Sunday, July 31, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, One Last Take... At Least For Now

I just wanted to briefly confess some naivete, and elaborate a bit on the things I shared that are hate speech crimes but the World seems to be perfectly happy blapping loudly about.

Remember those things?

If I told you to go steal something from the store across the street, and you were particularly impressionable and went off to do it, would I not be complicit in the theft? If I am, I can't see how I haven't committed a hate speech crime.

If I told you to go commit a sexually immoral or indecent act with someone else, even if that someone else appeared to be perfectly fine with it, and I furthermore shared with you explicit instructions about how to do it and how to feel about it, would I not be complicit in sexual abuse? If I am, I can't see how I haven't committed an act of hate speech.

If I told you to act on your desire to obtain something someone else has, particularly when it appears that someone else is in a different tribe with common physical features divergent from yours, and I furthermore enlisted the forces of established powerful individuals to secure those things to play up the perceived evils of the other tribe as a rationalization for your actions, would I not be complicit in exploitive appropriation?

The fact is millions of people are complicit in these acts all the time when they engage in socialism, sodomism, and racialism. What is so sorrowful is that most of those millions don't even know they are doing it.

Look at that first one. Socialism. Again, people like that things are equal, that things are fair, that people are treated with respect no matter how educationally disabled they are and unable to do a job someone with less disability can do. That's fine. But when powerful individuals, groups, or institutions mandate that others have large measures of their value appropriated to make sure this notion of equality eventuates, isn't that simply a form of theft?

Isn't this a violation of the commandment against theft?

Or how about the one on sodomism? The term is one deplored by the System devotees, but it merely means the most zealous endorsement of sexual immorality and ruthless rejection of anyone who opposes it on sexual health grounds. Thing is, as I thought about it, as I thought about the teleological truth that the only healthy sexual relations are those between a committed adult man and woman, and that having a sexual encounter with anyone else is a crime against the ones in that committed relationship, then isn't that simply a form of adultery?

Isn't this a violation of the commandment against adultery?

Then there is racialism, and my confession of naivete. When I wrote in one of my previous blog posts in this series, I referenced a video made by a gal who said, essentially, that blacks cannot be racist and that only whites can. Since then I've gotten the idea that this is an idea that has been prominent in the World devotee black community for a long, long time.

Guh?

I just didn't know.

First, I can only refer you back to my question from the previous blog. Ask yourself this question, very seriously: Where did they get that idea? Really, who put that idea into their brains? I did deliberately emphasize "World devotee black community" because I know so many blacks who are smart, savvy, spiritually gifted, and they understand the demonic nature of such a position.

I truly believe one of the reasons I'd never heard of this idea is because so many people, of all races, know how contemptibly idiotic that mentality is, and are very careful with its dissemination. I guess in today's wretchedly racialist environment it is more permitted to share, I don't know.

But I do want to make this overarching point through all of this.

It is that those hate speech crimes are ultimately violations of three of the Ten Commandments.

Oh, sorry, by the way, what is the violation of racialism, there in the Ten Commandments? Did you catch it?

Isn't this a violation of the commandment against coveting?

I'm not saying blacks shouldn't have anything that is good and righteous that whites enjoy, but covetousness is a heart condition, really. And in the sense of racialism, it is the claim that whites have a lot of things blacks don't have for the expressed purpose of keeping blacks in a persistent state of victimhood.

Is it true exploiters in all of these instances violate the Ten Commandments? Sure! Rich people could indeed be stealing from the poorer people. Married people could be abusing each other with terrible emotional violence -- many do! Racists get away with a lot of the worst kinds of exploitation. The Ten Commandments condemn each individual equally.

But the ultimate answer is not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton! Each of them actually want these things to flourish because then they get more air time to tell everyone how they're the ones to solve them! This is how its been for millennia! They're given marching orders from deeper politics operatives who keep it all assembled and thriving!

One of the main purposes of the Ten Commandments is to show us that we'll never meet those requirements, and that we need a savior who makes us alive again to be empowered to love one another so we can even live above the requirements of the law.

That's merely because we may love because Christ loved us first.

And from that is this truth...

It isn't about socialism, sodomism, or racialism -- really. I mean, really, I can understand why people believe in the precepts of each. I can see why they feel the way they do, why they say the things they say. They're hurting, wounded, angry, scared people.

It is, however, all about whether or not they actually understand the principle behind the First Commandment. It is simply the answer to this question.

Do you have any other gods besides God?

That's the main question, really. All the other considerations of who's doing what, who's violating what commandment or not violating it, all of it comes from the truth about who you are worshipping.

And I know, there are so many gods. I grieve for those who worship a god of ___. (Fill in the blank with just about anything. It seems most people like putting in that blank "The Crusade", both humanists and religionists alike. It just feels so good.)

