Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Bring a Bigger Hammer...(OUTLAW)

I’ve been following, with interest, the various posts on Protein Wisdom related to the application of “community perception.” Essentially, it burrows down to selective interpretation followed by malicious accusation (purposeful misrepresentation) in the form of a means to realize a goal (usually maginalizing the messenger or distracting from the uncomfortable issue at hand). “Communities” have escalated their self-proclaimed position of “victim” to a higher level that allows them to control the discourse from both sides of the discussion.

Words are levied by a party to which they may be ideologically diametrically opposed. The words are twisted or interpreted to reflect badly on the speaker with nothing to support that position other than conjecture or just pure malevolent application. Having no context or insight into the line of thinking used by the original speaker leaves the receiver significantly uninformed and unable to make the association between the comments and racism, sexism, xenophobia…or any number of different labels. Even more egregious is when the "victim community" does, indeed, know the intent of the speaker (that happens to be innocuous) and still takes false offense in an effort to enlist more indignation from peers towards that person(s).

I had touched on this a while back. Do you think this is racist?

Question: How is a Mexican like a billiard ball?

Answer: The harder you hit them, the more English you get out of them.
I used the "joke" in discussing the then President-elect’s propensity to apply the “race card” in the face of criticism. Actually, he applied the “race card” in advance of the criticism so as to discount anticipated opposition and marginalize the messenger. This is just another example of a “community” (in this case, a minority), attempting to control both sides of the discussion. The opposing view’s message is shaped by the “victim” to reflect racism. The sole authority receives that enlightenment based only on his skin shade. It is patently dishonest most of the time. It is blatantly ignorant all of the time.

Here’s a more recent example:

The group contends it is a patriotic organisation that seeks to ensure US immigration and border security laws are enforced. But critics contend Minutemen are racist vigilantes who use intimidation and harassment against immigrant rights activists.

"If they were people of colour, they would be labelled a gang," said California assemblywoman Lori Saldana, a San Diego Democrat. Saldana said she has been repeatedly harassed by group members at public events in her district.
The irony here is astounding, and is only outdone by the ignorance of Assemblywoman Saldana. She is acknowledging that since the "Minutemen" are white, they must be racist. However, if these "Minutemen" were "people of colour"...they would be labelled a gang. In other words, a higher level of melanin in the dermis dictates what a person is thinking, and what motives are held. Assemblywoman Saldana formed an opinion based on her own prejudices and preconceived devisiveness, then presented it to the rest of us as fact while being the interpreter of her own position, as well as that of a group of individuals whom she never met. But, the quote doesn't stop there. It, also, entangles every other person figuratively sitting on the side lines. All whites would call the "people of colour" a gang. All "people of colour" would agree with her "factual" representation of the scenario.

In fact, the outright generalization and uninformed conclusions of Assemblywoman Saldana prove her own...racism. Yet, she controls the conversation from both sides, and in the peanut gallery, so no one (not of colour...presumably albinos) can argue against her. Anyone trying would be discounted and marginalized based on the lesser amounts of melanin in their dermis.

Basically, we're screwed when it comes to "community interpretation." Ironically, it was a Reagan appointee to the Highest Bench that screwed us. In Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993), Sandra Day O'Connor presented her comments on a run of the mill sexual harrassment case, and solidified the righteous indignation into our law.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor went on to say that as long as the environment could “reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.”
What this means is that the "victim" of sexual harrassment defines whether it is offensive. I shutter when a litmus test for offense is reflective of what is "reasonably perceived" because so many these days are not by any stretch of the imagination...reasonable. Reasonable qualities require individual contemplation and constructive evaluation. However, generalities, group think, and indoctrined agenda driven messages have become more and more commonplace. The "community interpretive" crowd thrives in such a polar ideological environment. When you lose the concept of rugged individualism and introspective evaluation, you lose the ability to form well thought out and honest opinion. We end up in a society of "us" against "them." The critical thinkers end up being villainized by both sides when they stray from the consensus mentality.

Here is a prime example of "community interpretation" making an unfounded determination of "racism" despite the denials of the advertiser.

The advert for a chocolate and vanilla bar shows Obama standing in front of the US Capitol Building with the caption, Everybody's talking about it - Dark in White.
What it comes down to is that Russia has not yet succumb to the eternally offended mentality.
The company which produced the advert has defended itself, saying the image is not consciously or unconsciously racist.

Voskhod advertising agency said: "We see nothing wrong with this... We believe pointing to race is not racism.

"With our ad we are celebrating the fact there is a black president in the White House."
The only thing missing from the equation is the motive of those complaining and identifying racism. They don't gain standing or derail an opposing candidate. What they do, however, is promote the scheme such that it becomes commonplace, accepted, and applicable in just about any situation the "interpretive community" desires.

The "interpretive community" is pervertedly propped up at every turn by the media. They are, definitely, complicit in the propogation. In this particular example, Sky News went to "anti-racism NGO, Sova.

Alexander Verkhovsky of anti-racism group Sova, based in Moscow, told Sky News: "Violations of political correctness in Russia are clearly acceptable and adverts like this just reinforce ethnic divisions.

"The fact this is a mainstream advert is potentially dangerous - the image is not aggressive in itself - but it can foment prejudice in a more insidious way."
"Violations of political correctness" should tell you all you need to know. How do you violate an ideology that differs from one person to the next? Well, first you throw a far-left thought police type non-governmental organization into the mix. They'll think for you...speak for you...and reason for you. They will tell you what you mean, and strike out at you with accusations should you have the audacity to have a differing view. Perestroika wasn't all fuzzy warm dreams and mounds of candy. With the freedoms come those who strive to tear them away in the name of that same concept. Everyone has the God given inalienable right to be a stark raving idiot, I suppose.

Earlier this month, Politico highlighted a fine example of psychic intent determination in a rather underhanded way:

Clyburn: Zimbabwe crack "beyond the pale"

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told me he thinks S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford's quip comparing President Obama's stimulus package to Zimbabwe's economic policies are "beyond the pale" — and suggested they might carry a racial subtext.

"For him to compare the president of this country to Mugabe. ... It's just beyond the pale," said Clyburn, who has sparred with Sanford over the Republican's refusal to accept all the state's stimulus funding.
What's so disingenuous, you ask. Well, in the byline the word "crack" implies a negative connotation about the delivery of the "offender." This is an attempt by the writer to shape opinion. The same applies in the use of the word "quip." The word "comments" would have sufficed in each case, and would not have tried to imply wrong doing or...cheeky intent. And, Sanford did NOT compare President Obama to Mugabe. He compared the stimulus plan to the Zimbabwe economy. Their inflation rate last July was at a rate of 231 Million percent. Clyburn moved the argument away from the topic intended, and purposefully massaged the words to reflect perceived racism, although I would guess he knew that there was none intended. I would guess, because I can't read Clyburn's mind, just as he can read Sanford's. Politico, however, has no excuse for throwing fuel on the false fire in an effort to show malice.

So, how do you counter this process? What can you do when the very concept has woven itself into a Supreme Court decision in such a way that intent no longer is valid? More importantly, how to you return to a time when offending was bad manners, but not a civil taboo? What has to occur such that the freedom to express one's self isn't snuffed out by a "community's" carte blanche power to assign meaning, create meaning, and diseminate meaning for personal gain, ideological gain, and agenda enhancement?

Personally, I think you bring a bigger hammer.

If they accuse you falsely of racism, go on the offensive and explain that the very accusation indicates that the accuser is at the least, devisive and ignorant, and perhaps, a racist themself. Coordinate the effort such that the blogosphere is innundated with categorical regurgitation of the event(s). WHAT YOU DON'T DO...is apologize for no reason. You don't give the standard "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" speech that seems to be the standard procedure of our spinless soup du jour leaders these days. I would even suggest taking it a step further and challenging the legitimacy of any organization if they have such a prevocative and dishonest representative speaking on their behalf. Create an infighting in their house.

You can call this being an "OUTLAW" if you like. I prefer to consider it being honest with one's self, and holding tight to principles, values, and common sense.