❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.

Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.

Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.

Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.

---

And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.

Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.

If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.

---

Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.

While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.

---

Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.

It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.

And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?

Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.

---

*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.

I don't accept your premise of either/or.

Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.

If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?

---

The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:

““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””

— timeDOTcom/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape is introduced into the discussion mentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.

When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.

There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?

Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"

One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.

---

“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”

Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?

Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.

If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.

Just like what is happening now.

The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.

That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.

---

I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.

I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.

Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.

That's it.

Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.

---

*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.

Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.

Is that what you want?

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”

---

Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?

I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.

I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).

Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?

Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?

Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.

---

For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.

Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.

Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.

Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.

What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right

---

You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.

I don't.

I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.

---

Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?

---

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Accepting responsibility does.

But not if they are denied the choice.

---

Then give me numbers instead of allegations.

At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.

---

It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.

My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."

I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.

I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.

---

I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.

---

I am not saying most women are irresponsible.

I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.

I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.

Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.

Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.

Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.

Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?

I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.

If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."

If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.

So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.

If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ reproductive rights ∙ privilege ∙ women ∙ fetus ∙ man ∙ rape ∙ health care ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ sex ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Christian ∙ patriarchy ∙ American ∙ presumed guilty ∙ domestic violence ∙ murder ∙ sex rules

Basically they didn't want another church telling their church what to do.

Tags: maxims ∙ mutt ∙ Louisiana ∙ Tennessee ∙ racial justice ∙ freedom ∙ privilege

❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.

Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.

At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.

Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.

What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.

Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.

---

Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.

The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.

The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.

The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.

The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.

And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.

---

Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."

It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.

That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.

It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.

How that is not racist is beyond me.

Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.

So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.

Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”

I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ unjustified ∙ assumption ∙ climate crisis ∙ article of faith ∙ American ∙ Amerindians ∙ reservation ∙ Christian ∙ conservatives ∙ community ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ label ∙ marriage ∙ gay marriage ∙ polyamory ∙ people of color ∙ victims ∙ overlook ∙ human rights

❝❝Government, government agencies, and agents acting on behalf of governments do not have rights. Governments have powers. Just governments have powers to protect and defend individual rights. Unjust governments have powers to protect and defend privileges.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ rights ∙ powers ∙ privilege ∙ just ∙ unjust ∙ tweeted

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

❝❝Progressive politics revolves around choosing the most oppressed so that everyone else can be shamed into granting extra privileges to the designated victims.❞❞

— from the private journal of NeoWayland

Tags: progressive ∙ oppressed ∙ shamed ∙ privilege ∙ designated ∙ victims

LGBT Splinter Group From Migrant Caravan Is The 1st To Arrive In Tijuana

Tags: George Orwell ∙ caravan ∙ LGBT ∙ splinter group ∙ Tijuana ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ benefits ∙ special consideration ∙ privilege ∙ inevitable progression

““…it represents yet another example of the government creating protected classes in order to advance political agendas, and gifting them special rights and privileges which result in ludicrous yet predictable outcomes bringing misery to ordinary people.””

— Tim Newman, Playing with fire

Tags: Tim Newman ∙ government ∙ protected groups ∙ political agenda ∙ special rights ∙ privilege ∙ ordinary people

❝❝Most of the claims of Republican racism are because the Republicans involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Republican ∙ Republicans ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights

When the press shows that it can't be trusted with even some truths, why should the press be trusted?

Tags: rights ∙ privilege ∙ power ∙ goverment

❝❝See, that’s what I mean. No one has all the answers and certainly no group has all the answers.

Let me tell you what I think they see.

First, a nation where some people believe victimhood has become more important than merit. A place where people have been taught that certain groups must be forced to sacrifice so that the unworthy may prosper.

Let me talk about that word unworthy for a bit. In this case it means someone who expects that their desires be fulfilled with minimum effort on their part. It’s one thing to march with fuzzy pink hats. But who shows up to do the work? And no, marching with a hat is not the work. Work means getting your hands dirty. Work isn’t about raising awareness or pointing out injustice. Work is the every day effort to provide for yourself and those you care for. Work is not taking a weekend to show your solidarity.

Because for them, it’s not about skin color. It’s about merit. If it were about skin color, then people like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wouldn’t be celebrated. For them it’s about fixing the problem and getting the job done. It’s not about curing past injustices or preventing any possible future injustices (definition subject to change). A hand up instead of a hand out.