Sadly, are people fellowshipping with people who understand and know God? I've written tons in my webzine about how churches who say they believe on Christ are just as much the World as anything, and are so frighteningly inadequate to share Christ and His love with World inhabitants who can't imagine not being a loud, blustering part of The Crusade.

This is the last post of the month. All this stuff about hate speech crimes.

I can only pray, as always, that people would find the Living World, a refreshing fountain of mercy and grace.

And I can of course write a little about Him.



Friday, July 22, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, and Understanding This May Take Some Time

Sadly, for so many, understanding that hate speech is indeed a crime will never happen. It'd be nice, but it just won't happen. We've been a civilized people for, what, at least 6,000 years, and we're still not getting it. We look around at people trying and trying and trying and just get exasperated.

I confess, I do too. I look at it all, and get exasperated. I'm working at acceptance, something I myself have been on about for some 20, 30 years. Acceptance is a very good thing, but it is still hard for me to not feel it when people simply refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes.

Oh, Jesus did the same thing, trust me. You can find how he felt in Scripture, His own words. Read about His feelings here, in just these few verses from the gospel of Mark -- 3:5, 6:6, 8:12 -- yeah, check it out.

Jesus got exasperated.

So yeah, I really can't add anything else to what I've shared, to what I've encouraged people to look at in Scripture or in a more intellectually rigorous approach to things happening all about and how they got that way, history, science, current events, philosophies, movements. I've thought about adding more on the idiocies of sodomism, racialism, and socialism, and yeah, there is so much more. So many people are rocketing themselves to hell based on their willful adoption of the hate speech vomited at them regarding these things.

And that is indeed a lot of it. So much of what people should be seeing and understanding in this thing reality is told to them by their "handlers." I like that phrase, your handlers. Those are the powerful people out there, sometimes they are referred to as the mandarins, those who have the System-girding privileges to govern your thoughts and feelings about things.

You know, I've been reading Acts again in my devotional time. I was very interested to note that when he could be out and about after his conversion experience, the very first major address Paul made was to tell a poser, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery! Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?"

Wow.

I mean, those words truly blew my mind, because really...

They are the exact same words we should be saying to the people managing the mainstream media networks regarding its extraordinarily overwhelming hate speech dissemination.

I've already gone into great detail about what precisely that is in my last home page piece and all the blogging I've done since. If I continue with it I'll be up to "Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime Part 57", and more. And there will be more. I'll continue blogging about it all. I'll continue writing in my webzine about the details, praying people would read -- and understand.

You know, last week in and around all the terror attacks, all the grand political goofiness, the communications app company Line went public. The stock started around $42 and has still been hovering in that range. I'd never known about this company, I guess it was a big deal. When I looked it up, I discovered Line is all about making sure all your messaging phoning texting posting photosharing emailing chatting groupchatting grouptexting nationforming any and all that stuff is alllll taken care of.

Here's the thing.

What, really, is the substance of what courses through those wires?

What exactly is that?

What is meaningfully transmitted from one individual to another, from one group to another?

Is it hate speech disguised as the most tolerant pusillanimous plap that people feel they must share with one another so they can be so pukifyingly polite, or is it

Truth and Grace?

Do you really want to see, know, comprehend, grasp truth, and then find the greatest joy in discovering that truth is really a Person?

Again, I like blogging, and will do it again sometime. Thanks for stopping by to read some, thanks. But to get the full breadth of what it means to look deep into the far reaches of Truth, I'd love to invite you to look over my webzine. My home page piece about exasperation from a number of years ago is here, by the way.

Even better, find Him here.

God Bless.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part V

I wanted to continue the thread from the last post with a few more thoughts, but I won't have time to continue it as I'd like. I just don't have the time. I may put in a "Part VI" with more later, but I'm afraid there will always be more to blog on. There is so much the World is doing to draw people into its clutches, and much of it involves the most hateful speech there is.

For now I can briefly add this to top off my remarks on socialism from the last post.

No matter how much you think socialism is the answer in some form or another, even if you are the nicest sounding Christian -- and yes, much of socialism's strength comes from very nice-sounding Christians -- governance works it out so that powerful exploiters, rich people very good at value extraction, continue to get rich so governance can appropriate more of wealth.

Progressive taxes mean it can get more tribute. And governance needs gobs of rent-bestowed exploiters out there for sucking up more tribute.

The question is, where did said rich person get that measure of value? From his/her customers, of course! It's really their money, a reflection of their productive value. In most cases it is legitimately handed over in some form or another, but far too often it is extracted through exploitative means.

Governance manages the sinful behavior of its charges, and must extract tribute for that. How great to appropriate more of it through a rich person! It still comes from the lower income extractees no matter how it looks. And how great is it for 100 million non-labor-force participating people to believe they can only be someone through the good graces of rich people.

