Censorship: Hurting The Very People It Pretends To Protect

Like so many failed Leftist philosophies, by misunderstanding human nature, they arrive at an unintended result.

Political Correctness was supposed to be a guardian protecting the vulnerable. Instead, it’s become a dark alley in which predators can lurk. Here’s how:

In the beginning, political correctness was intended to serve as a kind of ‘peer pressure’ compelling rude, or brash people to curb some of their worst impulses. The people behind it were probably even well-meaning, and may not have had any inkling how it could be hijacked.

The concept was pretty simple:

Don’t use ‘that’ word to describe a black guy.

Don’t use ‘that’ word to describe a homosexual.

Why? Because it’s not nice, and it’s socially unacceptable.

But the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. It didn’t take very long for those rules to become broader, more complicated and — importantly — more strictly enforced.

It wasn’t just an honor system and public scolding for transgressing boundaries. You were publicly scolded with new terms like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘islamophobe, and so on.

It wasn’t long before you weren’t just shamed over it — people began losing their livelihoods over such accusations. Even the CEO lost his position at Mozilla because he donated his own money to the ‘wrong’ (entirely legal) political cause.

Ordinary performance of official duties in places like the TSA became hyper-aware of accusations like ‘racial profiling’, and over-corrected. Activists learned how to rally the outrage mobs to force a political issue, and to cow political opponents. Accusations were wielded as weapons to keep people in line.

In the UK, this created a culture of corporate cowardice among the very institutions who were charged with upholding the law. Well-organized rape gangs continued unprosecuted for decades. It was an ‘Emporer has no clothes’ situation — nobody was willing to be the first to call the king naked.

As Quilette reported in an article worth reading in full:

The scale of the street grooming crisis in the UK almost defies belief. Hundreds of girls and young women were raped in the city of Rotherham, and hundreds by similar exploitation rings in Rochdale, Peterborough, Newcastle, Oxford, and Bristol. Now, up to a thousand girls are thought to have been drugged, raped, and beaten in Telford between the 1980s and the 2010s.

This is, of course, a highly emotive subject. How could it not be? Yet if the phenomenon is to be understood it is important to evaluate the data objectively. Otherwise we have a lot of heat and little light.

Responses to the crisis are contentious because most of the perpetrators are British Asians; specifically British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Child abuse is not uniquely or largely a problem of particular demographics but grooming gangs – that is, multiple offenders exploiting women they have met, manipulated, and abused outside their homes – are 84 percent Asian, and this does not mean Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Indonesian (other perpetrators have been Somali, Romani, Kosovan, Kurdish, and white British.)
Source: Britain’s Grooming Gang Crisis

As another outlet reported:

“I turned up at the police station at 2/3am, blood all over me, soaked through my trousers to the crotch. They dismissed it as me being naughty, a nuisance.” — Victim’s testimony, Oxfordshire Serious Case Review.

“I made a complaint about a man who trafficked me from a children’s home. He was arrested, released and trafficked me again.” — Victim’s testimony, Oxfordshire Serious Case Review.

Fast forward to last week. Two women in London were on a date, coming home at about 2 am. They were beaten up and robbed by four assailants, ages 15-18. Reports went out about police looking for witnesses, but interestingly, no physical description of the attackers was given.

WATCH: The lesbian couple that was brutally attacked on a city bus in London is speaking out for the first time about their experience. pic.twitter.com/TzF1i4iF7m

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 9, 2019

In this interview, the victims assumed this attack was right-wing in origin. Is that actual KNOWLEDGE on their part, or just an assumption based on popular stereotypes?

Maybe they’re right, but honestly, ‘the right’ is almost the only safe scapegoat to hang any horrible act on… especially in the UK. Did the attackers really mention their political affiliation? Seems unlikely. And if so, why was that detail left out of the description of the attack? It’s an explanation that comes off a little too ‘perfect’.

Maybe the attack was driven by something else. They were goading the victims to kiss, and talking about specific lesbian acts. Could the attackers have become hyper-sexualized by online porn, and had a diminished view of women’s humanity as a consequence?

Could they be from a group, nation, or culture that does NOT share the West’s appreciation of the innate dignity and worth of a person regardless of creed, gender or nationality? Could they have come as refugees from one of those countries where women are treated as commodities, where Female Genital Mutilation is considered a normal practice?

We’re not supposed to ask such questions, are we? It’s ‘impolite’. Sure, but it’s also ‘collecting evidence’ that would substantiate motive.

But we’ve seen this same story play out in New York where the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the supposedly racist ‘Right’ would be wildly incorrect. Like the attacks on Jewish New Yorkers.

Orthodox Jews in New York City, specifically in Brooklyn, have experienced alarming rates of physical assault over the past year. The New York Police Department says that hate crimes in the city are up 67 percent this year. Of those, a whopping 80 percent have been anti-Semitic hate crimes. Just this week an Orthodox Jew just walking down the street was attacked from behind, punched in the head by an attacker who then ran away. In another incident this week, an Orthodox Jew was attacked by a group of men, one of whom shouted “You (expletive) Jew.”

This is an all too familiar story in Brooklyn these days, and there is a reason it isn’t being treated as a crisis by our media or government. That reason is that many if not most of the assailants are black or Hispanic men. In an article in The New York Times last October that was careful to point out, although without much evidence, that people of all descriptions are committing acts of anti-Semitism, Ginia Bellafante writes (emphasis mine), “In fact, it is the varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes in the city that make combating and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.”

We should be clear about what this means. It means that if these assaults were being committed by white men in hoods or MAGA hats, it would not be “hard to talk about.” It would be a clear-cut case of bigotry that needs to be fought with every tool in our arsenal. Instead, journalists are wringing their hands about intersectionality, and careful not to indulge the narrative that these physical attacks are coming from blacks and Hispanics in bordering neighborhoods, even though that narrative is absolutely true.
Source: Federalist

Why does censorship hurt people?

Because if the conversation is limited to ‘acceptable topics’ then we won’t be able to raise any uncomfortable truths that may arise. Uncomfortable truths, perhaps, about what underlying patterns might help us determine motive.

Getting to the actual truth of a motive behind a pattern of criminal conduct may take us to some uncomfortable places, and make us ask some unpopular questions.

But an uncomfortable truth is far preferable to a comfortable lie IF the true objective is to actually SOLVE a problem.

Otherwise, the unspoken problems will lurk in the shadows — like a pickpocket in an alley — watching for unsuspecting prey.

The Effeminization Of The American Male
by Doug Giles



Doug Giles, best-selling author of Raising Righteous And Rowdy Girls and Editor-In-Chief of the mega-blog, ClashDaily.com, has just penned a book he guarantees will kick hipster males into the rarefied air of masculinity. That is, if the man-child will put down his frappuccino; shut the hell up and listen and obey everything he instructs them to do in his timely and tornadic tome. Buy Now:The Effeminization Of The American Male

By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:

We’re also moving onto a new platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.

Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.

Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?

Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.

Stay Rowdy!