When the Law Becomes Oprah-fied
And one might ask: what is harmed by generosity and compassion, by a spirit of leniency and flexibility, a pragmatic willingness to acknowledge the impact of past wrongs and present difficulties on individual and collective behavior? Much is harmed. Although I can think of cases in which it seems reasonable to bend a rule because of personal circumstances, I believe that such cases must be exceptional. The effects of our era’s insistence on elective leniency — leniency determined by a sad story as much as by any weighing of evidence, such evidence being almost impossible to calculate — are manifold and deleterious. It need hardly be said that personal responsibility is weakened in a culture in which exceptions are routinely granted for the unfortunate. Who would hold herself responsible for bad behavior or poor choices when the blame can be laid elsewhere (at the feet of the powerful, for example, or society in general)? Perhaps a kind of envy of disadvantage (or at least of faux-disadvantage) will result from the conclusion that hard luck stories are their own useful currency. Such envy may lead — has already led, in some circles — to overt competition amongst the dispossessed just as there used to be competition amongst high-achievers.
Doesn’t nearly everyone have a sad story, after all? If we search hard enough, we can surely find something — the lecherous uncle who made advances, the acne that would not respond to treatment, the aunt’s horrible cancer death — to bring forward as evidence of hardship and resulting maladjustment. And who wouldn’t thus search when the rewards are so immediate and tangible, such as special consideration and power? Why would anyone decisively overcome and then put aside an experience of disadvantage or maltreatment when the social and monetary advantages of re-living the experience are so great and come with so few drawbacks? It was undoubtedly unjust in a previous era to be made to feel shame about misfortune, especially misfortune beyond one’s control, but it is equally damaging, if less obviously so, to feel a socially sanctioned affirmation in it, a comfortable conviction of absolution and innocence. Those who are not compelled to take responsibility for their failures are ultimately prevented from taking responsibility for their achievements as well. And a society that encourages its members to define themselves according to helplessness in the face of adversity — whether large-scale injustice or personal bad luck — is one that no longer believes in greatness.
The worst of it is not only that people stop believing in themselves and in one another through a massive lowering of expectations. The worst is that they also stop believing in the institutions that underpin our civil society: the school system, the police, the courts, and government. When the rule of law is flouted, when institutional practice is dictated by personal whim, and when truth is replaced by narratives of exculpatory victimization, then the basis of our liberal democracy, with its commitment to individualism and equality, is imperiled. Our very values — the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad — become blurred and imprecise. Although we may all be grateful to have a fine reduced at the discretion of a police officer, the money we save in the moment — in that freeing but demoralizing moment of confession and absolution — will cost us dearly in the end.
Everyone has a story. What we need is equal treatment before the law, and an affirmation of merit and truth.
‘Victimology’ has become a danger to the western way of life. Little counts more than ones sob story. Cry me a river.
And, garbage in, garbage out.
Nevertheless, all victim groups are not created equal – at least according to the leftist ruling academic junta.(And, no one should think this mama is venting at academia because of non-admission of her progeny – MIT & Caltech grads) Nevertheless, the damage done by their warped views has become a danger to western civilization. It is that serious and simple.
IF this was the class, surely Jewish students would be given EVERY possible pass for acting out. In fact, is there any other group which is targeted more on western campuses, particularly if they are pro-Israel?
Moreover, a student can hardly enjoy a moment of respite at a school play, without being assailed by the campus thought police. For edification, please google ‘When History Becomes Hijacked’ by Chaim Kutnicki. It tells just a small part of the tale, but it IS instructive.
Onto the meat of the matter – if not for western appeasement-syndrome (a direct outgrowth of victim hood pathology)this blogger would not have written her commentary today – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/09/shariah-law-enforcers-continue-unimpeded-westerners-terrified-to-counter-them-the-redgreen-alliance-assures-their-eventual-western-triumph-if-not-stopped-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ , and once a society goes down this slippery slope, all manner of mischief becomes commonplace.
As to academia – the only groups which are held to a real high standard are Jews and Asians. As far as I am concerned, it is a good thing, but a double and hypocritical standard nonetheless.
A brother’s eyes “filled with tears” too but he got a different kind of “therapy” – officer called it “wuss therapy” – max fine, car impounded, jail…
‘Victimology’ has become a danger to the western way of life. Little counts more than ones sob story. Cry me a river.
And, garbage in, garbage out.
Nevertheless, all victim groups are not created equal – at least according to the leftist ruling academic junta.(And, no one should think this mama is venting at academia because of non-admission of her progeny – MIT & Caltech grads) Nevertheless, the damage done by their warped views has become a danger to western civilization. It is that serious and simple.
IF this was the class, surely Jewish students would be given EVERY possible pass for acting out. In fact, is there any other group which is targeted more on western campuses, particularly if they are pro-Israel?