It's all human sacrifice. "Socialism" is just another way Cain's legacy can do its duty.

The World is only about which exploiters are powerful enough to put a whole slew of exploitees on the altar. And they switch around which one is which all the time. There is always some exploiter more powerful than you. Funny how so many think they're somebody. Funny, if not pukifyingly tragic.

And what, exactly is this thing, governance?

It is composed of nothing other than the Roman Catholic Church, the federal government, the Federal Reserve, the mass media conglomerate, the college and university conglomerate, and all of their subdivisions: non-profit churches, ministries, and charities; the state and local government offices; the banks and financial firms.

There is only one way off the altar.

That is through the Kingdom.

You can't get there through the wide gate.

Only the narrow one.

Again, I can't write more now. I'd love to. I always am. Visit my webzine if you're interested in more of the contrast.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part IV

A few years ago I wondered why a video game company didn't invent a gaming experience in which the player can shoot at his enemy of choice -- zombie, monster, Nazi, whatever -- and do so in and about his regular environs. That is, he dons a set of glasses, goggles, or other such somewhat non-obstructive reasonably fashionable VR device, and the images of his targets appear from behind the tree across the street, from around the corner of the building in front of him, from behind the couch in his living room.

Blam blam blam -- using your fake pistol aimed at fake threats in a real setting, there you go, you just saved your family from some evil being right there about to invade your home. Or at least you could feel like you did.

Well, now there is something that is coming close to that, Pokemon Go, and it is the biggest video game craze since Pong. Apparently you can hop out and find Pokemon out and about in your regular environs, sort of a combination of video Pokemon and geocaching. What a blast!

Thing is, it's all just fantasy. It is very fun, but it immerses one in seeking life fulfillment in a fantasy world. I know why. When you do it with another you get all three true life needs met: relationship, accomplishment, discovery.

Life otherwise has turned into a dreadful bore, really, when you look at it. People are assholes, and actually not very interesting to talk to, for the most part. Everything out there already seems to be arranged for the spiffiest life-living for everyone, so what's a young person to do -- he can't even get a decent job. And hey, video games fill that need to see new, exciting, blood-spewing stuff without the risk of something traumatic happening. Hey, it's what you've got.

Still, it's not real life.

Many have derided Pokemon Go as being too dangerous, players are obliviously walking into traffic or allowing thieves to snatch their mobile devices. But that's not the worst of it.

People are simply not doing the hard work to see what real life actually is.

I share this because this gets at the third of my initial hate speech violations, things people say that should indeed make them subject to the most rigorous hate speech prosecution. The first was about sodomism, essentially the words, "Sexual relations with someone of the same sex should not only be endorsed but celebrated" do qualify as hate speech. The second was racialism, "Certain kinds of people are inherently racist," also definitively hate speech and something that the now renowned protest group "Black Lives Matter" build their entire crusade upon.

The third is this one, and one that many Pokemon Go enthusiast young people embrace with the greatest zeal. From my latest home page piece:

"It is best to enlist government people to fix income inequality by rearranging wealth in the name of charity."

Yes, this it better known by its qualifying terminology: socialism.

I'm simply not going to get into all of it here, too much. But it really isn't that complicated. It sounds so good, help out poor people. No one wants to be poor. That's fine. But what is often forgotten, neglected, or just flat-out dismissed by the socialist is that for every dime government hands to anyone who did not do the requisite value expression to earn that dime, it must remove that dime's worth of value from someone else. And that someone else had to do some kind of work to produce something that makes that dime worth something.

Yes, only the most cold-hearted individual would be against making sure some dimes are handed to the four types of people who simply cannot produce: children, the elderly, the sick or injured, and the disabled. The first three are really not in question, at all.

The really tricky part of that equation is the disabled. What does that mean? Sure it means people in wheelchairs, but many people in wheelchairs have perfectly fine jobs everywhere. Could it mean people who simply don't have the intellectual capacity to do high-paying work and could be then classified as ::gulp:: poor?

Could this kind of "disabled" also mean people who simply don't have the character to hold some income-earning position? That means they just aren't reliable, punctual, persevering, prudent, modest, industrious, or any of the many character traits that are required to effectively produce and in turn earn a decent living. Wow, what about that kind of disabled? I'm making no value judgment here, I'm just elaborating on some considerations that aren't as boldly articulated as maybe they should be.

And when these people are handed money they didn't earn, what happens when others without the most expansive amount of character attribution start to see how the World defines this thing disabled? "Hey, I can now make great excuses for not working! I can be 'disabled' too! Well, I can see my gravy train a-headin' my way!

And out of this codependent "I've got to rescue you from yourself" mantra you start to get the most explosive rent-snarfing society there is -- that's what we've got right now. You start getting a virulent reduction in the incentive to produce things. People may say they're disabled, but that doesn't mean there'll be enough stuff for government to get for them. Look at the final results of such a system, right now that's Venezuela.

