Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The problem of virtue-signalling social permission to target and bully scapegoated groups

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is where we now are as a civilisation:

>>A Salvation Army bell ringer in California had been beaten in front of a Walmart because he wanted to spread joy this holiday season.

Rev. Jamie Wolfe Sr., the man ringing the bell, told CBS Sacramento that he says “Merry Christmas” to everyone who passes by his donation bucket, but one Grinch managed to knock the joy out of him.

“He haymakered me, hit me, got me down on the ground and we started wrestling, at that point I’m fighting for my life,” Wolfe Sr. said.

The suspect allegedly carried out the unprovoked attack not for the money, but for his cheer.

“Store says they love him and he’s been the best bell ringer they’ve ever had, so an attack that’s unprovoked is very surprising and very unfortunate. It’s not the call we’d expect to get at night,” or ever said Lt. Steve Pavlakis with the Salvation Army.

Pavlakis, who worked with the organization for 14 years, says he has not seen anything like this.

“It’s really saddening that one of our bell horingers would be out there working day after day for us that’s met with hate and punches to the face and kicks to the face,” Pavlakis said.>>

Why?

There is an answer, but it is one that is not going to be easy to swallow, especially for those who are invested in scapegoating and targetting the despised other. Nowadays, typically, Christians . . . as is seen.

Here is a first step to the answer:

FIRST, ROUGH DRAFT OF HISTORY ANSWER: We live in an age of ever increasing political correctness where the “permitted” answer to the question given to Orwell’s fictional Winston Smith — 2 + 2 = ___ ? — varies with the twists and turns of the power brokers in their ever advancing agenda. Such culturally dominant narrative and media manipulation games create targetted scapegoat groups and give implicit social permission and a licence to a chip- on- the- shoulder mentality that then can come out in this sort of “punch a scapegoat” way at one level. That is not to be overlooked, as the difference between such an assault and murder is a heart attack or the like, but it is not the most dangerous.  That is reserved for when the same punch- a- scapegoat mentality is embedded in agit-prop agendas and unjust decrees under false colour of law [often through lawfare] or when it becomes subtly entrenched in power circles, leading to exclusionary lock-out and marginalising, vindictive victimising behaviour. Beyond a certain level, the Gulag and the 4:00 am knock on the door by the latest Gestapo beckon.

Do we really want to go — yet again — down the road of a long train of abuses and usurpations predictably leading to the undermining of genuine liberty and community under just law? END

PS: SPLC Hate Tracker, screenshot Dec 25, 2355 hrs GMT — yes, this is real:

Let’s add no 8 on the list . . . Jesus:

PPS: The following clip from a Newsweek headline speaks saddening volumes:

. . . and, it is telling what Washington Post chose to push on Christmas Day:

Newsweek, we have some news: Christmas is not now and has never been an emblem of “White Nationalism.” Jesus the Messiah is central to the Christian faith, which happens to be at the heart of the history of a certain civilisation that as recently as the 1940’s, was described by Roosevelt and/or Churchill as Christian Civilisation, while defending it from Nazi assault. Even Santa Claus is a reference to a Christian Bishop in Asia Minor.

Washington Post, we also have a newsflash for you: the longstanding consensus of serious scholarship is that there was a Jesus who caused quite a stir in Palestine, c. the early part of the first century.  The “doesn’t add up” you used reflects ill-advised, dismissive selective hyperskepticism, not sound scholarship that could easily have been found if you cared about truth, responsibility and fairness.

