Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For September 9, 2020

Sept 5

To David Deavel and his article that complains about a rush to judgment when Blacks are killed by the police which assumes those killings are murders. And the protests and riots that follow those deaths are examples of sentences passed before a verdict is released. The article seems to have trouble acknowledging that systemic racism exists in our nation and is evidenced by many of these police and other killings. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article doesn't even identify the tip of the systemic racism iceberg that exists in our nation let alone warn us against the systemic racism that lies beneath the surface. And why the denial of systemic racism, as seen in putting the term in quotes, is not clear.

First, George Floyd was murdered by asphyxiation. The levels of fentanyl, especially since he was not in physical distress when apprehended, are irrelevant as they would be if he was shot to death before dying of any fentanyl poisoning. The kneeling on the neck alone for 8 and 1/2 minutes was enough to at least contribute to his death if not kill him by itself.  What Deavel seems to miss out on is not just the number of unjustified police killings of Blacks, some while in being defenseless in their own homes, or the number of Blacks who were pursued by pathological Barney Fife wannabes in trying to apprehend Blacks whom they deem as suspicious, we have racial profiling practiced by the police that adds to the problem. What else adds to the problem is a justice system that  that practices racial disparity in sentences passed on those who are found guilty. Or we could point to the various ways race-based  voter suppression is practiced in some states. Or we could point to past redlining and current gentrification in urban areas  as practiced in some cities. Or we could point to discrimination found in the job market where those with Black sounding names in the job market. Or we get the numerous 911 calls by whites made because they see Blacks doing normal things in what they suppose were white areas.

We who are White have no clue as to how the life experiences that many Blacks have had affect them. We have no way of understanding the rage that many, not all, understandably have. Nor do we recognize our own hypocrisy when talking about the presumption of guilt. How don't we recognize that the numerous ways by which we discriminate against Blacks point to our tendency to pass sentence before reaching a verdict? Another example of a sentence passed prior to a verdict being found is in the above article when it blames the rioting in Minnesota solely on the protesters when some of the destruction of property was done by a White Hells Angels member.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that condemns political correctness and tries to tie it closes to Marxism-Leninism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.


Besides the fact that Lenin was far more in line with Stalin than with Marx, I have a simple question: Can it be wrong for a white person to call a Black person the N-word? If so, isn't that political correctness at work?

The attempt to condemn political correctness because of some association not only fails, it misses the primary error of political correctness. And when one misses the primary error of political correctness, then one becomes vulnerable to repeating the error they were, in effect, condemning. The primary error of political correctness is not found in the foundational principles on which political correctness are based. Rather, it is in the implementation of political correctness. The primary error of political correctness is found in the all-or-nothing application of political correctness.

Like other attempts to correct long-term social injustices, those who implement political correctness often employ all-or-nothing thinking not just to eliminate current injustices, but to ensure that the social injustices do not reemerge. In essence, the way political correctness is implemented by many is to make it into a phobic reaction. That phobic reaction renders people unable to distinguish the harmless use of certain words from the harmful use of certain words in an effort to prevent all harmful uses of words.

As a result, both those who employ all-or-nothing think when asserting political correctness and those who employ such thinking when rejecting political correctness in its entirety are employing the same kind of faulty thinking. We need to understand why a given idea is unwelcome. If it is unwelcome because it actually contributes to the oppression of others, then why should we Christians welcome that idea and why should we Christians not welcome the efforts of political correctness with regards to that idea? But if a given idea as expressed by supposedly taboo words does not actually lead to oppression, then we can say that political correctness has gone to far rather than saying it is totally wrong.

The key to making political correctness work for everyone's benefit is to be able to make distinctions which serves as the  kryptonite to all-or-nothing thinking.