You've got exactly what Marx said we should get, government insisting people get stuff based on their needs instead of allowing people to be rewarded for what their abilities can make. You merely have a whole world of needy people taking from the producers whose capacity is so stressed that produced things start to diminish.

Yes, everyone is needy, no matter how smart, knowledgeable, and productive. But we've gone from "I'll proudly and righteously earn my keep" to "Because I'm needy you must feed me no matter who I am or what I've done." Neediness is the new disability.

There are nearly 100 million people in the United States not in the labor force participation rate. That's now, really, 100 million people who could be working but can't get jobs because, well, are they disabled? Could it be they're being exploited, too? Of course.

But the fact is that's 100 million people who still need to buy groceries. And yes, someone somewhere somehow is paying for those groceries. Whether it is government public assistance in the form of "food stamps" or it is modestly well-off Uncle Irvin, there is a very measurable transfer of a very meaningful value assignment derived from the sweat of someone's brow.

The key point in all of this is that the U.S. Government -- in setting up this system, in maintaining the system, in its people maintaining this system through electing its government officials, is indeed...

Yes, the whole thing right now is indeed --

Socialist.

Right now. With everyone's full consent. U.S.A. might as well stand for "United Socialists of America". Seriously! Not being sarcastic in the least!

Oh the blowback from such a statement. From the conservatives "What -- you're not American?! How could you say that you communist! We're free market, we're capitalist, we're America!" From the liberals "What? With all the poverty still around and kids not getting free college and the rich getting richer -- are you kidding? This country is still the worst country with all the inequities, we're not close to the socialist ideal yet!"

::Sigh::

But, what can I expect. Tens of millions of people still living in their fantasy worlds. Playing their real life Pokemon Go's, thinking that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the answer, or fuming that each of these bonehead candidates leave them with no choice, or believing that they can continue to keep saying "Disabled!" and have government ensure they keep getting sent stuff without the overall destructive repercussions.

They haven't the faintest idea of what real life is.

::Sigh::

I've got to zip off to run some errands now, spend time with my family, take the afternoon coaching my high school sports team, I just can't blog any more --

For now.

But there is an answer. Really. I want to share it with you. I want to expand on this. I will, later, sometime. If you can't wait, read some in my webzine. The answer is there. Even better take some time and read this. The answer is really there.

Until then...

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part III

I am blogging yet again on a day when otherwise I'd be at work giving every once of attention to my job. I am blessed to do this now because I have time off from work for a while. I'm also committed to sharing more out of my latest home page piece in which I make the case that hate speech is indeed a crime, and that there should indeed be laws governing it.

The twist is that just as much as the liberal politically correct crowd is obsessed with speech police enforcement of offensive language violations, they too are subject to the same laws. When someone screeches "You microaggressed me!" I am perfectly within my rights to insist right back, "You're microaggressing me! You're the one who's violating healthy speech expectations!"

Yesterday I went into a bit more detail about how sodomous behavior actually destroys those who engage in it and as such I am perfectly justified in speaking out against it, and indeed it is those openly and vocally insisting on society's celebration of it who are committing the hate speech violations. Today I want to get a bit more into another of the claims/statements/assertions fomenting everywhere, this one particularly nasty with relation to the spewdom of the mainstream newscasting hegemony.

It is that of racialism. Not racism, racialism, which is the witch hunt for anyone who is perceived to be doing anything that may even remotely be considered racist, calling them out, and amplifying their violations so they may be duly prosecuted in the court of public opinion if not in actual courts where the most severe penalties may be assessed.

I could address the intensely hysterical amplification of any instance a white police officer shoots a black man. Whether or not the shooting is justified is beside the point -- now even writing that makes the racialist go apoplectic, by no means do I think any unjustified shooting is okay. The point is when the media disproportionately showcase a black victim harmed at the hands of a white man, they are sending a hate speech message. The message:

Whites are racist to the core and penalties must ensue in some form.

This is racialism, it is evil, and it is hate speech.

One of the most wretched examples of this comes from the Los Angeles Times. Recently they've been on a zealous crusade to make sure people working in Hollywood are sufficiently diverse. It has gone so far as to become mean-spirited, nasty, vicious -- this is the whole tenor of the crusade. Essentially: "Hey white Hollywood power brokers, if you don't deliberately showcase more people considered minority then you will be tarred with the label racist and we will not stop browbeating you with vitriol until you either bend the knee or completely disappear."

Who are those considered minority? I could list all the classifications, but you can look at them all plainly exhibited in their newspaper -- they've had this kind of gallery more than once. It can, however, be narrowed into one simple classification, really. It is identified in the second of my examples of the worst kinds of hate speech from my home page piece:

"It is best to be wary of American-English speaking, conservative, older, masculine-oriented, white males because they are mostly angry racists."