Comments
F/N: The White House, USA is acting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/ KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
BO'H: I do not care at this point. Whatever SPLC may advance as a smokescreen, the result -- sustained for weeks to my certain knowledge -- is as I snapshotted. That is beyond the pale and SPLC reveals itself to be utterly irresponsible and destructive. Christmas and Jesus are not terms of hate and associating them with such simply tells us what is in the hearts of those who did it and sustained it for weeks. Trying to point to neo-nazis only brings up that this group has tried to taint principled objection to their reckless agenda, necessarily knowing that their tactics have already led to a mass murder attempt. The game is over. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
kf - You're conflating the SPLC's list of hate groups and the groups that are followed on their twitter tracker. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The hate tracker is specific to the far right. If it's an outrage that terms like Christmas and Jesus appear in the SPLC's hate tracker, then surely the outrage is because these are terms being used by far right twitter accounts. Are you OK with neo-nazis using "Christmas" and "Jesus" in their tweets?Bob O'H
December 29, 2017
December
12
Dec
29
29
2017
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
BO'H: The groups and individuals I pointed out are or have been inappropriately identified as hate groups. In one case that attracted a mass murder attempt. Sorry, I for cause have no confidence in SPLC, and you seem to be unable to recognise that it is an utter outrage to see terms like Christmas and Jesus appearing in a purported hate tracker. Period. That is simply beyond the pale, period. No attempt to soften or excuse or deflect or explain or try to make palatable or reasonable will be acceptable. For excellent reason highlighted in the OP, down this road lies a needless river of blood. This must stop and stop now, period. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
kf @ 68 - I doubt any of the groups you list in 38 are on the hate tracker: this is how they identified the accounts that are being followed (from the About SPLC Hate Tracker page):
SPLC’s curated set of users was identified by investigating accounts that follow hate groups or hate group leaders on Twitter or tweets using speech specific to far-right extremism.
Whilst I find the ADF's views (for example) unpleasant, I wouldn't describe it as "far-right extremism".Bob O'H
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
T7
Wait a minute, are you making assertions or asking questions. I thought your premise was that questioning morals is a good thing.
TouchéJSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 67: Hate speech is contrary to freedom of speech. It undermines our (U.S.) First Amendment protections which were designed to protect unpopular, controversial, and even hateful speech from government censorship. Oh, how far we have strayed.Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
BO'H: The listed groups I identified above cannot on any reasonable, responsible grounds, be identified as hate groups. As I marked up from the SPLC's definition, the reason is they have a principled objection to controversial agendas the SPLC is advancing, agendas that are highly questionable. BTW, I found among their named extremists an independent researcher and historian whose thought-crime has been to document often overlooked aspects of the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation, especially the USA. That is, to argue that a Christian Civilisation once commonly called Christendom has that history, now that elites are largely apostate or post Christian [often, scientistic evolutionary materialistic secularists and/or fellow travellers], is deemed by SPLC as hate. That alone readily explains the absurdity of why terms like Merry Christmas, Christmas and Jesus were allowed to be tracked as indicators of hate. And, I took time to stretch the window a bit, this has been literally going on for weeks. If you have an algorithm and a linked data structure, there is a man behind it -- and an organisation, so "de computah didit" is no excuse, not when this is sustained for weeks. To advocate for traditional morality and family structure on longstanding principles is deemed hate. To object to the ongoing 1 million more victims per week holocaust of posterity in the womb that has amounted to 800+ millions in 40 years or so is deemed as hate. To object to using drugs or surgery or ideology to warp one's perception of his or her sex is deemed hate. To stand up in court in defence of the freedom and innocent reputation of targetted scapegoat groups such as Christians is deemed hate. To document, expose and oppose the aggressive agenda and actions of IslamIST radicals and their global intent of conquest -- cf Q 9:5 and 29 -- is deemed hate. To be a sexually mutilated woman who fled first to Holland then the US and speak out against the dangers of IslamISM as a witness who has to live under 24 hour protection is deemed hate. And more. In short, I did do relevant research and found out why the invidious association with truly extremist groups was done. SPLC is clearly a dirty agit-prop and lawfare operation; one that contributes to the increasing trend of polarisation and hostility that has already seen the rise of blackshirts on the streets imagining they are defending the public from those they hate. We have forgotten living memory, terrible history. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
