The Left Should Leave Off Lynching By Lexicon …

LynchingTonight’s Question: Should you lose your job or your property when the internet and the media disapprove of you? Or put another way, is offending the sensibilities of a significant portion of the public, justification for economic lynching? Some recent reports would suggest that.

Donald Sterling spoke to the annoyance of the Left, who howled for his head; the NFL obliged by condemnation of his property, a ball club, and levying a huge ‘fine’ for his remarks. A cab driver was suspended for wearing a Nazi armband. A police commissioner is being forced to resign after using the “N-word.” A prominent climate scientist was forced to resign from a public policy group after he changed his mind about the scientific honesty of the global warmers. HGTV canceled a new show when it learned that the two stars, the Benham brothers, were Christians. At this, the brothers’ Sun Trust BAnk severed their home improvement business from its financing.What sort of an economy can we expect when such actions are likely? And, is this legal and even more important, is it moral? By which we are asking: Is this the society in which we want to live?

The Left is using the ostracism of opponents and of non-believers in Leftist pieties as a political tool; the media accepts and doubles down on selected cases and the law enforcement folk look on benignly. One is reminded of non-communists under the Soviets or of the State’s political opponents toady in China. These suggest an answer to the question about the sort of society we are seeing taking shape around us. We note that the Sun Trust bank reversed it decision quickly (after an Internet fuss); we assume that it heard from its lawyers. The Constitution, with its protections of unpopular speech and beliefs, still retains-some-force in Federal courts. As eventually, even the NFL may re-learn. Or, of course, not.

Readers of history and any folk with a decent understanding of human nature, realize that governments of the Left will always, unless restrained, become totalitarian and use their power to expunge “enemies.” So will governments of the Right. Which, if we recall, is exactly why our Founders bothered to set up the Constitution in the first place. We have taken down the Bible already; we are working on the Constitution. And we are returning to new types of lynch mobs to move the process along.

And this leaves us with one final question:

Back in the first half of last century during all the now famous immigration, folks spkle regularly of various immigrant races and nationalities as: spics (Spaniard), greasers (Mexican), krauts (German) chinks (Chinese), wops (Italians), micks(Irish), and niggers (black). Oh, and the Roman Catholics were” “mackerel snappers”. None of these were either more nor less insulting than another; it depended upon how one felt about the folk under discussion. That is rather like today, with blacks privileged to call each other by the term that is used to lynch prominent whites.

We suggest that the only reason that the slang pejorative for blacks is in today’s vocabulary at all, is its usefulness to the political Left. Were it not for that, it would be as little used as spic, greaser and the rest. It seems to us that in in pursuing this as it has, the political Left has done neither its society nor its black clientele any favors. This is a political tool that has turned from nasty, to destructive. And that is a moral wrong.


About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Culture, Hypocrisy, Law, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Left Should Leave Off Lynching By Lexicon …

  1. Back to policing the trivial and ignoring the real. I don’t care what people say, nor think – only what they do. If I walk down the street and someone yells abuse. So what, the world is full of idiots and thank-you, I now know who you are. Nor do I care what anyone thinks – minds are private. I am not interested. But, if I go for a job and because of sexism, or classism I don’t get a look in – I care about that . It is actions that count. If I am criminally defamed and can’t get a job as a result, then I care. If I go out my front door and turn the air blue with naughty words, I would get arrested. If somebody slanders me so I can’t get a job, no crime has taken place. Govts just generate smoke screens pretending to care about an issue while doing the direct opposite. Fanfare and drama over language but underneath it is business as usual.

  2. katie says:

    The cluster b personality disorders…they say Hitler had one too…I’m just saying 🙂

  3. In the olden days, like 8 years ago, we had some limits and boundaries. It was viewed as unethical to go after somebody professionally, economically, or to attack their family and children. It still happened on occasion to the rich and famous, but it was frowned upon, viewed as an attack below the belt. Well, those days are now gone. You can be a nobody, a Joe the Plumber, and we now have no qualms about coming after your family or your job and attempting to completely erase you. If you disagree with us, you have no right to exist at all.

    In the way olden days, politics were settled with duels and swords. Even our early congress had some fist fights. As violent as that was, it may have been preferable to the viciousness and passive/aggressive psychological warfare of today.

  4. James Teague says:

    If banks can refuse to serve conservatives or Christians on the basis of their (conservative/Christian) beliefs, how is that different than refusing to photograph an LGBT wedding or bake an LGBT wedding cake? Why is one allowed and the other not?

    Businesses will be quickly formed to serve customers with money. Customers can vote by walking out the door. Sun Trust reversed because it was economically made clear to them where their money came from and what the legal rights of their customers were. It was not because they were right thinking people. They did not like the prospect of bad publicity and lawsuits.

    People have a right to their opinions. If you are aware of their opinion and don’t like it, find somewhere else to go, there are usually plenty of choices. If you don’t like a service you receive tell the management or go somewhere else. If enough people choose that way, the “offending” server will go out of business. If not, life will go on. You have a choice: “don’t let the opinions of others define your life!”

    There is no need for government to intervene, unless it is a group or lower level government that is creating a hostile, bodily threatening environment for some segment of the population. If a local government restricts the right of people to pursue their own health, welfare, education then a higher government should intervene. If a group actively promotes and attacks others causing terror, physical harm, injuries, loss of property it is all levels of government’s responsibilty to intervene to protect those attacked.

    On the other hand, privately held opinions are protected by the First Amendment and the fact that someone is offended about an opinion is too bad. It does not threaten your life or well being or existence. You can present alternative facts if you wish or just walk away. You are not forced to associate or accept the offensive one. You can check out the opinion and see if it has any reasonable basis, then if not, move around the “offender”, find someone you can support and get on with your life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s