It is plainly the case, the Los Angeles Time echoing the wicked mentality of much of their constituency: "We need more diversity!... except for American-English speaking, conservative, older, masculine-oriented, white males."

One of the reasons this itself is hate speech is because besides being horrifically racialist, it is indeed, yes, quite racist. I refer to "American-English speaking" because white people with accents tend to be considered foreigners and are due some special privileged considerations. I also make reference to "masculine-oriented" because included among minorities are any LGBT-minded individuals.

Know what else? See if you can see who else it is racist against? It is one of the fascinating aspects of this that is completely lost on the racialist crusaders.

It is racist against those they claim to be helping.

Look at the message. "You minority people, you are losers because of the white power hegemony and you must have our help to make it in life." The racialist crusaders are certainly not against the most despicable paternalism, no, that's perfectly fine.

In fact, much of this is driven by a still raging devotion to the philosophy of postmodernism, even as those in academia have fully grasped its logical bankruptcy. Postmodernism is still giving cover for those who want to feel better about their asinine paternalistic self-righteousness.

Postmodernism is the position that there is no truth, and that any claims that anyone should know the truth are merely (a) narratives derived from one's interpretive community and as such have no real cognitive strength or meaningful value outside of that community and (b) attempts to exert an unjustified measure of power over other groups who have their own perfectly reasonable narratives.

The reason academia are seeing the untenable nature of such a position is phenomenally simple. You don't have to be a genius to get it, by any means. Postmodernism rests on the assumption that there is no objective truth. Thus the question: Is it true that there is no truth? The postmodernist: "It is not only true that there is no truth, but I assert the truth of narrative distinctions and power assertions and blah blah blah..."

Not a whole lot of people want to sound like an idiot.

What happens now is academia personnel backtrack on that aspect of it but they still live by its precepts. And those precepts continue to seep into the mainstream through the disseminating broadcasting personalities who merely spout the stuff that's written on the script for them to spout.

One such example was in a brief video I saw, I don't know how I was directed to it, a friend on Facebook or something maybe, not sure. But it was of a young black woman, I believe she was even sharing this on MSNBC -- I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised because the NBC network is one of the main folly marketers and an extraordinarily powerful one at that. She essentially said this:

"It is okay for blacks and other minorities to get away with being racist because they are not part of the white power establishment. This is why it is not okay for whites to get away with it."

The brutal irony of this is that if her postmodernist take here is accepted as the valid one and fully adopted by all, what happens when her particular community -- presumably that of this monolithic force minorities, finally exerting their power as the ::gulp:: majority -- become the power establishment? Does that then make it okay for whites to be racist?

Besides the fact it is stunningly racist, racialist, paternalistic, and silly because it is based on the silliness of postmodernism, it is also shared without any challenge by anyone who is smart enough to call her on it. How discouraging it is that so many who know the truth about this evil are saying nothing.

Furthermore, she is getting her copy from someone. As much as she says she's doing her own thinking and she says she's her own person and she gets commended by so many for her own genius brilliant insight and thoughtfulness...

She is being fed this tripe from someone.

Even if you can identify the people in the university where she was trained in this stuff, from whom did they get their indoctrination?

Do you know?

In fact much of the media world elite would love for you to benignly dismiss understanding that truth. While I was in the doctor's office the other day I browsed through a Time magazine and came across an article about an individual whose "stage" name is "PewDiePie". I'd never heard of this guy, but he's extremely popular among the teenage/young adult male demographic -- 44 million regular subscribers. It seems that all he does is show Youtube videos of him playing video games and riffing on any other hip thing he wants to drone on about.

Lev Grossman closes his piece of June 6 of this year: "Nobody directs PewDiePie, nobody writes his lines, nobody handles him. He's pioneering a new kind of fame that never existed before: it's not manufactured by a studio or network, it's handmade, at home, subscriber by subscriber, view by view."

Not.

PewDiePie is just as much a product of the people who put things into his brain to bilge into the brains of his followers as anyone else.

You are following someone.

Ultimately it gets down to two different people. You are following one or the other.

You are following Jesus, or you are following the Devil.

Yes, this is not a new truth or one that is lost on very many people, yes. It is just that it is violently dismissed by a humanist naturalist academia-media power hegemony of itself led by those hypnotically devoted to wiping out any semblance of the supernatural influences on our lives.

Lots of people have influenced PewDiePie to say and do the things he says and does, no matter how ribald or novel his rants are. The question again is, who is influencing those people?

Who is influencing millions to be racialist, or sodomist, or anything else that gets people to straight away reject the words Jesus has shared, all in the name of doing what they believe is really the righteous stuff?

When really, it is just as much hate speech as anything else.