Moreover, a student can hardly enjoy a moment of respite at a school play, without being assailed by the campus thought police. For edification, please google ‘When History Becomes Hijacked’ by Chaim Kutnicki. It tells just a small part of the tale, but it IS instructive.
Onto the meat of the matter – if not for western appeasement-syndrome (a direct outgrowth of victim hood pathology)this blogger would not have written her commentary today – /2012/09/09/shariah-law-enforcers-continue-unimpeded-westerners-terrified-to-counter-them-the-redgreen-alliance-assures-their-eventual-western-triumph-if-not-stopped-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ ,(google ‘Adina Kutnicki’ it will pop up) and once a society goes down this slippery slope, all manner of mischief becomes commonplace.
As to academia – the only groups which are held to a real high standard are Jews and Asians. As far as I am concerned, it is a good thing, but a double and hypocritical standard nonetheless.
#IfObamadontwin Is the GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING.
I wonder how much of this being so much like Critical Pedagogy is an accident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy
I don’t wonder why illegal campesinos from a failed Third World have no trouble pushing around what is essentially a suicide cult.
Liberalism is an excuse/blame factory for failure. It is a rot that is too advanced to perhaps ever turn back given the new demos and numbers of people who benefit from the nanny state.
Today the idea that the meek shall inherit the Earth has a quite different tone; one of a dystopian future of Marching Morons. The irony is that if in fact such peoples are the victims of some kind of systemic discrimination beyond mere Mother Nature, we are guaranteeing they will never develop the tools to succeed but while being in a position to do great harm, like a monkey that’s been given the job of piloting a commercial airline out of pity.
Pity is not a new notion in this regard; even pop culture America in the ’60s knew about the bleeding heart liberal. The funny thing is how exactly people like Oprah and our PC culture mimic Critical Pedagogy without being aware CP exists.
The unfunny thing is that our ancestors would spit on us and our great-great grandchildren certainly will.
You wiki link explains it quite nicely………
The grand heresy of modernism is authenticity; that there is even a self outside of language, culture, tradition, community, filial and tribal bonds – even subjective human experience itself. Considering the anti-theistic bias in secularism, this is almost common sense…….
It’s interesting, also, that the Wikipedia article contains no “Criticism” section, as such articles normally do. According to the Talk page it had one, at one time, but it has been removed. Critical theory is hard to critique, I guess.
Your wiki link explains it quite nicely………
The grand heresy of modernism is authenticity; that there is even a self outside of language, culture, tradition, community, filial and tribal bonds – even subjective human experience itself. Considering the anti-theistic bias in secularism, this is almost common sense…….
“The Marching Morons”. – Cyril would be proud.
Elizabeth Warren falsely claims Indian ancestry to further her academic career and still has a great chance to become a US senator from Mass. Her only claim to victimhood is that she is a member of the female sex which now comprise a large majoity on college campuses. Just how being a liberal woman at any US university is a handicap boggles the imagination.
Yikes!
Being a liberal means only that you have no standards and anyone who may point out your shortcomings is obviously a racist, bigot, homophobe, and/or sexist.
Much of this dates to the 1960s, when the counter-culture took over academia. Their worldview was that they were “different”, “special”, and society “did not understand them”. Actually, “society” understood them perfectly; people who think that destroying themselves with chemicals is a good thing are an old story we know well. (“Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.”)
By the Seventies, their failure to bend the rest of society to their will had festered, and mutated into a yearning to wreck as much of society as they could reach. If society would not acknowledge their superiority and bend the knee, they would by Marx break society’s kneecaps. Hence SDS, the Weather Underground, etc., here, and groups like the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof), Brigade Rosse, etc., elsewhere. Communism was a perfect fit for this lot, as they recognized it as an elitist government pattern, in which a self-anointed elite’ could claim power and force obedience from everyone else. And they were sure they were perfect. (And still are.)
Where this ties in to “narratives” is that this same group considers criminals as simultaneously “victims” of society, and heroes for “rebelling” against it. They see themselves as rebels, in fact romanticize themselves as such. And do the same to actual criminals. If the criminal is part of a “special” group with “past grievances”, so much the better. They are taking their legitimate revenge on an uncaring, oppressive “majority”. (This being the preferred codeword for “anybody we also dislike”.)
The end game is power and control. Since our “enlightened ones” have never achieved it by legitimate means (i.e., convincing the rest of us that they really are qualified to run things), they are seeking to achieve total and absolute power by tearing the rest of society down, using the power of “grievances” and “narratives” to destroy our ability to defend ourselves.
But always remember that no matter how “humanitarian” they try to sound, the core of the movement is hatred, envy, and power lust. They want to destroy us so they can build Utopia on the ruins. Utopia being defined as “any social construct in which we have absolute power”.
If they succeed, don’t expect that any “narrative” you can come up with will save you from their Righteous Wrath. The technique is only allowed to work in their favor, no one else’s.
History abounds with examples of the results of such a forced societal sea change. The French Revolution, and the Terror, to say nothing of the later Paris Commune. The Russian Revolution, Stalin’s purges, and the Terror Famine. Hitler. Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The Argentine junta, Galtieri, and the “disappeared ones”. And of course Khomeini, the Iranian purges, and practically every “Islamist” group in the MidEast today.
Compare their actions to the rhetoric of the “compassionate” left. (Including the “environmentalists”.) And remember that “grievance compensation” tends to be a one-way street.
clear ether
eon
“The Occupy Wall Street movement with its filth, violence, and contempt for the law is often not only tolerated but even celebrated in progressive circles for its claim to protest “the negative and destructive consequences of decisions made by people in power.”
That’s why the Occupy Wall Street people should have been arrested on the first day of their riots. It was a national disgrace that people were allowed to not only break the law in such an overt manner, but to also claim through “squatters rights” large sections of public and private property. Therein lies the road to anarchy, and the moment you give in to leftists and anarchists like that, the only thing you do is encourage even more law breaking. As soon as a protest goes from peaceful to criminal, you’ve got a problem that needs to be dealt with by the law. And if you don’t do anything about it, the situation grows worse and you will get more of it. It is a simple lesson that has a simple solution, which is enforcing law and order.
The therapeutic model of jurisprudence grew out of Freudianism – it is the reason the death penalty for murder, rape and kidnapping was discarded in the early 20th century. You can really see it in movies of the 1930′s where they love to bring up ‘mental disease’ as the reason a young person becomes a delinquent or murderer.
Those 20th century generations really bought into that stuff, it’s time now to get rid of the nonsense and return to the common law. Unfortunately, a culture which places baby murder at the centre of its being will refuse to do so, so expect the unraveling of the USA to continue gathering speed.
Sadly, we have raised generations of young people who believe that rules and laws do not apply to them. If they come across a rule they do not agree with (mostly because it inconveniences them) they complain, lobby protest, file a lawsuit, and get a doctor’s note to bypass it.
You want a good laugh? The Gawker website posted this article:
http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who–want-to-have-sex-with-children?tag=science
Apparently, society has been waaaaaaay to hard on pedophiles. They are very sick,and need our understanding.
Mass sociogenic illness has become the cultural norm in ways that would even shock Freud. Conditions which only produce subjective symptoms are presumptively somatic but our society is determined to deny personal responsibility. Multiple chemical sensitively, ADHD,bipolar, addictions, PTSD,chronic fatigue syndrome, and a hundred other conditions are greater exaggerated by learned behavior that can be very profitable.
as an eventual conservative i agree that we have become a nation of whiners, complainers, and downright wimps. victimology has become a science to those looking for freebies. as an example just look at the kenyan’s u.s. based relatives. handouts all around for illegals. gov. agencies are told to show unfettered illegals how to milk the system.
otoh, programs like the canadian one above that ignore logic and accept heresay as evidence are not rare. in the u.s. courts commonly take the testimony of one parent as gospel against the other about rape, molestation and domestic violence in divorce. even the mention of a father doing any of these things immediately puts him on the loser’s list, as if he was going to be treated as an equal in court anyway. lawyers use it as a card to be played when needed, or not. unethical?
the precepts of u.s. law were passed down to us by our forefathers. i also believe they would have little use for at least half of us. trying to initate and enforce laws that meet none of these criteria (equality, truth, fairness, etc.) is like trying to build a bridge w/o using proven math or science principles. it just won’t work. people today just want shortcuts and ease to gain their never satisfied wants. this can’t last, and will eventually lead to violence. maybe this is the reason why so many are arming themselves and preparing for the worse.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, you could, and most likely would, have gone to jail for this speed. Lawyers tell clients going 25+ to bring their toothbrush to court because they are going to send you to jail – 1 day for each mile an hour over 25 (or 85mpg in a 55/65 zone). One reason a cop might have asked you for the reason is that he was testing what you might say in court that a jury or judge might be sympathetic about. The bottom line is in some states, speeding this fast is a criminal offense that could land you in jail for one year. Be glad that the curious questions were the extent of your annoyance.
The other possibility is that the officer was encouraging the driver to admit guilt. Guilty with an explanation is still guilty. Once you’ve said that you were speeding but “for a good reason” you have waived any dispute about the means they used i.e. laser, radar etc. to determine this.
here 30 over is felony.
been caught going 153 in a 25, when cops gave chase I pulled car over and waved them to me using horns/lights.
when asked why I was honest, racing.
got a ticket.
the other guy (nowhere near as fast as me) tried to run.
he went to jail.
we met at court and he asked why I wasn’t jailed, told him I owned up to my actions and was honest.
here though (Maine) its the court that does the punishment, not the cop.
he arrests/tickets but does not get to be the judge and jury also.
There is a much simpler and more vile explanation: He wanted you to beg for mercy.
He wanted his ego gratified by acting as judge, jury, and executioner. He wanted you to “respect his authori-tah!” That is obvious by the act that apparently tipped the balance: when you realized that he could totally screw up your life on a whim and your “eyes filled with tears.”
What’s even more disgusting is your point that this comes from an “institutional climate”, though not for the reasons you state. Policing has always attracted petty tyrants, and they’ve been given more power than ever before.
“Victimhood” in our culture today has indeed assumed a place of honor, rather than the pity mixed with abhorrence of former times. In my time and place of growing up neighbors and churches helped the less fortunate, but no one was envious of their position, in fact just the opposite. Many people endured hardship in stoic silence rather than let their friends and neighbors know of their misfortune.
Our design for justice was a system of two juries. The government was to apprehend breakers of the codes and laws; period. Then all parties come before us to plead their case before us. We decide when mitigating circumstances deserve a pass . We decide when to enforce the letter and when to enforce the spirit. We decide because we would be the ones who had to live with the consequences. But, for the most part we either gave up on that system or don’t know how to effectually use it. Our liberties were ensured when we kept the keys to the jails. We have not given them up but we have abgrogated our responsibilties to know how to carry out the duty of the jury.
And why did the author muddy up the law with schools and meritocracy? They really don’t fit.
In the US, we have so-called “hate crime” laws that protect certain classes of victims. I’m a white, heterosexual male. If I get beat up, sure, it’s a crime. However, it would be a BIGGER crime if I was gay or black. The two beatings could be equally injurious, but my attackers will receive a lighter sentence. Perhaps I deserved the beating in some way, by virtue of my color or income. In any case, the black or the gay seems to have more rights than me in pursuing justice against his attackers. How twisted.
When you hear the President of the United States and one of his appointed Supreme Court justices speak of “empathy” as a criterion for determining the outcome of criminal cases, you know you’re fast approaching lawlessness. I can’t even imagine what they’re talking about. But it sounds to me that if a judge has something in common with a defendant (color, sexual orientation, etc.), that he can arbitrarily apply a lighter sentence to that defendant. Really? Is that how things should work?
“It was undoubtedly unjust in a previous era to be made to feel shame about misfortune, especially misfortune beyond one’s control…”
Who do you blame for a foot bullet?
You are correct that shaming someone for misfortune beyond their control is unjust. If a meteor falls on my car, am I somehow less wise for where I parked it? On the other hand, if I get drunk and crash my car into a tree, is the tree to blame?
If you don’t hold people accountable for the things they are responsible for, the result is the abdication of responsibility. Competence doesn’t just happen. It takes work. Sometimes people have to be given some external motivation to put that work in and actually become competent. The key is knowing the difference between when someone should be kicked in the pants, and when they should be consoled.
Which brings us right back to the Flukization of America. To be honest, requiring taxpayers to buy birth control for Sandra Fluke and all women would not be very expensive. But the real cost is to our culture. Once we’ve taught a generation of Americans that they are not responsible for themselves, we’ve lost everything.
It’s Critical Theory applied to traffic law enforcement. In order to assess the extent of your culpability under the law, we will first need to know your “lived experience.” We’ll need to explore the ways in which societal mores have caused you to be oppressed. It’s entirely possible your life experience has made it impossible for you to obey the speed law. Applying the law equally across the board is an outdated, prejudicial paradigm. One size does not fit all. Your narrative will allow us to best determine which laws you’ll be expected to comply with and to what extent.
No, wait, you were going 25 miles over a posted limit and you took this opportunity to criticize the USA? You need a serious introspection into the use of rules for others. You don’t decide what speed is safe. We do. I hope you don’t kill anyone before you grow up.
You should give us fair warning next time you intend to drive.
I blame Art Linkletter. He had a radio and TV show back in the 1950′s called “Queen for a Day.”
Three women would tell the story of their hardships and trials to the studio audience and the one that told the biggest tearjerker won. I forget what they won, stuff like “A New Washer and Dryer!” I think.
Even though I was a child, I thought it was demeaning (though I didn’t know that word then) and wondered how these women could share this personal stuff with an audience.
But it proved popular and we have been descending that slippery slope ever since.
We started down this road when we accepted the insanity plea.
Maybe we should work on one or more imitation stories so horrific that the saps will accept having been defeated after we take over!