Thomas Sowell said “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” And he was right. Too many privileges today are passed off as rights. Temporary measures become permanent. Privileges are sold as rights, despite only applying to certain victim groups.

And when there is criticism of any of this, it’s called racism.

Second, a government that has lied to them repeatedly. And a bunch of politicos who keep promising that government will fix the problems.

And by the way, this crosses the “skin color” barrier. It’s just that we’ve been lectured that you can’t be a “real …” (black, Hispanic, minority) unless you oppose Republicans and conservatives because “the Man” wants to take it away. See the Sowell quote above.

Third, that Democrats exploit the victimhood.

I disagree with your figures about “the young.” I think the media have their own reasons to skew the news (90% negative stories about Trump).

I also think you are making a major mistake focusing on Trump.

I told you before that it is not Trump. People are losing faith in institutions because our institutions are failing to deliver what was promised. Trump is a symptom not the cause.❞❞

Tags: victimhood ∙ merit ∙ unworthy ∙ work ∙ skin color ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ preferential treatment ∙ equal treatment ∙ discrimination ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ racism ∙ government ∙ lies ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump

At the same time, the privilege of being a protected class is regularly exploited to excuse behavior and escape responsibility.

Tags: James Meredith ∙ University of Mississippi ∙ 1962 ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ excuse ∙ behavior ∙ responsibility ∙ 1964 ∙ Civil Rights Act ∙ equal rights ∙ equal protection ∙ moral wrong ∙ oppression

We'll start with basics. The game is not what you think it is.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ racism ∙ alt-right ∙ DNC ∙ GOP ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Colin Kaepernick ∙ LBJ ∙ Strom Thurmond ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ projects ∙ aid for families dependent children ∙ privilege ∙ civil rights ∙ legacy

❝❝Madam, you don't know what rape culture is!

What's more, you demean the experiences of women and children who do suffer living under rape cultures by comparing yourself and your experiences to them.

You're not helping them, all you are doing is guilting people into giving more privilege.

Please, if you do nothing else, stop exploiting their experiences for your agenda.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ rape culture ∙ women ∙ children ∙ privilege ∙ exploit ∙ agenda

❝❝I have mixed feelings on abortion. The one thing I am sure about is that it should not be paid for by government. There are many reasons, but the main one is that it's always easier to spend someone else's money.

Contraception is less complicated. Sex is (or should be) a voluntary act. You choose to have sex. Your neighbors should no more pay for your contraception than they should pay for your designer shoes. This is an example of what I was talking about. If government gives you benefits at the expense of others, it's privilege.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ abortion ∙ contraception ∙ sex ∙ government ∙ someone else's money ∙ neighbors ∙ benefits ∙ privilege

❝❝Depends on what you are calling a right.

Personally I think there are no women's rights, no pagan rights, no Hispanic rights, no men's rights, no black rights, no gay rights.

There are human rights. Human rights are shared by everyone. Anything else is a privilege, taken at the expense of others by force.

I will fight for and support human rights.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ right ∙ women's rights ∙ pagan rights ∙ Hispanic rights ∙ men's rights ∙ black rights ∙ gay rights ∙ privilege ∙ force

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: privilege ∙ virtue signaling ∙ London ∙ real estate ∙ Barack Obama ∙ FBI ∙ Turpin family ∙ Democrats ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ LBJ ∙ DACA ∙ immigration reform ∙ Donald Trump ∙ home schooling ∙ Missouri ∙ abortion ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Disney ∙ JP Morgan Chase ∙ bonus ∙ tax reform

❝❝There are two assumptions implicit in public accommodation laws. First is that there is a class of people who no matter what can never ever do things on their own. Second is that most people no matter what can never ever be trusted to do the right thing.

I think both assumptions are wrong.

---

Good law has been used for bad purposes since someone bothered to write down the law. The question you should ask is which is more important, freedom or misuse of the law?

It's my old friend, the parity test. If Christians can be barred from living their faith, what's to stop pagans from being barred from living theirs? Or atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, or any of a thousand others?

Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean that it should be illegal and that someone should be punished for it. I'd say that the guideline should be measurable harm to someone's person, liberty, and property. Hurting your feelings shouldn't qualify. I deal with the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita laws at my politics blog at www DOT paganvigil DOT com SLASH files SLASH RootsGovPower061204 DOT html.