The key here is that while the hate speech laws should apply to them just as much as anyone else, followers of Christ want people to not have to endure the brutal reality of that hell. That is why they do share Him and His work and His authority.

The follower of Christ knows he/she is just as guilty as anyone else, the law condemns them just as much as anyone else.  The difference is they know what real mercy is, what real forgiveness is, what real grace and hope and beauty is. There is eternal life, and there is death that looks like life.

It is a matter of the World, which keeps people enslaved to their benighted, destructive conceptions of what they think is righteous, or the Kingdom which authentically frees.

___

(July 7 Note: Just tonight eleven police officers in Dallas were shot, four of them fatally, during the tail end of a "Black Lives Matter" rally. On Facebook I shared a friend's photograph -- shown below -- and added these words:
When will we stop the racialism. Yes, racism is bad, but racialism is just as bad. What happened in Dallas tonight is due in part to a racialist mainstream media that goes apoplectic any time a white police officer takes any action against a person of color. Words often translate into the actions of those who heed them -- especially when they come from the extraordinarily powerful MSM. I fear tonight's incident in Dallas isn't the worst of it... 
It is good to know we have a Savior who holds us in His hands no matter what happens. In light of these horrific events, I may still pray and pray and pray that people would actually see this nightmarish stuff for what it is, get out of the humanist-powered racialist idiocy, and turn to Christ.)





Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part II

After posting my latest home page piece, I realized I should probably blog a bit about all the stuff included in the idea of speech. Yes, I'll never blog enough to cover all the things I wanted to write, all the things I'm still thinking about it all. This is why a critical component is that we're talking about it with others, indefinitely, just talking.


That's a very good thing.

It is also why I should mention one of the top philosophers regarding this "freedom of speech" thing, and that is John Stuart Mill. I wanted to plug him into the home page piece, but I just couldn't find a place for him without messing with an already delicate cohesion.

But he deserves a mention. He argued that we should live in an environment where all our differences may be respected and there is opportunity for all views to be shared. If a particular view is considered irrational or unrighteous in some way, well then, we can all employ our level-headedness and sharpen our own thinking out of the reasonable comprehension of the ideas shared.

It sounds so noble.

The problem is that many people don't do that. Many people take in ideas that are wickedly reprehensible, ideas that are shared with tremendous sincerity and given vigorous weightiness, and they aren't justifiably rejected.

One such idea is one I noted in the home page piece, and again, I just felt compelled to elaborate. It is this one, transcribed from my webzine:

"It is best to endorse the behavior of people who do sexually untraditional things with one another in the name of celebrating our differences and embracing our individual liberties."

To make it more concrete, this is the idea that if you want to have a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, as long as it is consensual, then it is perfectly fine, and that if someone objects then he/she is to be reviled openly in some way as too narrow-minded or bigoted or homophobic. Where on earth did people, now in droves, reasonably adopt such an idea?

Now there is a place where they got that idea, and if you look at my home page piece, you may get started on that course.

The point is, what is the situation with this idea now being considered mainstream acceptable?

Am I able to share -- openly and boldly and articulately -- truthful speech about sodomy's horrifically destructive consequences? Am I able to share that I do so because I care about the individuals involved in their destruction? Am I able to make an extraordinarily strong case against their pathetically inadequate attempts to justify it? Am I able to detail the reasons for my position, including my view that there should indeed be a law in place to prohibit such behavior but that there is also a loving Savior who heals and restores and completely forgives those who act on their same-sex attractions? Am I able to do this in the safe environment they expect without the listener resorting to name-calling -- in the truest sense of what Mill sought?

Thing is, if Mill is right, then unrighteous and destructive ideas should justly be rejected.

I'd like to share a story with you about this very point. It helps make the case.

About a year ago I attended a lecture at one of the Claremont Colleges, as I frequently do. Most are filled by a few fan-boys of the speaker, students who must be there for credit, and a smattering of others -- not too well attended. This particular one, however, was packed.

The speakers were two women who'd fought in the courts to get married, and they were regaling everyone with the story of their struggle. They showed slides with images of the protesters and supporters and others who helped them along the way. The substance of their presentation was mostly about the legal and political challenges they faced.

Needless to say the audience was very supportive, overwhelmingly so. This is the new civil rights struggle, especially prominent on campuses. Make sure everyone gets the freedom to do what they want in the bedroom. Damn -- never mind that colleges right now are going insane having to address the rampant sexual assault cases that result from this mentality.

Anyway, afterwards there was a question and answer period, and while I knew I would not get a chance to ask my question (too many in attendance and preferences go to students, so they almost always are the only ones asking questions), I want to share it with you now. Here was the question I wanted to ask.

"Please do not mistake me for a marriage pluralist, which means I would be someone who even though I have some passing preference for marriage only between a man and a woman I'm perfectly fine with your pretend marriage. No, you should know that I am a marriage upholder, which means it should be fully accepted that it is a crime for anyone to have a sexual relationship with anyone other than an adult of the opposite sex to which one is married..."