kf - if you think the SPLC's choice of which group to list is wrong, take that up with them. But do your research first, to find out what criteria they used to make their decisions. Given that the SPLC has identified a group of twitter accounts associated with hate speech, and I would guess that most of them are neo-Nazis, why aren't you railing against neo-Nazis tainting Christmas and Jesus by using "Merry Christmas" and the like?Bob O'H
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
JS --I suggest that you learn a little more about the history of residential schools.-- Wait a minute, are you making assertions or asking questions. I thought your premise was that questioning morals is a good thing.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
T7
Is taking someone from dangerous, hopeless environment and giving them an education and a chance immoral? You tell me. Now, you want to question the morality of mandatory education, great. Question away.
Before commenting, I suggest that you learn a little more about the history of residential schools. “Take the native out of the native” was often repeated phrase at the time. Let’s reverse the scenario. Would you feel it to be morally acceptable to have your children removed from your family and converted to another religion and forced to use another language in every day communication. Punish them if they speak your native language or exhibit any behaviour of your culture.JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
MB, because of root worldview issues, I took time to do a 101. It is obvious that JS is not really open to how knowledge including moral knowledge can be warranted. Nor, to bringing out the inextricable moral dimension to reasoning. Nor, to the way that a self-evident test case as outlined (unfortunately real-world) can help us attain moral clarity beyond railing at those who are allegedly blindly following authorities. As for actually examining the central body of teaching on the Judaeo-Christian moral frame and in that light reassessing declared claimed justified general suspicion towards the Christian faith and/or Christians, that is light years away. We haven't begun to even seriously mention rebalancing views on the history, sins, reformations and blessings of Christian Civilisation. Much less, with that background, taking a serious look at current issues and the challenge of radical agitprop agendas. Hey, let me at least mention Kin Alfred of the West Saxons, the Great, and his Book of Dooms, starting with its opening passages which are literally foundational to English Common Law. The tradition that, once printing and widespread reformation created a critical mass by the late 1600's, led to the waves of revivals, reformations, rise of modern democracy and more that made a huge difference. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
BO'H: I never said the insult to innocent reputation could be remedied in the US court system. My long-held view is that US defamation law is dangerously flawed. What I spoke to is the general, patent moral duty to respect innocent reputation. The underlying first principle behind defamation law as a branch of tort. And the attempt to deflect blame from those who have dragged legitimate principled groups into invidious association with the real extremists, then proceeded to run a hate tracker and twitter feed on terms used such that they try to taint Christmas and Jesus speaks for itself. Not in your favour. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
kf q 50 -
BO’H: I already spoke to that, perhaps you do not think that people have a RIGHT to innocent reputation, a principle acknowledged in the law of defamation.
I don't think the SPLC identify which twitter accounts they follow, so I don't see how they can be sued. More generally, I assume the SPLC's lawyers are aware of how far the first amendment stretches.
And it is also obvious that Christmas, Jesus and the like are NOT terms of hate so if your algorithm is accidentally and innocently turning such up in monitoring hate and trying to turn such into a metric, you are defaming the Christian faith, and if you are responsible you will intervene administratively.
If those terms are turning up in the twitter accounts associated with hate speech, then they are the ones who can be accused of "defaming the Christian faith". Bit to be honest, I think Christianity will survive this: it's not a religion built on snowflakes.Bob O'H
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
JS --And when we concluded that it was morally acceptable to forcibly remove indigenous children from their families and raise them as Christians in residential schools, it should be eternally moral?-- I'm not even sure if you understand the point you are trying to make. Is using someone as an object and causing them lifelong suffering, immoral? Yes, always, forever. Is taking someone from dangerous, hopeless environment and giving them an education and a chance immoral? You tell me. Now, you want to question the morality of mandatory education, great. Question away. Do you seriously want to question child rape as an eternal evil? OK question away there too. Tell me the point at which you think raping a child becomes morally acceptable.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
T7
Of course. And when we arrive at the conclusion that it is immoral we accept that it is eternally immoral.
