Monday, March 13, 2017

"Inducing panic" is a crime? Maybe it's time to lock up Rachel Maddow

An engaged couple in Ohio created a #FakeCrimeScene by splashing some ketchup around the bathtub, posing the fiancée as if she were dead, then texting the photos to family members.

The reason, as if you really need a reason for such an endeavor, was that the fiance’s sister owed him money, and they were trying to induce her to come over. To pay him the money, I guess.
Risner had texted his sister a picture that appeared to show Schlette, lying dead and covered in blood in a bathtub, saying he had no memory of what happened but that they had been arguing, then he had woken up covered in blood.
Okay, it sounds unreasonable to me, but who am I to judge? Maybe this kind of good-natured ribbing is common in this particular family. These shenanigans wouldn’t go over well in MY family, but come-see, come-saw, amirite?

What I find particularly interesting about the story is the fact that the couple in question was actually charged with a crime, which both the Daily Mail and the AP call “inducing panic.”

Apparently the police did receive some “panicked” calls from family members who saw the photos. But can they really be charged with a crime for a tasteless practical joke?

And if “inducing panic” is a crime, then what would you do to a #FakeNews organization that reports innuendo and slander about “Russian hacking” and “fascism” as if it were fact? What if there were multiple TV stations and newspapers encouraging violent riots against people who speak out against leftist ideology?

This #FakeCrimeScene story happened to appear concurrently with a story in the New York Times entitled For Solace and Solidarity in the Trump Age, Liberals Turn the TV Back On. It’s a hilarious and sad look at how the #FakeNews of outlets like CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, and so on is perpetuating itself, and giving leftists warm feelz by validating their worldview and giving them a narrative they can tolerate.

“When Obama was in office, I felt like things were going O.K.,” Jerry Brumleve, 58, a retiree from Louisville, Ky., said last week as he stood in line for a “Daily Show” taping in Manhattan.

These days, he is a newfound devotee of Rachel Maddow of MSNBC — “She’s always talking about the Russians!” his wife, Yvonne, chimed in — and believes Mr. Stewart’s successor, Trevor Noah, has finally “hit his stride.”

“With Trump in office, I really feel the need to stay more informed,” Mr. Brumleve added. “You just don’t know what the hell this guy is going to do.”

Those last two sentences read like satire, but they’re not. This Brumleve genuinely feels this way—that by watching The Daily Show and Rachel Maddow (who, according to his own wife, is constantly feeding them bizarre nonsensical and totally proof-free conspiracy theories about TEH RUSSHUNSSSSS!!!!) he’s staying more informed.

No, he’s not staying informed—he’s being fed propaganda. Obama was destroying the Middle East, lying about spying on everyone, about the drone program, about his “health care plan,” about the Iran nuclear deal, selling guns to Mexican drug dealers and on and on, and Brumleve “felt like things were going O.K.”

Now #FakeNews about TEH RUSSSHUNSSSSSS!!! has sent him to the vast wasteland to tell him that he wasn’t wrong. He and his fellows don’t have to re-evaluate their worldview. They don’t have to change their tactics. They don’t have engage with people with whom they disagree. Because TEH RUSSSSSHUNSSSSSS!!!!! got Trump elected and all his voters are NAZIZ anyways and it’s okay to PUNCH NATZEEZ!

I’ve been saying that I think that leftism is a cult for a while now. People like Rachel Maddow, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert are at the top of the hierarchy, ministering to their anxious flock in ever increasing numbers. Now Andrew Sullivan is suggesting pretty much the same thing, under the title “Is Intersectionality a Religion?

Sullivan defines “intersectionality” pretty well (it’s roughly what I think of as “leftism,” but with the PUNCH NATZEEZ justification thrown in):

“Intersectionality” is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that’s my best attempt to define it briefly.

If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably.

The whole thing is worth reading, as it articulates the dangers and hypocrisy presented by this fast-rising religion (spoiler alert: intersectionality IS a religion!).

If that Ohio couple that staged a #FakeCrimeScene can be charged with inducing panic, what do we do with the college students and professors, the Rachel Maddows and Samantha Bees, who are inducing panic on a mass scale, among hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people? Are they criminals as well?

No comments: