Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Engaging With Reality
I want to offer some examples of what the university world is producing, i.e. violent, inane and vicious behavior. I hate to write about behavior like this, because in the end it is only positive statements of principles which offer us guidelines for living. The weakness of the Church of Zero (hat tip, The Anchoress), is clear.
On the other hand, Dr. Sanity is obviously correct in writing that we cannot deal with reality until we acknowledge it. And the reality is that we have groups of people who are behaving just like those who marched and burned and threatened death over the Danish cartoons. Cause and effect hold true in the Americas just as they do in Africa, Asia or Europe. Hat tip Dust My Broom: What did Michelle Malkin do to garner emails such as these?
From: Joe Smith email@example.comThe answer is simple. She wrote about SAW mounting an attack on military recruiters at UC Santa Cruz, and she reprinted a press release containing the organizers' contact information. The purpose of the "action" as stated by SAW is to make it difficult to conduct war in order to end it. Santa Cruz Sentinel. (UC Santa Cruz's administration seems to have been tacitly complicit with the demonstrators - they accepted the students' proposal to segregate the military recruiters, which is a violation of the Solomon Amendment rules on access. That was their real success.) When a group of women was escorted through by police to speak to the recruiters, the protesters tried to break through the police line. At least one recruiter (a combat veteran) thought that the students were "looking for action" and decided to leave. When the recruiters left in a van a student was arrested for hurling rocks at it, so I guess he was right. From an email to Michelle:
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: You belong in prison.You are a disgusting waste of oxygen.
You WILL burn in hell you disgusting cunt.
From: NorthCentralGuy@aol.com NorthCentralGuy@aol.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:47 PM
Someone ought to sew your cunt up with barbed wire. Not that it gets any use, you facist, hate spewing, disgraceful piece of shit.
Michael McPherson firstname.lastname@example.org
6:42 pm (1 hour ago)
You are a fucking slanty-eyed cunt.
Have a nice day
From: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Apr 17, 2006 6:31
you miserable cunt... too bad your parents were not killed in a war...
From: James Ventura email@example.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: you are a CUNT
From: Steve McQueen firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: You are a traitor
Your decision to release the contact information of people who disagree with
you is reprehensible, irresponsible and ignorant. If you had a conscious I
would expect you to be ashamed of yourself, but I know you do not.
To leave it on your site after they have requested it be taken down AND
after your supporters have made death threats against them is disgusting.
(note - according to Michelle, they have not requested that it be removed)
Grow up, you fucking princess.
From: JBD email@example.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: I guess it's time...
To post not only YOUR personal information on the web, but that of your family as well...After all, Michelle, it's only fair. Hmmm...who should we start with and where shall we post it? You are a reprehensible excuse of a human being.
Craig Mayor firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: chink scum
leave the students alone
lets call YOUR friends and family
From: J. Beeson email@example.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: UCSC Death Threats
Fuck you for printing those SAW numbers, you bitch. Hope you get harassed and your numbers printed. Did I say "fuck you"....Oh yeah...I guess I did. Bitch.
If they do not want to support the military, or their country, that too is their right. But their rights end when they infringe upon those of others, be they in uniform or not. To hinder these soldiers in the lawful performance of their duty or interfere with those seeking information the soldiers may provide is unconscionable. And for your institution to not prevent this assault is equally unconscionable.Using violence to end war might seem like a contradiction in and of itself, but see Dr. Sanity's post on denial:
It appears that one of the things these “students” have learned at your fine institution is that it is perfectly acceptable to silence those with whom you disagree.
But when denial distorts or obscures reality, we are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems. Our energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as we get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time.Note also that after Michelle posted the press release, the students say that they received threats. It's not just on one side - the anger in our society is growing. (See Liberal Larry's Hate Mail.) The emailers to Malkin are expressing threats and hatred because they believe she did an unfair thing by posting the SAW contacts' names. What's lost in all of this is the reference to external, objective principles. I can't believe that it is wrong to post a press release, but certainly an action to "shut the Republican hate machine down" can't logically take the form of sending emails to a "chink bitch" about sewing her cunt shut with barbed wire. Any sane person should understand that a wrong action is a wrong action. How can one claim to be against hate while expressing these sorts of sentiments?
The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.
• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.
• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.
• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.
• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.
What we see here is the abandonment of objective, universal principle and the eruption of tribalism; the atmosphere is one in which any action is justified if it is taken against the "enemy". Again, facts are unimportant. That the contact information was contained in a press release is unimportant. In fact, on this Daily Kos thread about suing Malkin a person is identified as a "troll" for writing:
Cause of action? (5+ / 1-)The response:
ben masel, tvb, certaintruths, DemocraticLuntz, BrunoNYC
...publishing the names, phone numbers, school email addresses, of the press contacts for a UCSC school organization/club where the information was obtained from a publicly released "official press release" marked with "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE."
...publishing said information on Malkin.com while said information was available on multiple public websites and "e-zines"
I dunno doesn't sound like much of a case to me. Sounds more like a case of free advertising to me...
Free advertising? (0 / 0)Get that? To which a person replies:
When the students get death threats and ask Malkin to remove their contact information from her site, I'm pretty sure they're not looking for free advertising.
Note: This user, Samulayo, has been called out as a troll in the other thread so beware of his/her agenda.
Poor lawyer? (0 / 0)(See Assistant Village Idiot's posts on trolling and on advocacy here and here. Note the anger above when a "costless" passion is confronted with the reality of objective disagreement.
I doubt you're going to find a single licensed lawyer in the country willing to bring this suit against Malkin. You see, a suit has to be based on an actual LAW to go anywhere. Moreover, this suit would get nailed with an Anti-SLAPP motion faster than [insert cliche]. Malkin would end up making money as a result of such a retarded suit.
Oh, and how mature of you to troll rate the post...
As Ron Burgundy might say, "Stay classy DelRPCV..."
But I suppose you'll also call me a facist troll, even though you're the one trashing the first amendment and you're unable to cite any law supporting your position.
But why is this behavior growing? In at least part, it is growing because "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws or codes are focused on membership in a group, and don't address individual conduct. Under this conception of the law, bashing a person's face is held to be a more severe crime when you do it to another human being who is different than you. These policies are universal on college campuses everywhere. The abandonment of a universal standard of behavior that is inherent in such laws is suicide for our culture. What the university ummah culture idealizes is dhimmi membership, because the university ummah culture grants special rights to dhimmis. This is an inversion of the majoritarian supremacy fallacy the ME is struggling with now, but it will have exactly the same results or perhaps even worse results.
If rights are yours because of your membership in a group, and worse yet, because of your membership in a historically disadvantaged group, then society becomes a struggle to find and express grievances between groups instead of the development of a common agenda (again, see Shrinkwrapped and SC&A) and conflict must generalize and spread rather than be isolated and confined to the dysfunctional few. Grievances become the goal; doing the difficult work of living for positive purposes becomes a corrosive reproach to society itself, reason is replaced with passion, and a downward spiral into inane violence and self-destruction begins. Surely this is logically obvious?
We ought to be able to appeal to each other on the basis of absolute standards. That was the original vision of the Constitution. Every citizen was to have the same rights and the law was to be applied to each person equally. It took two hundred years of painful history to reach the point at which opportunity in our society was very widespread and the vote was available to each adult. To abandon the summit of justice now is an incomprehensible societal strategy that imperils us all, but most especially imperils every minority group or vulnerable person in our culture. The self-destructiveness of the university ummah culture is obvious. How is it that we do not see this? How is it that we don't see how we are behaving? How is it that our broader culture finds itself unable to address the obvious and explicit error?