And when we concluded that it was morally acceptable to forcibly remove indigenous children from their families and raise them as Christians in residential schools, it should be eternally moral? I hope you see the danger in making any conclusion binding until the end of time. To me questioning morals is like freedom of speech. I may not like that a moral is being examined for its rationality and logic, but the danger to society of not allowing it to be examined is greater. Maybe the reason that KF and I disagree on this is that I have far more faith in humanity than he does.JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
It is obvious that KF and JS are not arguing about the same thing. Obviously, arguing against questioning all morals is pointless because we all have that capability and, to some extent, we all do it. We use reason to explain why killing, stealing, raping, and other things we consider immoral are wrong. The fact that we use reason (questioning) to provide a rational justification to our morals is a good thing. It just makes them stronger.Molson Bleu
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
JS --There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the morality of child rape .-- Of course. And when we arrive at the conclusion that it is immoral we accept that it is eternally immoral.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
JS, I think I need to introduce you to Country and have you have a chat with him about the rape-murder of his son on the way home from school one afternoon. KF PS: And where did you ever get the notion from that the Judaeo-Christian frame of morality is a matter of blinding authoritarianism? PPS: As duty calls me out the door, let me note that you just got an F in core moral principles 101.kairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
T7
Of course, the conclusion must be binding until the end of time. When is raping a child (or anybody) going to be moral? How about human sacrifice to appease Gaia?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the morality of child rape and child sexuality. Why do some think that questioning even the most commonly held morals is dangerous? In the case of child rape and child sacrifice, questioning the morality with reason and logic will only reinforce our abhorrence of those acts. We run into danger when we try to prevent people from using reason to examine their morals; when we insist that they blindly accept them. That is the attitude that delayed desegregation in the southern US.JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
JS, What part of error exists is self-evidently true is hard to understand? What part of this onward argument is hard to understand?
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth. I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say.
Do you really imagine that it is a fair conclusion from the above that moral truth-claims are to be blindly taken on some authority's say-so (such as say SPLC)? Or, that we are not to take due care in warranting what we accept as moral truth, given that we should -- note the moral import there -- take care in warrant? Going further, what part of this is hard to understand or accept, given that the whole tenor of your argument is that I am somehow in the wrong and ought to correct my views to accord with your preferences?
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more. All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties. Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more. Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
Nowhere have you provided a cogent counter to this. Next, I did put up a very specific yardstick case at 15 above:
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases. One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic. In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away. For example, it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.) Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help. We are inescapably under moral government.
Kindly, tell us of a situation where this yardstick will fail, will be dubious and uncertain. Will be any less than self-evident. Indeed, just try to deny it and see how patently nihilistic and absurd such a denial will be. Where, it should be patent that as moral error is part of error exists, warrant is relevant to moral truth claims just as much as any other truth claims. Then, perhaps we can sort out enough to make a reasonable, responsible conclusion. KF PS: And BTW, kindly scroll up to the clipping of the core Christian ethical teaching, then explain to us why it is so dubious that you find yourself justified to treat the Christian faith and/or its adherents with suspicion in general.kairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
KF
Then, we see too that if one imagines that the sense of moral government is suspect of being delusional, the self reference on duties to truth is instantly apparent.
This is just a strawman argument. I have never suggested that our sense of moral governance is delusional. It is very real and very powerful. What is at issue is whether or not we can identify the “moral truths” that inform our moral governance without error.
It also becomes an infinite regress to try to use reason to evaluate morals as reason inherently involves morals.
Nonsense. These pages are full of your attempts to use reason to argue against actions that are based on morals. They just don’t happen to be based on morals that you accept. Are you saying that your arguments against same sex marriage, birth control, etc. are meaningless because of infinite regress?JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
