{"id":5676,"date":"2014-05-02T11:15:29","date_gmt":"2014-05-02T18:15:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=5676"},"modified":"2014-05-02T11:17:57","modified_gmt":"2014-05-02T18:17:57","slug":"private-thoughts-public-punishment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2014\/05\/02\/private-thoughts-public-punishment\/","title":{"rendered":"Private Thoughts, Public Punishment"},"content":{"rendered":"

     The owner of the L. A. Clippers, Donald Sterling, has been fined $2.5 Million dollars and banned for life<\/a> from the MBA, and may even have his team forcible taken<\/a> from him.\u00a0 Allow your humble author to be blunt:\u00a0 I do not know what Sterling specifically said, and it does not matter what he said in regards to the points being made herein.\u00a0 This is not meant to defend the indefensible, but to condemn the mob.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Donald Sterling turned me into a newt!<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

     It is true that Sterling seems to have had a history of troubling run-ins<\/a> for housing discrimination, but it is equally true that the NAACP gave him a lifetime achievement award<\/a> and was set to give him another.\u00a0 Clearly, he is being punished for what he said in private<\/em>.<\/p>\n

     Sterling isn’t being punished for anything he has done as owner of the Clippers, nor for anything else done or even said publicly.\u00a0 He was being punished because his girlfriend (who is not White) recorded a private <\/em> conversation.\u00a0 In effect, Sterling is being punished for speaking politically incorrect utterances in private<\/em>.<\/p>\n

     That this was illegally obtained by illegal wiretap makes it worse, since recording someone without their permission is illegal in California.\u00a0 Despite the fact that the only crime committed was by the girlfriend, it is Sterling who is the only one so far being punished.<\/p>\n

     This comes soon after the Mozilla scandal<\/a> where CEO Brenden Eich was effectively pushed out for daring, nearly a decade ago, to have the same position on Traditional Marriage that Barack Obama had!\u00a0 Even though Eich never showed any animus at the work place and demonstrated not only tolerance, but support for LGBTQ individuals; he was still turned into a pariah. \u00a0 Sterling was accused of actual housing discrimination, while Eich only supported keeping the traditional definition of marriage, though Same-Sex marriage advocated consider that discriminatory enough.<\/p>\n

     The purging from \u201cpolite society\u201d of those who dare to express \u201cincorrect\u201d ideas is not just a non-governmental problem, as simply being affiliated with the Boy Scouts is enough to get you purged from elected office<\/a>.<\/p>\n

     Sterling’s case, however, is far more egregious.\u00a0 His utterances were done in private<\/em>.\u00a0 It was only that it was illegally<\/em> recorded that it got out.\u00a0 Wasn’t the freedom to act and speak as a private citizen without being subject to a witchhunt something we held valuable in America?\u00a0 The concurring opinion in the New Mexico Same-Sex Wedding Photography case even stated that the outside of their business, the photographers were free to say and do as they wished<\/a>. Clearly, such notions were but sweet lies intended to lull those who cherish freedom of speech into a false sense of security.\u00a0 Now-a-days \u201cincorrect\u201d thinking is declared to have a public impact, and as noted<\/a> before, \u201cWhen everything is a public issue, then you have no private existence<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 It does not matter if you are wrong or right, bigoted or tolerant, you will comport to the proscribed thinking.\u00a0 Anything that reveals the possibility of incorrect thinking<\/a> becomes a green light to persecute, bully, and otherwise vilify the dissenters.<\/p>\n

     This isn’t about tolerance or fighting actual acts of discrimination.\u00a0 It has been about denying<\/em> any tolerance and about discriminating<\/em> against those who dare to disagree<\/a>.\u00a0 No longer are we told to support pluralism where people could disagree and believe different things.\u00a0 The culture, through \u201cthe long march through the institutions,\u201d has shifted away from what it was and towards a more Progressive Leftist mindset.\u00a0\u00a0 While the growing abhorrence of sentiments like those expressed by Sterling is a good thing, the Progressive Left have tied such wicked things into the greater civic heritage<\/a> and condemn all those that refuse to adhere to their ideology as \u201cH8rs\u201d and monsters.\u00a0 Anyone who questions this is reminded that \u201conly those who are H8rs have anything to fear\u201d\u2026 and you<\/span> aren\u2019t a \u201cH8r,\u201d are you?<\/p>\n

     This becomes dangerous when one considers the rabid \u201csocial justice\u201d crowd who consider White people (or men, or heterosexuals, &c.) to be innately evil.\u00a0 \u201cWhiteness,\u201d for example, becomes a sin and a form of oppression.\u00a0 Thus, White people can’t but help to be oppressors and racists.\u00a0 Only by proactively fighting for \u201csocial justice\u201d and treating their \u201cWhiteness\u201d like a disease or alcoholism<\/a> to be treated, can they be tolerated.\u00a0 This hypocrisy can be seen by another NBA team owner: Jay-Z.\u00a0 Despite his openly wearing at NBA games of a racist medallion<\/a> of the \u201cFive Percenters\u201d who believe that \u201c[w]hiteness is weak and wicked and inferior<\/a>\u201d and that White people \u201care devils.\u201d\u00a0 Yet another example is Spike Lee, who is publicly opposed to mixed-race weddings<\/a>.\u00a0 Even strangling someone and publicly, spouting anti-gay slurs, and killing someone isn’t so horrible<\/a> as to warrant what Sterling is receiving!\u00a0 Just because Sterling was wrong does not mean that the vicious froth<\/a> of the mob is just or ought to be accepted.<\/p>\n

     Tolerance means tolerating those who or what you disagree with.\u00a0 We, as a society should tolerate ideas and beliefs that we don\u2019t agree with, even if they are obnoxious and disgusting.\u00a0 Some have gone so far as to state that simply uttering something in private creates a \u201chostile work environment\u201d for which the alleged transgressor ought to be punished to kicked-out. \u00a0 If it does not involve the work-place, or the workers\/workers\u2019 families directly, then it ought not be considered to be creating such a \u201chostile work environment.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0 This is especially so for private<\/em> conversations.\u00a0 Simply being<\/em> who you are or expressing<\/em> your honest beliefs should not be something we harass people over.\u00a0 MEP Daniel Hannan put it<\/a> well:<\/p>\n

\n

\n

"That's an unacceptable view," (as opposed to "I disagree with that view") situates the speaker pretty reliably on the Left-Right spectrum.<\/p>\n

— Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) April 27, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n