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...
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...
Comments
Post a Comment