Now, I haven't even gotten to the question here, but I think in honor of Mills I should let people know precisely where I'm coming from. But really, how many people in that room would have already not only tuned me out but would be judging me as someone worse than a Nazi war criminal? Why? Oh, I know why, but these are supposed to be the most enlightened brightest individuals on the planet.

Also, it is true, yes, that I don't really have to preface my question with a statement that will only negatively color what they all think of me. But then again, who's fault is that? I also shared this preface because it is why I wrote a similar thing in my home page piece. You may catch it there

Okay, here's the question.

"Do you think people should be able to have a fully sexual experience with an animal, or a dead person, or a lamppost, or a four-year-old girl, or all of them at the same time for that matter? Are you okay with that, or are you not? Yes or no?"

What would their answer be? Before I continue, their answer, whatever it is, thoroughly discredits their position. Can you see why? Think about it. I'll give you a minute. While you're doing that, the homosexualist voice often tries to argue against the question by dismissing the merits of the question itself. "Slippery slope you say? Pshaw. That's just stupid." They do this all the time, and say nothing. Now these two may have responded this way, but they'd still be evading the question.

They still do have a feeling about the question.

Let's say they answer it.

If they respond, "Yes, we think that's okay. Full marriage equality, to each his or her own, full sexual freedom that's what we're about."

First of all, I don't think anyone in their right mind would endorse such a thing. But to be truly consistent with their position, they have to. How often do I hear the words "marriage equality" or "marriage inclusivity". Really? Does that include my marriage to my dog? The lamppost out front -- really, it does love me. I want to marry my grandmother, we're in love, but she's dead -- that shouldn't matter though! Total freedom and equality and inclusion, that's what we're all about.

See, right away this reveals the bankruptcy of their position. But that's just the righteousness aspect. Most people do indeed see the wretched unrighteousness of those things, and yes they do wholly endorse law enforcement policies and practices to prevent them.

What about the logical aspect? It too destroys their claims. That is this:

If they're in favor of whatever-whoever-however when it comes to sexual experiences, then what in blazes are they doing here? Why are they here blithering about their marriage, when according to their view it can be anything they want it to be? In fact, if it can be for anyone anyhow for any reason, then why have marriage?

If these two women answer "Yes" to the question, then marriage is meaningless.

What are they then doing, telling us all about how they need the courts to decide this or that, or how they need public opinion to swing in their favor, or how government must sanction this or that particular "marriage" thing?

I know why. It is because much of this is merely their way to feel good about their wickedness, and the more and more people and courts and government offices to approve it then the better they can feel about it. Funny, who're being the intolerant ones here?

Now to the other answer to the question. What happens if instead of "Yes", they say "No". "No", they say, "we don't approve of those kinds of sexual behaviors."

Then I wonder, how can they be consistent with their own insistence that we all rally behind them and approve of their unrighteous sexual behavior?

And where do they draw the line? Do they draw the line at three people having a sexual encounter? Would they go so far as to say bestiality is okay but necrophilia is not? Where exactly on the sexual encounter between whoever continuum are they okay and where are they not?

Here's the key part of this:

Who decides where that is?

To cut to the chase, who decided it was okay for two people of the same sex to have a sexual encounter? Did they? Was it just they decided because it felt good?

Yes, lots of people do lots of things, many times not very wholesome things, because it feels good. I got that. But who said we all have to be perfectly fine with people regularly engaging in sexual abuse crimes and saying nothing when the movements to get everyone to bow to the precepts of such activity become too entrenched?

Who said that point there on the continuum, namely the one allowing same-sex relationships to be openly and publicly celebrated, was the accepted one? Because if it was just whoever wants it to be there, then you're simply back to supporting true marriage inclusion, and that means you can do anything you want no matter how wicked.

But if there is a transcendent standard-giver, namely God, who said in both His word and in the natural order He created that the standard is a distinctly particular thing, then there is indeed a grounding for why anyone should or shouldn't do something. Furthermore since we can never be perfect in meeting that standard doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss it in the name of "individual liberty" or "sexual freedom."

It does mean we can call on His name, and know that He does answer in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.

It is easy to see why I couldn't really ask that question in that setting. Oh did I want to.

But it involves continuing the conversation. I can do a small part by posting here in my blog, writing in my webzine to begin with. I could say a lot more here in this post, but it's long.

The conversation can go forever.

I do wonder, how many of those college students, if I were to ask the question, and if they were to hear what the response from those women was, would be able to determine that their entire enterprise is truly bankrupt?

And believe me, I don't revile those women or the students in attendance. I do feel for them, however. I do feel great sorrow for them, and can only pray that they'd be able to see the truth in all of it.

And the Grace as well...

And that we could have a conversation...

___

(Technical note: For some reason the font isn't the way it is supposed to be. After cutting & pasting the quote from my webzine, I inadvertently continued to type with that font. For some reason Blogger can't cope with making the font the way it is regularly. I've messed with it, but it'll be fine. It still works, however. Thanks for your readership.)

___

(July 7 note, I cannot refuse to add this passage from a piece from Vanity Fair, something I was just browsing through tonight. It is stunning to me, and just makes the case above stronger. This is just a small part of the expose on the increase in "sex work", the selling of one's body to pay the bills.
Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says, “because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.” Women in sex work reportedly experience a high incidence of rape, as well as a “workplace homicide rate” 51 times higher than that of the next most dangerous job, working in a liquor store, according to the American Journal of Epidemiology
“If prostitution is really just physical labor,” says the Canadian feminist writer and prostitution abolitionist, Meghan Murphy, on the phone, “if it’s no different than serving coffee or fixing a car, then why would we see rape as such a traumatic thing? If there’s nothing different about sex, then what’s so bad about rape?”
And they say there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Have they no shame at all.) 

Monday, July 04, 2016

Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime. But... Then What?...

I finally uploaded my latest home page piece, and I had a goal of making a reasonably clear statement about this thing speech. I think I was able to share some lucid considerations, but I realize it is a subject that is so complex and multi-faceted that it requires much more -- ahem -- talking about it.

What I've seen out there in the big bad world right now is a lot of rigmarole over what kind of speech is acceptable. There is this conception mostly among conservative/libertarian types that any speech is acceptable ("Hey! First Amendment baby!") but this always reflects a pathetic refusal to do the intellectual hard work to understand what's really happening.

In fact, I've come to the realization that hate speech is indeed a crime, and should be fully prosecuted with the full extent of the law. The terribly troubling part about that is, what is it exactly that should be prosecuted? This is a critical component of the presently raging culture war, and is it raging.

For instance, the homosexualist voice out there will insist that if I say "Homosexual activity destroys the lives of those who engage in it", that is a hate speech crime. In my view, someone who says "Those who say 'Homosexual activity destroys lives' should be penalized in some way", that is a hate crime, and they should be penalized.

Ouch.

Thank God for the Kingdom. Thank God for mercy and forgiveness and grace and hope and the knowledge that He loves and opens His arms to us from that.

Again, there is so much more to all of this, and I was hoping to blog a bit more this month about the things I simply could not plug into my home page piece. Already it is a bit less cohesive than I'd like, but it'll do. But again, I can add some things here, and I hope to. We'll see.

I do want to say that last night I watched this family Pixar film Zootopia with my wife and daughter. Some of the film's thrust was pukifyingly World indoctrination. The theme song was "Try Everything," and when I hear stuff like that from these kinds of things I know they're subtly getting across the idea that you should experiment sexually for you to be truly fulfilled. In Frozen it was "Let It Go!" and I don't believe there is one person paying attention who doesn't understand that this means "Stop holding back on your splendidly novel sexual identity." I've heard too much already about the pressures on Pixar to give Elsa a girlfriend. Wow.

There was also the horrific racialist angle. Fighting racism is fine, but when it becomes racialism, it is just as ugly. In Zootopia a certain kind of animal was labelled and stereotyped and was even having penalizing things happen to them -- losing jobs and being marginalized and being sent to the ghetto -- those kinds of things. So then it was perfectly fine for all those railing against the racism to go on a witch hunt, accusing anyone who wasn't among the persecuted kind of being racist because so much fear and loathing was everywhere.

The interesting thing is that the movie did, in some way, make a strong case for how all of this crap happens. The racist persecution hysteria was stirred by a politician trying to legitimize her authority. Pretty much what happens in our real world. Furthermore, animals were shot with hallucinogenic bullets to make them savages, yep, that's also pretty much how the real World works.

Only here, instead of the bullets, it's the words that pour through the authorized media channels.

Zootopia is about making sure everyone who is wildly different gets along. The film itself is a glorious paeon to the humanist vision of making that happen simply through willpower and resolve and the requisite System dogma pouring through our craniums. Please know that this is indeed what the System must do to manage a population given over to licentiousness and racialism and plain old murder and deceit and theft.

The way out of all of that to truly have actual getting along among people?

That requires the Kingdom.

That requires believing on the One Who Loved First.

Fake World love is okay, for a while, I guess.

Wouldn't you want the real one? And wouldn't you want to talk with people whose speech comes from Him and His words and His Kingdom?

I truly believe the sodomist and the racialist so rail against that because when Jesus is introduced to them, they only have some Catholicist variation of that Jesus in their minds, and they've been hypnotically entranced to reject it with everything they've got.

Oh that they'd be introduced to the Real One.

Oh that there'd be Kingdom people to do that...