The Idiotic Race To Grant Unequal Protections in the US
Exploring the Consequences of Neglected Boundaries and Overlegislation
One of the major issues our United States society has today is a focus on waiting for the government to come in and “save” us rather than simply taking personal responsibility and doing it ourselves. The citizens of this country have many protections built into our laws. If someone attempts to murder your child, you have a right to defend that child because we have laws against murder.
We have laws against trespassing, harassment, and stealing as well. If you go onto someone’s private property against their will, physically harass another person, and attempt to keep someone from going to a class they paid for (stealing), you can be physically removed and charged for those.
So why didn’t colleges try to stop the illegal protests as soon as they turned from legal to illegal?
People Fear Enforcing Boundaries
Why do people not enforce their boundaries? They are afraid of the pushback. If you have a small boy and tell him that he can’t do something, you may be afraid of him getting angry, throwing a temper tantrum, destroying things, hurting others, or embarrassing you (if in public).
You usually wouldn’t fear setting down and enforcing boundaries with adults who act like adults, because you expect them to be rational and calm. Fear comes from the unknown reactions of overly emotional adults who still act like children.
Reasons why people might not want to enforce boundaries:
Fear of upsetting the (emotional) child: Parents may worry that saying "no" could upset or disappoint their child, leading to tantrums or emotional distress.
Adults fear the same thing when dealing with other adults who are still emotional children at their core.Desire to avoid conflict: Some parents may fear saying "no" because they want to avoid conflict or arguments with their children. They might fear that saying "no" could escalate into a power struggle.
Adults fear the same thing when dealing with other adults who act like children.Guilt or overcompensation: Parents might feel guilty about not being able to fulfill their child's wishes, especially if they perceive themselves as being too busy or unavailable. This guilt could lead them to avoid saying "no" to compensate for their perceived shortcomings.
When talking of adults, and these college protests in particular, the colleges may want to encourage protesting and feel guilty about stopping it when it’s occurring. They just don’t realize the difference between peaceful and non-peaceful protests. Or they do realize the difference and worry that others won’t realize the difference.Desire to Be Seen as a "Good" Parent: Parents may worry about being seen as strict or authoritarian if they say "no" too often. They might fear their child will view them negatively or rebel against their authority.
This sort of goes along with the last point, but the colleges may worry about being seen as anti-protest. The colleges are also worried about being placed into the “persecutor” role simply because they don’t want non-peaceful protests on their campus. Of course that will happen anyway. Schools have been teaching the guilt-by-association fallacy as if it’s not fallacious, so it’s no wonder they worry about it too.Concerns About Being Judged by Others: Parents may fear judgment from other parents, family members, or society at large if they are perceived as too restrictive or controlling with their child.
Colleges are more worried about looking like they support Israel than supporting the protestors.Fear of Damaging the Parent-Child Relationship: Some parents worry that saying "no" too frequently could harm their relationship with their child, causing resentment or distance between them.
If colleges want to train activists (and it seems like they really want to do this), they would much rather cause distances between non-activists than activists. They don’t want to disappoint and lose their students with an activist (savior) mentality.Lack of Confidence in Parenting Skills: Some parents struggle with setting and enforcing boundaries with their children. They may fear that saying "no" will be ineffective or that they will give in to their child's demands.
Many adults today may fear that what they do to enforce their boundaries will be ineffective. This is a lack of belief in their skills to handle the situation. This comes about because too few adults have practiced setting boundaries and have watched everyone else not enforce boundaries for so long. We don’t have many good examples of how to enforce boundaries to see how it should go. Any adult may avoid saying "no" out of fear that they will make the wrong decision or handle the situation poorly.
Waiting for the Government?
So, the colleges didn’t want to be seen as the “bad” guy, didn’t want to lose their activists, and still want to be seen as pro-protesting. When in fear response, looks like they may have froze. Leaders of colleges may have even wanted to “fawn” for their activist students.
Or, they may feel like a “victim” waiting for a “Savior” to come in. Well, even if the colleges didn’t want the government to be their “savior,” the government sure wanted to look like “Savior” anyway.