Incidentally, the right of free association was one of the "understood" rights covered by the Tenth Amendment. After all, the U.S. had just fought a war over it.

---

Up until that time, it was one of the biggest wars about non-association ever fought.

Freedoms seldom clash with each other. Someone wanting to control others through religion isn't freedom, it's politics. Knowing the difference can be helpful.

I'm not responsible for how someone feels, especially since both the feelings and the standards used to justify those feelings change often. Measurable harm to someone's person, property, and liberty is one of the few objective standards we can agree on. A microaggression is what the victim says it is, and some things become microaggressions that weren't last week. It's privilege. I don't have time or energy to indulge it anymore.❞❞

Tags: freedom ∙ misuse of law ∙ parity test ∙ measurable harm ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ microaggression ∙ victim ∙ privilege

❝❝We let it happen.

We bought the lie that compassion triumphs practicality. We accepted that “blacks” deserved more privileges because of history. We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ compassion ∙ practical ∙ privilege ∙ history ∙ victims ∙ heroes

❝❝It's one of the simplest human guidelines. Everyone shares a right. You don't have it unless the other does.

Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

It's why there are human rights. Most muddy the waters and call privileges rights. Black rights? Christian rights? Police rights? These do not exist. These are privileges that rule out whole classes of people.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: rights ∙ privilege ∙ human rights ∙ maxims

❝❝My critique wasn't intended to capture the movement.

In the various moments however, I see one group excuse their violence and their racism because of their narrative. This one group gets a pass but others do not. That's certainly privilege and it hurts their case.

I've told people before. You want equality, I'll fight with you. You want privilege, I'll fight against you.

I can't take BLC BLM seriously when I read or hear the trash-talk some of the leadership directs at "whites." I'm not the only one. I'm against injustice, I don't think BLC BLM is.

You know the really ironic thing about this conversation? The motto of my political blog Pagan Vigil is "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white."

---

If group A gets something and groups B, C, and E are not allowed, that's a privilege. If things change and group B gets something and groups A, C, E, and H are not allowed, there is still privilege.

The definition of oppression keeps changing. Arguably things were worse for "blacks" in the 1920s after Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the civil service and the military. Not to mention all the Jim Crow laws that were still on the books. While there are issues today, they are no where near what they once were.

One of the biggest issues today is the prison population. This is usually one key argument about how the US is still a racist society. Before we can really look at that though, we should consider if there are some laws that in and of themselves might be unjust. Personally I think it's stupid to arrest people for being under the influence but not arresting people for being drunk. So if we take out all non-violent drug offenders, that reduces the prison population quite a bit. We're left with the violent offenders.

We know that a strong family, especially one with at least two parents, usually means the kids don't break the law. We also know that "black" inner city children in single mother households used to be about 7%, at one point that rose to well over 70% and is still a majority today. We know that this was made possible by well meaning government programs meant to provide. In other words, "the Man" paid single mothers not to get married and raise kids on their own. Yet any talk of reducing these benefits is immediately called racism. It's privilege, it promotes dependency, and yet it's seen as "compassionate." There's racism and oppression for you, but in popular opinion it's a "right." That doesn't mean that single mothers are evil or wrong. It just means that when a majority of households in a given population are single mothers, the kids (and especially the males) are much more likely to push the boundaries and get into trouble.

These aren't the only two things that put more "blacks" in prison, but they are two of the biggest. Yet instead, we hear how cops are racist. These are also two things that would take years, maybe decades to fix.

There are many other things too. Inner city public schools which are more and more like prisons. Public housing projects that displace neighborhoods and quickly become crime infested. Licensing laws that make it almost impossible for small household businesses to get started. These are real oppressions with absolutely devastating results, and yet we're arguing over who gets a slice of the pie. The oppressed demand action from the government and the institutions that are keeping them down. Star Parker does a much better job explaining this is her book Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.

Maybe the pie isn't limited. And maybe the person on the street isn't the oppressor.

---

Peer review? Then the next question will be if the correct peers reviewed it. And that still doesn't answer the real question: Is Star Parker wrong with either her observations or her conclusions?

Look at what happened here. In one reply you've moved from Black Lives Matter to certain Black Lives Matter more than the ones who have not been politically approved. It's Orwell. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

What critical race theory doesn't tell you is the how and why of institutions, particularly those created to fight one cause or another.

