Skip to content

What Is “Offensive” or Unacceptable And What Is Not, In Civilized Society

My previous post was about the Orwellian “Ontario Human Rights Tribunal” who ordered a landlord to pay $12,000 fine for his act of “discrimination” against a Muslim tenant because the landlord didn’t take off his shoes when entering the apartment.

When something like that happens, an act of utter injustice against an innocent person like that landlord, perhaps the landlord-victim ought to immediately have the complainers charged with harassment, and endangerment as well. Reporting an innocent person to the government for some non-crime or non-issue (“discrimination”) is exposing that innocent individual to possible deprivation by government of his liberty and possible theft of his finances, as we have seen in that case. The victim might also consider having the members of that government board charged with theft or extortion in their stealing $12,000 from him.

Another example, as I have mentioned here before, is the same-sex couples who sue bakers who don’t want to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding, or florists who don’t want to make flower arrangements, and so on. In the cases I read about, the same-sex couple was easily able to find a different baker or florist who would provide services for them, but they sued the initial ones anyway.

People do not have a right to force or order someone else to do extra labor to serve them. If a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for you, that’s too bad. In those cases in which the couple sues the baker $150,000 to punish him, that baker should immediately have the couple charged criminally with extortion and harassment, because frankly that’s what that is.

This “discrimination” crap is getting so out of hand now. The SJWs particularly of the LGBT variety are very selfish and narcissistic, in which the whole world revolves around them, you must do what they say or else, and if others don’t accept their lifestyle then such acceptance must be forced on them by law.

Another related issue is local bureaucrats and law enforcement catering to political correctness and their fear of offending people. For example, the San Francisco subway authority won’t release videos of crimes being committed against commuters, violent crimes such as assaults and thefts, according to Robert Wenzel. Releasing those videos could cause a “racially insensitive commentary” and “create a racial bias in the riders against minorities on the trains.”

Well then what is the point of having surveillance videos? How stupid is this? What these officials are doing is actively covering up crimes, they are literally committing obstruction of justice in the name of political correctness. The officials themselves should be charged with obstruction, and aiding and abetting of violent criminals. This obsession with “bias” and “race” is endangering the lives of innocent people now, this obsession with how or what people might think about others based on race.

Whatever happened to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of viewing others not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? What people are doing today is the opposite of what Dr. King believed. They are paranoiacally obsessed with race and skin color, and other superficial things that don’t have actual importance in life.

Now, regarding the violent crimes in the city (or outside of the city), if most of those kinds of crimes are committed by black people, then why don’t you tell them to stop committing crimes against innocent people? And sure, there are plenty of white people who commit crimes, but the numbers of black people committing crimes are higher than those committed by white people.

And please don’t call me a “racist” for pointing out facts. Unlike today’s “liberals,” I actually care about minorities or people of color.

If we want today’s young people to stay out of trouble and to develop a respect for others, it would be helpful to them if the government would stop legislating the young people’s entry-level employment opportunities out of existence, as Walter Williams just this week once again pointed out, using the minimum wage as an example. When bureaucrats impose or raise a mandated minimum wage for entry-level jobs, many employers can’t afford to pay their entry-level workers such higher wages, so the employers cut the jobs entirely.

Walter Williams, the author of Race and Economics, noted that unions have for decades been scheming to use minimum wage laws to lock black workers out of higher paying jobs. And George Reisman showed how minimum wage laws force low-skilled workers to have to compete with higher skilled workers. The government and its evil bureaucrats pit this group of people against that group, one against the other.

And besides the minimum wage, other regulations, tax-thefts, etc., are imposed on businesses by bureaucrats that make it more difficult or impossible for black entrepreneurs to even start a business.

As Jacob Hornberger wrote, “Imagine how many black entrepreneurs in the inner cities could start up businesses if there was no minimum wage law. They could start up the business by hiring black teenagers in the area at, say, $5 an hour. Everyone would benefit — the teenagers, the business owners, and the consumers. Alas, owing to minimum wage laws, we never see those businesses come into existence. It’s what libertarian economists Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt termed the unseen consequences of government programs.”

Besides wage and price controls and business regulations and fees imposed by greedy, power-hungry government bureaucrats, the racist drug war also makes it difficult for young black youths to get their foot in the door. By the way, the racist drug war is being imposed and operated by bureaucrats, Democrat and Republican, white and black, Asian and Hispanic, bureaucrats of all colors, shapes and sizes. Bureaucrats are very evil, they are criminals, in my view.

As Ron Paul pointed out, yes the drug war does have racist origins, and it is still being carried out in a very racist way, mainly against black people. Dr. Paul has called Donald Trump and attorney general Jeff Sessions’s stepping up of the war on drugs quite authoritarian. (But not alcohol that is perhaps the preferred drug of Washington’s elites. They MUST have their booze!)

Legalize all drugs, because this nanny state stuff is ridiculous and is really hurting the country. The nanny state drug war is teaching Americans that they need not take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Mommy and Daddy gubmint will decide for you what you may or may not ingest in your own body!

Speaking of responsibility, it would be helpful for the “black community” to discourage all forms of violence, and to raise their children to have respect for others. You know, remind them that stealing is immoral? Remind them that initiating aggression against others is unacceptable. Aren’t mothers doing that with their kids anymore? And if not, why not?

And also, how about discouraging drug usage, and ostracizing those who are involved in drugs, are taking drugs or dealing or selling them. And encourage that young males either use birth control or if they get their girlfriends pregnant then marry them and be a husband and father. Take some responsibility for your life, for heaven’s sake.

Published inUncategorized