND no one who is Not Label X engages in Action Y, the argument falls down. Which means maybe, just maybe we should look at something other than the label.❞ class="ghoster">❞

It’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ individual freedom ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ informed choice ∙ human rights ∙ initiate force ∙ choice & consequence ∙ labels ∙ none of your business ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ moral justification