I'm not going to assume the collective guilt. That's not my style, and that's not the way to fix racism.

---

Critical race theory isn't a part of sociology, it rejects much of sociology. It was designed as a political tool to silence dissent from an approved ideology.

I am not discounting peer review which can be a valuable tool. I just do not think that it should be the only tool, nor do I think that the only certain people should be allowed to do peer review.

I've run into abuse of the latter kind in third wave feminism "scholarship" where ideas aren't even considered for discussion unless the author has been approved.

Those are Star Parker's beliefs, she still has the right to write and talk about them. But she isn't hitting people if they disagree with her.

I was trying to find a quote from Thomas Sowell on critical race theory, but I can't seem to find it.

---

How widespread is critical race theory outside those who study it? Can it produce predictable models of human behavior? How well does it withstand analysis outside the discipline? These are some of the things that mark a science. At one point I was studying to be a Christian minister, that doesn't make Christianity true. These same things could be said about third wave feminism too. Even more in the case of third wave feminism, how well does it tolerate behavior that goes against what it teaches.

But the people in BLM who aren't hitting people aren't denouncing the people in BLM who are. And there have been pages and pages written about how the leaders of BLM are justified in their racism against "whites" with no one calling them on it.

If BLM is going to denounce the neo-Nazis for being racist and violent, shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

---

We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.

---

You seem to want understanding and validation for your sexuality. You won't get that from me. But if you want the right to make your own choices as long as you accept responsibility for those choices, count me in.

Which is more important?

I don't care about BLM's "cause," especially since I think it's only cover for their politics. I care about human rights and making sure everyone has them.

Which is more important?

---

See, I don't think there are as many oppressors as you do.

Nor do I think that people should take a back seat to talking and solving things because of their skin color, gender, creed, political affiliation, sexuality, gym membership, or the coffee they like. If there is a problem, let's fix it together and figure out who to blame afterwards.

---

I'm sorry, but this keeps getting more abstract.

What I saw was two groups using violence. One was condemned and the other was not. Both have highly racist members. Both have said and done some despicable things.

Why is the one group that has bigger numbers, much better funding, better political connections called the oppressed and therefore allowed violence without comment?

---

I don't approve of violence, particularly against bystanders. I said that in the original article.

But if you are going to overlook the violence of one group because they are oppressed, those same standards apply even more against the neo-Nazis. BLM is less oppressed by almost every measure you can name.

You keep excusing BLM and antifa's behavior. I don't. Not because I support the neo-Nazis, but because any excuse for violence is wrong. The fact that many BLM leaders are actively and openly racist and that BLM is constantly involved in violence even without neo-Nazis is enough to tell me that BLM is just another gang demanding tribute. Just as people were wrong to support the KKK in it's heyday, people are wrong to support BLM today.

---

I'm saying that by the standards that you yourself used, the neo-Nazis are more oppressed than BLM is. Do I agree? No. Do I think that the racism and violence of the neo-Nazis is despicable? Yes. Do I think that the racism and violence of BLM is despicable? Yes.

BLM shouldn't get a free pass. Excusing behavior usually encourages more bad behavior.

In this specific case, I think BLM and antifa came spoiling for a fight and they want moral justification.

---

Pardon, this conversation was never about white privilege.

It was never about me denying that people are oppressed. It was never about me, period. What we have is two groups that have used violence and racism. Violence and racism are terrible things.

One group gets excused and the other does not.

Yet the bigger group, the better funded group, the group with the better political connections, the group with academic support, blames the other for all the violence and racism **People deliberately excuse them from the consequences.** They get what they want with minimal costs. This leads to further bad behavior. Which is then excused.

I've pointed out that it was good intentions of the FedGov that has kept people trapped in poverty and crime. I can't and won't be responsible for something that happened before I was born. As a libertarian, I won't take responsibility for government failure. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that's the history that I can do something about.

It's not about me. It's about the behavior I've seen and experienced.

There's a story about how after the assassination of MLK, Jesse Jackson came out waving a bloody shirt. The shirt didn't belong to Dr. King, it couldn't have given the timing. Yet there was Jackson, waving the shirt, accusing everyone in sight. Because even if they had nothing to do with the shooting, they should have done something. Even if it wasn't possible, they should have done something, faster, louder.

