Time do delve into the debate over the shooting that took place in Charleston. First, to state the obvious, Dylann Roof seems to be both mentally ill and a racist. The interesting part of all this is how the media has chosen to frame this.
The narrative that has emerged should serve as a stark reminder of a key reality of today's media and the modern "social justice movement". In effect, we have a climate where the social justice types do have control of the narrative and media. They are the establishment. But, since they thrive on stirring up hatred of the establishment, they have to create a pretend establishment and a pretend, straw man narrative to critique.
The powers that be have been constantly harping on the fact that nobody's admitting that Dylann Roof was a racist. They claim that there are tons of Haven Monahan's going around and telling everybody that racism had nothing to do with this. Of course, the actual media has been launching a jihad against straight white men. The same kind of jihad that was put upon straight white men when Elliot Rodger (who was half asian) went on his rampage. We're told that this is a stark reminder of how dangerous society is for non straight white men due to the white male power structure that supposedly exists.
This would all be fine... if it were not totally at odds with the actual facts. The first thing to note is that, in both the cases of Dylann Roof and Elliot Rodger, the power structure deemphasizing the roles of sexism and racism in these tragedies basically doesn't exist. It's merely a straw man. It's an example of the motte and bailey tactic often used by SJWs.
There are very few people denying the obvious fact that Dylann Roof was a racist and Elliot Rodger was a sexist. But, there are a lot of people challenging the dominant (but totally ridiculous) claim that systematic or structural racism and sexism against women and blacks are the key motivator in these tragedies. The sjws of the internet are taking the obvious fact that Dylann Roof was a racist and turning it into the much more implausible view that our whole society is racist towards blacks.
This is, on the face, ridiculous. Both Rodger and Roof got their views from obscure corners of the internet. Corners that are denounced by the entire establishment. It's already a stretch to blame the "manosphere" on the Rodger incident. But, it's plausible. It's ridiculous to claim that our entire culture is too blame or that the "manosphere" is somehow part of the establishment or that their views are widely held. The same is true of Dylann Roof.
Now, it is time to get into some facts. The truth, if you will, about who structural violence targets. That is to say, we have individual examples of violence against different groups. But, which group is most victimized? And who is causing this violence?
For this, we look at a BJS report exploring homicide from 1980-2008. Immediately, the SJW argument seems to be proven right: men are 9 times more likely to kill than women and blacks are 6 times more likely to be killed than whites. Men are violent, and blacks are victims. The data support the narrative.... until you look just a bit more.
First off, with regards to gender, men are far more likely to kill. But, they are also far more likely to be killed. Men are about 3 times more likely than women to be victims of homicide. That is to say, most violence is male on male rather than male on female. Furthermore, even when women are the killers, they are 4 times more likely to kill a man than a woman. Both women and men disproportionately target men. But, that's the side of the equation you don't hear about. Instead we hear about how dangerous it is to be a woman in the world. Even though, in reality, men are much higher risk of being victimized by violence.
On the same note, blacks are 6 times more likely to be killed than whites. But, they are also 8 times more likely to kill than whites. 93% of black victims were killed by blacks. If you look at the charts on interracial murders includes in the report, blacks are much more likely to kill whites than vice versa.
Notice anything?
The following things are true:
1.) Both blacks and men are more likely to both be killed and kill compared to non blacks and women
2.) Both blacks and men are more overrepresented among homicide offenders than they are homicide victims (although they are overrepresented among both groups)
3.) The legal system unfairly disadvantages both blacks and men
4.) Both blacks and men are far more likely to be incarcerated
These facts are startling when we look at the differing narratives relating to male and black violence. Males being more likely to be violent is supposedly due to males being privileged. Blacks being more likely to be violent is supposedly due to whites being privileged.
If you're trying to analyze this from a logical and reality based point of view, the feminist and sjw narratives aren't even worth considering. These contradictions in how male violence and black violence are treated should be a reminder that this is all about demonizing white men. That's it. There is no analysis. There are just assumptions. Assumptions that are never to be challenged.
Dylann Roof and Elliot Rodger are not emblematic of a white male power structure because no such power structure exists in the current developed world. The narrative around the tragedies they caused are, however, emblematic of a feminist, liberal power structure that demonizes regular white men at every turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment