Elsewhere (267)
Douglas Murray on crime, migration and modern dishonesties:
In Germany, friends and readers describe to me how they are learning anew how to read their daily newspapers. When the news says that ‘A person was killed by another person’ for instance, and no names or other identifying characteristics are given, people guess – correctly – that the culprit is probably of migrant background. For the time-being serious crimes are still reported, but the decision has been taken that the public should not really be informed about them.
Related: “Vibrant and diverse.” And of course these items here.
Heather Mac Donald on “diversity” versus merit:
Sometimes meritocracy will yield diversity; sometimes it won’t. The point is that it doesn’t matter. Diversity should not be an end in itself; excellence is the goal. Rejecting the primacy of diversity constitutes a head-on assault on the received wisdom of Washington and elite American culture. Gender and racial quotas have been the order of business for the last three decades… The result: wasted resources, the side-lining of merit, and ever more virulent and irrational identity politics. The rule of the diversity regime is that you’re required to be fanatically obsessed with race and gender until you aren’t — because at that unpredictable moment, whenever it comes, noticing race and sex becomes racist and sexist.
And Roger Kimball on being outraged by the obvious-but-unmentionable:
Professors Amy Wax and Larry Alexander were roundly condemned by their university colleagues. Thirty-three of Wax’s fellow law professors at Penn signed an “Open Letter” condemning her op-ed. “We categorically reject Wax’s claims,” they thundered. What they found especially egregious was Wax and Alexander’s observation that “All cultures are not equal.” […] As William Henry argued back in the 1990s… “Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean that all contributions are equal… It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose.” True, too true. But in a pusillanimous society terrified by its own shadow, it is one thing to know the truth, quite another to utter it in public.
And then Professor Wax mentioned other obvious things, much to the agitation of people who like to pretend.
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
Two minor incidents, but don’t fucking tell me that burglary should be just laughed off or that our sympathies ought to be with the criminal.
Quite. But this is the Guardian way, and some variation of it crops up every few weeks. Whatever the antisocial behaviour is, from graffiti and tube train vandalism to mob thuggery and opportunist rioting, you’ll find a Guardian columnist eager to defend it, as if titillated, while dismissing the people on whom these things are inflicted.
As I said a while ago, following a typically fatuous article by Zoe Williams – on neighbours from hell and how unfairly “we” treat them:
This is who they are. This is what they do. And so if your neighbours like to throw shit at your windows, you mustn’t complain; and if your car gets burnt out by balaclava-wearing sociopaths, think of all the “social justice” that’s being conjured into being. And if you’ve ever been burgled and left sleepless and distressed, and poorer, and angry, remember that quite a few lefties have decided that your feelings of outrage and injustice are “idiotic” and contemptible.
Kurt Eichenwald
I’d not previously heard of this gentleman but brief internet research suggests he ought to add ‘creepy mentalist’ to his bio line.
And so if your neighbours like to throw shit at your windows, you mustn’t complain; and if your car gets burnt out by balaclava-wearing sociopaths, think of all the “social justice” that’s being conjured into being. And if you’ve ever been burgled and left sleepless and distressed, and poorer, and angry, remember that quite a few lefties have decided that your feelings of outrage and injustice are “idiotic” and contemptible.
All. Of. That.
All. Of. That.
And once you’ve spotted the mental contortion, it will crop up again.
Before I scrolled far enough, I guessed that Spiny’s triple-Twitter-photo post was a new measurement for crazy (sort of like this):
Except in Kurts.
You know, like, “Wow, that’s nuts. How many Eichenwalds has it been ranked at?”
Heh.
‘creepy mentalist’
Oh no, you mean he can read our minds too???
don’t fucking tell me that burglary should be just laughed off or that our sympathies ought to be with the criminal.
Sympathy, nothing … if a burglar is unsuccessful, let’s arrest the homeowner for daring to defend himself.
let’s arrest the homeowner for daring to defend himself
A land fit for criminals?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Land-Fit-Criminals-Insiders-Punishment/dp/1857769643
At some point citizens should ask who is pushing such insane laws and policies. and why.
To be fair, that article only mentions the man was arrested, not that he was convicted. And while I see “dead burglar and unharmed victim” as pretty much the best reasonable outcome of any buglary attempt, the cops do need to determine whether or not that is what actually happened.
