While I'm going to treat the tale in the linked article as completely true, I would much prefer that before the Red Star prints such a thing they would have at least found the security guard mentioned for corroboration. As you will see, the "story" is just a BIT too pat for someone that has any shred of independent thought. That said, let's take it as gospel.
The charge is that "some angry guy" demanded to know if the "attorney and director of the Advocates for Human Rights Refugee and Immigrant Program" was a refugee, at a Vikings game. Nothing physical, just a question, but this attorney and director "felt threatened", got security involved, got an apology that he felt was not sincere enough, demanded the interlocutor be ejected and the Vikings failed to comply.
Asking if the attorney was a "refugee" is supposed to be clear and reprehensible "hate speech". Not "rude", not "bad manners" ...
I was raised with "Sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you", and "If you can't stand up for yourself, nobody else is going to". We don't live in that civilization today, but what IS the "civilization" we have wrought?
I remember the time in my adult life when I came the closest to being intimidated. An old candidate for Congress from our district, Mary Reider had 20-30 union folks marching in a circle in front of the entrance to the Kahler chanting and blocking people like me heading in to see Newt Gingrich speak. The more intelligent people were going around to another exit. Something in my nature compelled me to stride into the group -- which, probably since I'm slightly above average size (though clearly not intelligence) completely stopped and let me pass with a just few shouted nasty words.
Did they have a right to block the entrance? Were the words that they hurled at me "hate speech"? -- we know the answer. "Hate speech" and "proper intimidation" are declared by "The Party" (D).
I'm reminded of Churchill, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without effect". Walking through demonstrators is tame by comparison, but I'm sure the feeling is related.
So how does tattling to the teacher or the security guard make one feel? I suppose it depends on the results that your tattling provides, but I can't imagine it makes one EVER feel "secure or good", because AT BEST you are in hopes that the watchful eye of the State in some form or another is ALWAYS going to be there to protect you.
It is a huge difference in worldview. Like the liberal woman's rape defense -- pee or soil yourself in hopes that the attacker will be turned off and leave you alone, vs the conservative woman's defense -- pull out your .45 and let the attacker pee or soil himself while he hopes you let him live.
But the "liberal" mind never stops at just making THEIR choice, they want to make YOUR choice as well! Gun control is just one example.
But what scared me the most was the silence surrounding me. As I looked around, I didn’t know who was an ally or an enemy. In those hushed whispers, I felt like I was alone, unsafe and surrounded. It was the type of silence that emboldens a man to play inquisitor.I hate to tell him, but the real world is ALWAYS that way, at least until you make your play.
So we live in a society where males are feminized and individual responsibility is transferred to the State, while anyone that "gets involved" is very likely to be sued by lawyers just like the one complaining. He wants people to stand up and get involved, yet he apparently feels no personal backbone to simply say "none of your damned business"! <insert favorite emphasis here ... a*hole, d*head, would all be "appropriate">
The problem with the "liberal" world view is that the only way it can come close to being any sort of reality is "1984" -- EVERY action of EVERYONE is completely scripted and "Big Brother" ALWAYS has the video of EVERY incident so that those that fail to comply COMPLETELY with liberal dogma will be punished, and those who do comply will be rewarded. The State tells you exactly what to do, and you WILL do it!
The column shows where "Hate Speech" starts to become thought control. One person decided to ask a question that the column author decided went beyond "rude or inappropriate", but he felt ZERO responsibility to personally stand up for his rights. HOWEVER, he believes that people otherwise conditioned by thousands of cues in their daily environment to "let the proper authorities handle it" ought to somehow "step in" when the "confrontation" had never even risen to the level of "words were exchanged".
The attorney failed to cross-examine -- but it is "society's fault".
The very people intent on producing a society of absolute sheep are now incensed when the sheep behave as sheep -- and they apparently actually believe (or at least claim to) that is possible to achieve their "utopia" without levels of State control and surveillance that so far have only been imagined in fictional books.
A people who can't stand on their own feet will eventually kneel before people that can.
America, Land of the Politically Correct and home of the kneelers.
'via Blog this'