The local colleges had the responsibility to enforce their boundaries with laws already on the books. The federal government isn’t concerned about enforcing local laws. They believe it’s their responsibility to pass national laws.
So they have attempted to pass a law against hate speech (concerning anti-semitism) on college campuses. (Yes, it does say at the bottom, “Constitutional Protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
But why are we, as a nation looking to an international group for a defintiion of anti-semintism? The bill states: “To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.”
So the IHRA can change definitions whenever and we as a country should just go along with that? We don’t even need anti-semitism laws. We don’t need hate-speech laws. All hate-speech laws are unconstitutional. And we already have existing laws that we aren’t enforcing.
As Ron Coleman tweeted, “If existing laws against violence and harassment were enforced consistently, there would be no need for legislators to pander by passing stupid laws.” The laws are not just “stupid,” they are malicious and unconstitutional.
The new laws would not be used consistently, equally, and fairly. That’s crystal clear because our old laws are not used consistently, equally, and fairly. The following is a short clip from An0maly’s Dream Rare Podcast.
As he said if some people are protected more than others, then we do not have a country where everyone is equal. Right now we basically have a caste system and Democrat activists are attempting to turn the separations of those protected classes even larger (so there is absolutely no equality or justice) because they’re trying to flip a perceived inequality over. (They want the “victims” to be “persecutors” and vice versa.) They do not want us to have equality with one another. That’s evidenced by their actions and by not using the laws we already had on the books for so long.
I have no desire to have special protections because of my biological sex or my skin color, etc. I just desire justice and equality. But our country is hell-bent on giving people special protections based on their identities (from both the left and right). It’s sickening to see the Republicans and Democrats compete on who can get what identity protected faster than the other.
"When you have the truth on your side, you don't need speech regulation. I'm pretty sure that's what our founding fathers were thinking. But apparently, Republicans are so conservative that they can't even conserve the First Amendment because they want to stop hate speech." An0maly
Too Many Laws
If we just enforced the laws that we have on the books we wouldn’t need new ones put in to protect a group of people above others. Everyone would still be physically protected. Please note, protecting yourself from getting offended is not the government’s responsibility.
In Christianity, Adam got one law from God, Moses got 10, Jewish tradition has 613 commandments, and Jesus taught two. Sinners wouldn’t keep the 10 so their leaders kept adding more laws. When people keep the divine law, the law simplifies. As Tacitus said, The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
There’s no need for all of these extraneous laws. The only reason people add more is because no one is bothering with the first ones. They don’t bother to enforce them, so no one bothers to follow them, so “the state” makes more. Adding laws because people won’t enforce the original ones is a sign of a dying country and society.
Depressing State of Affairs
It’s no wonder people are so depressed these days. It’s depressing to see that people are not even content enough to stay put (concerning this issue), but are racing each other to see who can add more special laws than the other faster.
We should long for equality under the law. But everyone in charge of the laws seems to want to make more. None of that will work.
What you resist, persists.
The more people resist anti-semitism (that is “hate-speech” against Israel or Jewish people), the more we will get. Fighting against it just creates more of it. People will see this injustice (inequality) of it and get angry. Who do you think they’re going to get angry at? How can people not see that adding in more special protections will create the very thing they’re trying to fight against?
The following is a clip from TimcastIRL, where Lisa Reynolds points out this very obvious point. You can view the whole episode here.
Just like the schools trying to lift the supposed monolith “LGBTQ+” to “protect” them just created more hate against that “community”, this will create more hate against Israel and Jews. It’s idiotic.
They’re not thinking rationally. They’re thinking emotionally. They’re not seeing this from outside of the drama triangle, they’re seeing “victims” and playing “Savior.” But it never works. And I’m frustrated watching the idiocy play out.
And, so many people on both sides of the aisle are doing the same thing for opposite groups. I write because I want you to be different. We need equality, not more injustice and hate. Trying to “protect” a group of people with special laws (such as hate speech laws), is not only wrong since it’s unconstitutional, but it will inevitably hurt the people you are trying to “protect.”
BTC Donation Address: bc1q4s6h8rhyqawqlz46ppc3zc5v43duycp8m57h9p
We have too many laws! Small government is good government. Big government is tyranny.