The home owner could have potentially tricked these men into coming into his house, in order to kill them while claiming self-defense. Or they could have simply been mistaken and entered the house thinking it was a friends house, and the homeowner over-reacted and went straight to lethal force.
These are not likely explanations, but just like we shouldn’t automatically believe claims of rape, we shouldn’t automatically believe claims of burglary.
Now, if the man is found guilty of murder when faced with a genuine burglary, then a great injustice would be done. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it happens. I just wanted to defend the police for doing something that they should be doing, regardless of the outcome.
“arrested, not convicted”
But arrested immediately? Not after an investigation? In the United States, or at least in the sane states, the homeowner would not be arrested unless the officers had reason to suspect that he had not been merely defending himself and his home. I get the impression that in Britain using violence to defend oneself is presumptive evidence of a criminal act.
I get the impression that in Britain using violence to defend oneself is presumptive evidence of a criminal act.
When you’re scared to death of real criminals, making a big production of harassing innocent homeowners is a good way of showing the taxpayers how active and important you are.
Alas, it’s not just Britain, either.
the homeowner would not be arrested unless the officers had reason to suspect that he had not been merely defending himself and his home.
Even if the agency was suspicious, they’d interview the homeowner as an IP (interested party) do all the forensics and forward to the report to the DA for review.
If something DOES end up hinky, then the DA will file & issue a warrant.
I’m unsure about Britain, but in the US an actual arrest/jailed starts a time clock … there has to be charges filed & an arraignment within two business days or let the person go. That’s why one will rarely find the person claiming self-defense arrested at this point. Not enough time to conduct an investigation in order to sustain charges, so why bother arresting?
In addition, if the homeowner is found to have legally defended himself, the other burglar can be charged with murder in the death of his accomplice.
One of the most depressingly funny videos I have seen recently was of a half dozen British police confronting a knife-wielding Muslim. Every time he lunged at the officers they retreated. In America the police would have shot him dead and the world would have been better as a result.
“We’re not the thought police…”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/audio-uk-thought-police-claim-were-not-the-thought-police-as-they-harass-man-for-his-opinions-about-islam
I remember when the lefty trope said “every time you kill one, two more sprout up to take his place.” I always replied that this was an experiment I thought should be pursued, to see if the observations was 1) true and 2) sustainable.
They said I was a monster, but I’m really just an empiricist. Which sounds enough like ‘imperialist’ that my lefty friends didn’t have to change their opinion of me.
Every time he lunged at the officers they retreated.
Reminds me of this (which I may have already shared hereabouts…I forget).
And, on a cheerier note: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7934
Rafi,
I don’t understand why the guy says much more afre about a minute in. What are the rights/expectations there in the UK? As an American, I could maaaaybe see the first couple questions but by about 1:30 mark I’d be asking them to leave or ask if I was under investigation or suspicion of what exactly, and then I’d lawyer up. Must you allow police into your home without a warrent? Thought y’all fixed that after we left.
Ok…I am really confused on UK police procedures …
Wha…? Police cannot investigate any death unless they haul someone to jail? Do they do this in fatal car crashes?
That’s plain screwy.
Oh…another little factoid I ran across when researching ‘gun crimes’… the UK may be cooking the books since they don’t report on total number of incidents but only when there has been a conviction.
I guess when the stats aren’t making you look good, manipulate the stats.
police were required to arrest the pensioner in order to investigate whether he had acted in self defence.
Can English law really be that screwy, or was Officer Brennan lying?
Or maybe one should ask: “Required? Required by what? English law? Or the increasingly tyrannical State?”
Name not released to “protect children.”
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/crime/inside-family-home-where-wife-was-mutilated-murdered-as-children-watched/news-story/2b8a66bb57b6199a7ee65ba9f46201e9
“‘A person was killed by another person’ for instance”
Historically I’ve taken it to mean the culprit is female. It’s been extended more recently to other identity groups who must never be chastised. The flip side is that only “worthy” victims will be identified.
As an example I read coverage of the deaths of nine Africans to organ harvesters just last year. Four were identified by name, age and sex – one women and three unrelated children. The other five may have been camels.
Adam Jones wrote about this filtering in 2001…
Effacing the Male