RE: Chicago - Hate Crimes and Why the Left Just Doesn't Know What the Hell to Do About Them Anymore — The Beltway Times

D.C. BELTWAY

Tuesday 72°64°F
THE POPULIST CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER

The left is absolutely befuddled on how to label the recent Chicago incident (incident being the brutal and prolonged torture of a man who happened to be mentally disabled). They should be. Whichever direction they go, label it a hate crime or don’t, they are screwed. The media, the talking heads, the ‘experts’… they only have two options to choose from but for them it’s either suicide by drowning or suicide by burning to death. I’m told either one is a very uncomfortable way to die, although not from anyone who has firsthand experience. So, let’s take a look at these options…

Option One – This is a Hate Crime and We Condemn it!

This is the stupid option and will kill hate crimes forever, but the advantage is they don’t look like hypocrites and it legitimizes the idea of hate crimes by getting their opponents to recognize it and apply it (but ‘we’ aren’t recognizing it. We are applying it because it applies and because it has been forced on us). Opponents do accept it in this case, so that’s a victory for them. Even so, it’s better described as a Pyrrhic victory, and an ever better description than that would be a stunning and very decisive defeat.

Now, finally, we have gotten the left to apply the same stupid rules and logic to their own ‘side’. Getting them to self-apply their own rule is the absolute best way to kill that rule completely. Imagine if they began equally applying the ‘racist’ standard. We’d see gigantic mushroom clouds on the coasts and little tiny mushroom clouds throughout the United States as progressives spectacularly imploded. It’s the same with hate crimes. By applying this standard to the Chicago torture they are opening a can of worms that will feast on the corpse of the ‘hate crime’ idea.

Regressives have been steadily indoctrinating minorities for decades in the art of victim-hood, that not only have white people been the cause of and maintained every single evil thing that has ever happened to them and to anybody in general, but that it’s okay to be abhorrently racist against white people because being racist against whites isn’t possible. Even the police, which is not a white organization, has become synonymous with white authoritarianism. What has happened as a result of this? An explosion of violent assaults and crimes of opportunity against white people and police. If the idea of a hate crime is fully legitimized and accepted by both sides according to its broad-reaching and colorblind definition, we will see huge piles of hate crime charges and convictions against minorities. If we take the definition of a hate crime to its logical conclusion, then police will have to bring out caravans of paddy wagons to herd all of the white SJWs who like to shout about white genocide and killing all white men.

So, Option One is very bad for liberals, very bad.

Option Two – This is Not a Hate Crime!

This is the most popular choice, and it’s probably the least painful death for them because they still get to hang on to their ‘only minorities who agree with us can be victims’ narrative. Minorities who disagree cannot be victims because they are a member of the ‘white male‘ club. However, it reveals the left, in all of its glory, for what they truly are and have always been: hypocrites. This has forever been an issue where their hypocrisy’s been on full display but it generally took someone taking the time to look past the headlines of fake news to see the blatant disregard for human dignity in favor of the politically advantageous. For example, Black Lives Matter commits at least two hate crimes every day before breakfast, and even though most of them don’t eat breakfast until 4PM they’ve typically only been awake for 15 minutes. Basically, if you’re violently attacking someone on the basis of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, you’re committing a hate crime. But denying hate crime status to torturing a young white man while yelling “fuck white people”, saying he deserves it because he’s European, and forcing him to also say “fuck white people” (as he’s bound, gagged, scalped and forced to drink out of a toilet and then only escapes because a neighbor complains about the noise) would delegitimize the entire idea of hate crimes in general. Unless we are expected to only accept hate crime victims as being members of nonwhite races, which is not something we should put past them, that idea would fail even more spectacularly because Americans (as a whole) are not completely nuts.

Luckily for the left there is still an Option Three, disavow hate crimes entirely and join the rest of humanity here in Reality-Logic-Land where we don’t separate everyone based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, eye color, or toenail length. If we take race and disability out of the Chicago torture equation, the crime is still just as horrific, but for a whole other set of reasons as it would appear a man was tortured simply because the perpetrators were bored or wanted to brutalize a random person. This is how the idea of hate crimes fool the foolish. They imagine how horrible a crime becomes when you add a racial motivation, but when you take away the racial motivation the remaining motivations are still horrible and sometimes more so.

The word ‘hate’ cannot be reasonably restricted to these cases because a form of hate is present in all cases. If someone is tortured for 48 hours like this young man was, isn’t it safe to say that the criminal motivators behind the crime are still related to hate? If you are tortured because you cut someone off in traffic and they make it clear they don’t hate you for being black, it’s just because you’re a bad driver, does the torture become less painful or the crime less heinous? Hate is still there, but our laws now dictate that hate doesn’t count unless it’s for a handful of specific qualities a person has. If a Hillary supporter is brutalized for being a Hillary supporter, that doesn’t count as hate in the eyes of the law because political affiliation doesn’t qualify under the statutory definition. What if a straight man gets drunk, has sex with another man, and a third man who knows he’s straight kills him for it anyway because he thinks it was gross? According to the law, that hate is worth less than hate attached to someone who believes the victim to have been gay. Does this make sense to anyone else?

Fortunately for America, as the left shows the selective bias and absurdity applied to the hate crime definition and we as a nation grow to despise the entire thing, the ‘hate crime’ is going to be the very last victim of a hate crime. But since hate crimes are neither a race, gender, disability (debatable), etc., etc., etc., I guess the death of the hate crime will just be another thing that happened.