PS: Notice the heading as clipped: SPLC Hate Tracker Trending. That should be quite plain already. Would you naturally associate hate tracking over a sustained time with terms like Merry Christmas, Christmas and Jesus? If you do, that says more about you and your attitudes than anything else. If you say not, but you allow the pattern to continue, then that speaks louder than your words to the contrary. PPS: The top three currently are Christmas, revival and Merry Christmas.kairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
JS --If you are arguing that the conclusion must be binding until the end of time, I have to disagree.-- Of course, the conclusion must be binding until the end of time. When is raping a child (or anybody) going to be moral? How about human sacrifice to appease Gaia?tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
T7
You and KF may be talking past each other.
That is obvious.
Questioning is good but the questioning can’t be open ended. A conclusion has to be drawn at some point.
If you are arguing that every time we question a moral action that we must draw a conclusion, I agree. If you are arguing that the conclusion must be binding until the end of time, I have to disagree.JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
BO'H: I already spoke to that, perhaps you do not think that people have a RIGHT to innocent reputation, a principle acknowledged in the law of defamation. And it is also obvious that Christmas, Jesus and the like are NOT terms of hate so if your algorithm is accidentally and innocently turning such up in monitoring hate and trying to turn such into a metric, you are defaming the Christian faith, and if you are responsible you will intervene administratively. If you do not so intervene to stop this by removing or even turning off your monitor, at minimum you are acting with utter disregard to truth, fairness and innocent reputation, all of which we can see as already present in other things SPLC has been doing. And, no reasonably educated person should be ignorant of such issues and concerns. Especially as they were already pointed out. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
JS, we have to start from first principles. That is why I first established that SET's are real, and are relevant to reasoning and to knowing. In fact, some SET's are primary laws of logic, and mathematics too. Moreover, one of the key degrees of warrant is to moral certainty -- which conveniently bridges to the point you have yet to acknowledge, that all of our reasoning is pervaded by moral considerations and duties, i.e. we have responsibilities or duties to truth, sound logic, fairness, justice and more. One who denies such is a nihilist, which is tantamount to is in absurdity. More common will be attempts to evade, and if you keep up side-slips, that will become apparent is your case. Then, we see too that if one imagines that the sense of moral government is suspect of being delusional, the self reference on duties to truth is instantly apparent. It also becomes an infinite regress to try to use reason to evaluate morals as reason inherently involves morals. The reasonable out is to go to first, self-evident principles and/or key cases, which then allow us to learn and build a coherent moral frame. In this context, blind appeal to authority is irrelevant. I took time to put up a yardstick, unfortunately real world case of self-evident moral truth loaded with implications for the domain of moral knowledge. This too you dodged aside from. There is, unfortunately, a pattern emerging. KFkairosfocus
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
You and KF may be talking past each other. Questioning is good but the questioning can't be open ended. A conclusion has to be drawn at some point.tribune7
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
kf @ 38 -
It is clear that they were presenting a live track on the language that is used to document alleged hate, used by groups they have publicly stigmatised, on a basis that is highly biased and dubious. If they were remotely responsible, so soon as those terms popped up they would have made administrative changes to stop that from happening.
Why? That list is just reporting what hashtags are being used by a group of people that they are following. They're not using the list to say that these hashtags are being used as hate speech.Bob O'H
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
T7
JS, political correctness assumes exactly that, as does the SPLC.
Which is at the heart of my argument. Moral actions should never be above questioning, regardless of the source. Actions based on theistic sources should be questioned. Those based on government sources should be questioned. Those based on the goal of increased tolerance and inclusion should be questioned. KF is acting as if questioning is the same as discarding. He completely ignores the fact that questioning often results in a reinforcement. Those who feel that a specific moral action should never be questioned is acting as a bully rather than as a reasoning, responsible individual. They are so afraid that their specific moral action is so wanting that they do not want to expose it to rational examination. Where would we be if nobody questioned the moral acceptability of slavery, or child labour, or imperialism, etc.? Frankly, I don’t want to live in a world where any moral actions cannot be questioned.JSmith
December 27, 2017
December
12
Dec
27
27
2017
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply