So nobody wants to answer my Question of the Day? Im not particularly surprised. This is probably going to turn into a Long Post, so fair warning. Also, to reiterate, the question was: If the KKK started using suicide bombers, do you think minorities -- especially blacks and Jews -- would deserve as much scrutiny at security checkpoints? Why or why not? See, answering that question causes problems with the way a lot of you think of yourselves. Lets assume you say no, that blacks and Jews dont require as much scrutiny because, obviously, blacks and Jews arent going to be members of the KKK. Not just because it would be weird to see an openly self-denigrating black person or Jew(these exist), but because the KKK has at its core a foundational belief that blacks and Jews are less than human -- the KKK as a group wouldnt allow black or Jewish members. If you see a black person or a Jewish person you can be safe in the assumption that they are not members of the KKK -- based entirely on racial and religious profiling, which most people want to think are terrible things... because if taken to a certain extent, they *are* terrible things. If, for example, I made the assumption that a person likes malt liquor and gets a Welfare check because theyre black, thats racist. Im profiling that person based on their race, so that racism is coming from racial profiling. If I made the assumption that a person is greedy and likely to steal from me because theyre Jewish, thats bigoted. Im profiling that person based on their religion, so that bigotry is coming from religious profiling. However, how does one reconcile the idea of allowing Jews and blacks less scrutiny at security checkpoints in the event that the KKK started using suicide bombers, and the idea that racial and religious profiling are terrible things? If you say that yes, blacks and Jews require as much scrutiny because it needs to be equal and fair, youve just demonstrated why equality is a weasel word in the arena of social politics. How can you reconcile the idea of social equality with the idea that black people and Jewish people are as likely to be members of the KKK as white people? On the one hand, youll look like a hypocrite, but on the other, youll look like a complete idiot and pushing for that equality would do more damage to the movement for equality than anything else. How do you reconcile these things? Its a matter of degree. Degree is important, because the world is not black and white -- personally, this bothers me, because I myself prefer a black and white approach to most everything. I either like a thing, or I dont -- the idea of being neutral on a thing is the extent of a shade of grey that I feel comfortable with. To me, rape is always wrong -- even if the person getting raped is a rapist, or a murderer, or a child molester -- because rape is never beneficial. Murder is always wrong, to me, but killing is not -- killing in self-defense, or in defense of your family or loved ones, are not wrong. Murder is always wrong, because self-defense is not murder. This is where definitions become important to me, because we need to know the difference between murder and killing someone. Killing means to cause the death of someone or something -- you can kill anything that is alive, be it insects, trees, or people. Murder, however, is the unlawful and premeditated killing of someone. You can not murder an insect, or a tree. You can not murder a cow, a dog, a cat, or a bear. You can only murder people. Killing someone in self-defense is not unlawful, nor is it premeditated -- these are the things that differentiate it from murder. I can say that murder is always wrong because there is a standard by which I can measure an act of killing to determine if it is murder or not. However, there are things that only work in matters of degree -- a simple example is cookies. When you buy a pack of ten cookies, and youve eaten one, you cant say you havent eaten any of them, but you also cant say that youve eaten all of them. If you eat five of them, you still cant say either of those things. Even if you eat nine of the ten cookies, you cant claim to have eaten all of them or that you havent eaten any. There are eleven degrees involved -- one for not having eaten any, one for each of the cookies up to the ninth one, and one for having eaten all of them. Racial and religious profiling work much the same way, by degree. When done correctly, you dont bother checking to see if a black person is a member of the KKK, but neither do you need to stop every single white person with a buzz cut to see if they are either. However, theyre easy to abuse and misuse -- a common problem with everything that operates by degree, depending on how corrupt you want to make the wording. For example, I can get a pack of ten cookies, eat all ten of the cookies, and tell you I havent eaten the pack because technically, I didnt eat the wrapper. You want cookies? Sure, the *pack* is in the pantry. Youll find yourself disappointed, asking me why I lied about eating the cookies, to which I could technically respond with I didnt. I said I didnt eat the *pack*. Everyone knows someone who does this sort of thing. Perhaps more than one person. Perhaps a group of people. Perhaps most people do this to you. The point is that it isnt the program of racial or religious profiling thats causing racism or bigotry. Its racist, bigoted people who corrupt the program to further their racist, bigoted views that are the problem. Now people want to do away with the programs because its so easy to perpetuate racism and bigotry through them. My answer to this is, if you do that, ban language both written and verbal, because that perpetuates it as well. Ban books, television, radio, and the Internet, because that perpetuates it as well. Ban parenthood, because racist, bigoted parents teach their kids to be racist and bigoted. Ban religion, since the big three Abrahamic religions all condone slavery and bigotry. Ban jobs, since its possible to hire only white or only black people, or only men, or only *straight* men. Ban history, for obvious reasons. These are all programs that are easily abused and misused, because they all operate by degree. Ban them all, and youll find yourself worse off than you are now. Youll end up banning the things you need to survive, and the things you need to promote and perpetuate your own message of tolerance, equality, and acceptance. On the other hand, remain ambivalent about the entire thing, maintain your neutrality, and youre no better than those who would abuse the systems. The world does not suffer at the whims of evil men, but because of the indifference of good men. We can leave all of these things, and work to change things so that they arent abused or misused. We can remain neutral and wait whilst losing ground, bit by bit, until we have nothing left to stand on. Or we can ban all of it in an effort to be politically correct and fair and equal and never achieve any of these things because we cant even define them by their standards. Its your call. Do you want to be a hypocrite, an idiot, or someone who can operate by degree?
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:53:49 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015