Jackson was aiming to be the new face of civil rights, and unfortunately he mostly succeeded. He turned it into an extortion racket in the 1970s and 1980s. If Jackson said that company X was racially insensitive, the company paid him off and he said the company had mended their ways.

That's how I see BLM, only with more thugs.

In Shelby Steele's White Guilt, he argues that the real problem is not racial oppression but white guilt. There are many people who have gotten power and money exploiting that guilt. I won't be a party to it.

You seem like a nice enough person. You and I are not going to agree on this issue. We can't even agree on what the issue is. I do think your heart is in the right place.❞❞

Tags: equality ∙ privilege ∙ fIght ∙ BLM movement ∙ oppression ∙ Jim Crow ∙ prison population ∙ family ∙ Inner city ∙ single mother households ∙ public housing ∙ license ∙ peer review ∙ critical race theory ∙ George Orwell ∙ sociology ∙ collective guilt ∙ Star Parker ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ sexuality ∙ violence ∙ Antifa ∙ white privilege ∙ Jesse Jackson ∙ Shelby Steele

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

Somehow I don't believe this.

Tags: socialism ∙ Venezuela ∙ Soviet Union ∙ North Korea ∙ China ∙ capitalists ∙ politicos ∙ rich ∙ powerful ∙ privilege ∙ elites ∙ picture ∙ guest content

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

❝❝You want equality, I'll fight with you.

You want privilege, I'll fight against you.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ rights ∙ privilege

❝❝The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.❞❞
     — Christina Hoff Sommers, No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Constitution ∙ rights ∙ persons ∙ property ∙ vote ∙ gender pay gap ∙ Christina Hoff Sommers ∙ sexualization of women ∙ past wrongs ∙ privilege ∙ responsibility ∙ reproductive rights ∙ women's rights ∙ favorites

❝❝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

Over the past few years I’ve been accused of white privilege and male privilege.

I’ve been told that my ideas reveal my unconscious bias.

I’ve been told that simply by living my life as I choose, I force others into a world that isn’t fair.

I’ve been told that I can’t quote people if they don’t match my skin color.

I’ve been told that my ideas of justice are antiquated.

I’ve been told that my words are code words for other ideas.

I’ve been told that I must watch carefully lest I hurt someone.

I think those people lied.

I think that by limiting the topics we discuss, those people seek power.

I think that’s why they choose the words we’re “allowed” to say.

I think that’s why they redefine the words as needed.

I think that’s why they pick the people who are allowed to talk.

I am tired of it.

Chris Hernandez had a great piece at The Federalist.

““Yes, f*** your trauma. My sympathy for your suffering, whether that suffering was real or imaginary, ended when you demanded I change my life to avoid bringing up your bad memories. You don’t seem to have figured this out, but there is no “I must never be reminded of a negative experience” expectation in any culture anywhere on earth.

If your psyche is so fragile you fall apart when someone inadvertently reminds you of “trauma,” especially if that trauma consisted of you overreacting to a self-interpreted racial slur, you need therapy. You belong on a psychiatrist’s couch, not in college dictating what the rest of society can’t do, say, or think. Get your own head right before you try to run other people’s lives. If you expect everyone around you to cater to your neurosis, forever, you’re what I’d call a “failure at life,” doomed to perpetual disappointment.

Oh, I should add: f** my trauma, too. I must be old-fashioned, but I always thought coming to terms with pain was part of growing up. I’ve never expected anyone to not knock on my door because it reminds me of that terrifying morning decades ago. I’ve never blown up at anyone for startling me with a camera flash (I’ve never even mentioned it to anyone who did). I’ve never expected anyone to not talk about Iraq or Afghanistan around me, even though some memories still hurt. I don’t need trigger warnings because a book might remind me of a murder victim I’ve seen.””

So I am going to call those folks on their victimhood. And I am not going to be nice.

I’m not responsible for their trigger moments. I won’t guard their safe spaces.

It’s time for people to grow up and take responsibility.

Or die waiting for someone to take care of them out of pity.

Power by victimhood depends on the other guy’s guilt.

I thought I had a lot more to say on this. But it’s pretty simple really.

I won’t feed the victimhood anymore.

Tags: victimhood ∙ power over ∙ trauma ∙ growing up ∙ privilege ∙ skimmed ∙ Chris Hernandez ∙ The Federalist Papers ∙ speech wars ∙ clipping ∙ white privilege ∙ male privilege ∙ unconscious bias