Posted On: Wednesday - February 20th 2019 8:04PM MST
In Topics: Pundits Media Stupidity Race/Genetics
The latter, "fake nooses" is nice word-play there by Mr. Sailer, and is the title of his latest Takimag article. (Also, 212 comments about it, as of this writing, are here on unz.com.)
Once Steve Sailer gets a handle on a topic, such as these continual incidents of race-baiting or gender-baiting fakery, he keeps up with it more than anyone I've read. This Jussie Smollett business that Peak Stupidity has tried to avoid even thinking about is just the latest in a long series of hate hoaxes, though this one seems to have been scripted more than normal (well the hate-hoax director was in "the biz", after all). There was the fake Rolling Stone news a few years back about a supposed rape on the campus of the U. of Virginia by frat-boys, often a target of hate hoaxes, in which Mr. Sailer was a big part of the effort to get at the truth. Mr. Sailer does toot his own horn in the column in a "I've been saying this for 15 years already!" proud manner, but he completely deserves accolades on this.
Most Americans forget the myriad incidents fairly soon after they are dropped by the Lyin' Press. This works out very well for said Lyin' Press, as, once these formerly horrible instances of still-existing white or male racial hatred are proven to be hoaxes, it is hoped that the reality portion (the aftermath) is also forgotten. That way, the Lyin' Press can have the nerve of using these very same previous hoaxes to "prove" that, "yeah, this latest horrible act is just one in a long line .. " bringing up former hoaxes without the little details such as "oh, uh, yeah they were hoaxes..."
Well Steve Sailer, and his readers HAVE been paying attention. The "hate hoax" term is just now being used after 15 years of that pundit continually writing about it. Peak Stupidity give him great praise for this diligence in bringing this stupidity to the forefront. The only problem I have with his ideas is his actual belief that there are indeed real "hate crimes" that should be prosecuted as such. No, that's not the way American justice is supposed to work, Mr. Sailer. I'd like to expound on that in another post to come later.
It's been an even slower blog-week than I had anticipated, but the project did get finished. This was indeed one of those "hey, look what this guy wrote!" kind of posts that Peak Stupidity has avoided pretty well since our 2nd blog-year started. Hopefully, there'll be 2 - 4 more pieces of juicy stupidity to round out this week.
Comments:
Moderator
Friday - February 22nd 2019 11:00AM MST
PS: Yep, those are pretty much the points I want to make in a post about the whole "hate crime" bit, hopefully later today. I have some posts coming to round out what's left of the week. Otherwise, it's been the lowest week since summer of '17 (when Iintended to work on the software instead). Howver, our goal of 1000 posts by end-of-bidness-March should be no problem atall.
BernCar
Thursday - February 21st 2019 6:16AM MST
PS: Couldn't agree more with you on the illegtimacy of hate crime as a separate category of criminal conduct. The criminal code has long recognized first degree murder versus manslaughter, etc. as examples of criminal motivation, or its absence, that inform the intent of the perpetrator.
I have contended from the first moment I heard the phrase "hate crime" that the idea would evolve so as to change the emphasis from the crime to the hatred itself; that is to say the public would come to associate the proscribed activity not with the mens rea of an actual crime, but with the hatred itself, thus producing thought crime as a part of the criminal code. Such a transition is not difficult to imagine in a citizenry that can't distinguish between "lose" and "loose" (or news and noose?) in written language.
I have contended from the first moment I heard the phrase "hate crime" that the idea would evolve so as to change the emphasis from the crime to the hatred itself; that is to say the public would come to associate the proscribed activity not with the mens rea of an actual crime, but with the hatred itself, thus producing thought crime as a part of the criminal code. Such a transition is not difficult to imagine in a citizenry that can't distinguish between "lose" and "loose" (or news and noose?) in written language.