"There are a bunch of issues here, a bunch of threats. We can deal with them in a compassionate way, or a not compassionate way.”
Said NYU bioethics and public health professor S. Matthew Liao, quoted in "How a Dog’s Killing Turned Brooklyn Progressives Against One Another/After a sudden confrontation that left a golden retriever dead, neighbors came together online to support the owner of the dog. But then things changed" (NYT).
Notice that the long headline never refers to the attacker. We have the "killing," the "progressives," a "confrontation," a "golden retriever," "neighbors," "the owner," and "things." That's a lot of nouns generated to put a cloak of invisibility over the man who attacked a woman, then attacked the dog that defended her.
But the interesting part of the story really is how people on line switched from empathizing with the woman to viewing the man — who is black — as an embodiment of manifold social problems.
The woman, Jessica Chrustic, 40 — who, we are told, is "a professional beekeeper" — said: "I’m very empathetic toward people who are unhoused and are having hard times and who have mental illness. I think that there should be more resources for them. There should be more housing situations. But what I emphasize is that this is just one person who needs to be removed from the park. He’s violent. End of story. Are they waiting for somebody to die? Are they waiting for someone to get hurt more severely? I was lucky. My dog was not. What happens to the next person? What happens if it’s a child? How many more people need to be harmed?"The top 2 comments at the Times each have over 3,000 up-votes:
1. "First of all, I find the 'a dog’s killing' headline INFURIATINGLY reductive. The dog died, yes. More importantly, the only reason she did not also die is because of the dog. The man also attacked HER with a stick and has done so before. It really is just a matter of time before he kills a human. If we want to play identity politics, which I would rather not, but if we are…. then I find this piece completely sexist in its disregard for the safety of women in the park. I am so tired at the foibles of men being elevated to the same level as the safety of women.... We can feel sympathy for this disturbed but whatever caused his illness DOES NOT EXCUSE NOR JUSTIFY violently attacking people. How is this even a debate? … [J]ust the stuff that gives the right fodder for saying we are nuts."
2. "The response to the attack on Ms. Chrustic and her dog is exactly why we Progressives are losing the hearts and minds of Americans every day. Dr. Liao might sit comfortably and safely back in his NYU tower and proclaim that 'It’s complicated,' but it's simply not. She was attacked by a violent man who needs to be located, detained, and provided services to protect him and the community. It's that simple. What is truly complicated are the myriad ways in which the government and the community might help the victim and the attacker, but all they're talking about in Park Slope is who's a better liberal. This is why we have Donald Trump."
Posts
73 comments:
If we want to play identity politics, which I would rather not
Liar.
"...an embodiment of manifold social problems."
Manifold!? Just manifold!?! Do these people have any idea of the magnitude of this problem?
Manifold makes it sound like a baker's dozen or something, not the understanding that we would be practically a different country overnight without these 'social problems'.
"[J]ust the stuff that gives the right fodder for saying we are nuts."
Yes. Yes you are. And the thing is, you've become that way by choice. You looked at the evidence of your senses and decided that your party narrative outweighed reality in almost every facet of your life. So what you see playing out around you, in your city, your state, your country- is a direct result of too many of you tossing aside reality for your Party or your Cause.
Well...you made the choice to be that way. You have to make the choice to undo yourself before you can undo the society around you. And, no...Donald Trump is not and was not the problem. YOU are the problem.
I believe you can see that now.
---The top 2 comments at the Times each have over 3,000 up-votes
That's a lot of bots Pinch set up.
Wow. As the Donald cometh back there is a sharp turn back to reality. The Progs cluster of myths are being rejected by everyone. George Soros and Obama will have to spend ten billion more buying influencers and pushing their racism and Global Warming myths .
A conservative is a liberal mugged by reality.
PS- No, it's not complicated as the esteemed 'expert' in this scenario claims.
"It’s complicated. It’s a conflict of values, between wanting security and social justice. Everybody has a responsibility in some ways."
When someone is coming at you, or at your family or loved ones, or at your home, you're not thinking about 'social justice' (whatever that is). You're thinking about defending yourself and those you love or that which you own. You're acting in the most basic primal ways and that is the most real and truthful thing about yourself. The least truthful thing about yourself is you thinking about how you want to be viewed by others during a time of crisis. Nothing could be less truthful or less real than a pursuit of so-called 'social justice' when under attack.
Our 'public health' professionals have uncovered themselves over the last decade to be really...doltish. Degreed, but not very bright.
Hero Dog Sacrifices Life To Save Woman From a Madman
Fixed it for you, NYT.
THIS is one of those NYC articles, where i REALLY want to read Robert Cook's views on..
i NEED a good laugh
Just another reason not to live in NYC.
The rubber meets the road. SJW’s thinking they’ll never be exposed to the rot they’ve created. Same as the elite thinking they or their kids will ever inadvertently ingest fentanyl.
The violent feedback must have been especially humiliating when they realized that Trump is so popular because of their social justice whacky whims. The right understands humankind and does not attempt to alter its basic makeup.
Liberal on Martha Vineyard: "We are a sanctuary city and all are welcome."
Same Liberal on Martha Vineyard: "Why are they here? What the fuck? Send them away!"
S. Matthew Liao in his nice safe office in NYU: "It’s complicated. It’s a conflict of values, between wanting security and social justice. Everybody has a responsibility in some ways."
S. Matthew Liao in the mean streets of New York City: "Why are you hitting me? What the fuck? Where's my gun? Where's my dog? Stop hitting me! Holy shit!"
I am so tired at the foibles of men being elevated to the same level as the safety of women....
For a minute there I thought a NYT subscribing liberal was condemning same sex public bathrooms. 😯
Nope, not complicated at all. Man attacked, womans dog defended, dog killed.
Man should be in jail to rot.
Anything else is just pandering to the racism of the people covering for him.
I guess killing regular people, like on the subway, wasn't enough to get some people's attention, or make them reconsider their views. Even racist attacks against Asians or Jews - well, let's not forget root causes. Especially since white supremacy is to blame.
But kill a dog? Well, at least a few progressives will acknowledge that things are getting out of hand. This crosses a line.
Don't get me wrong. I love dogs. But if this is what it takes to wake people up, while assaults and murders of regular citizens merits a shrug, it doesn't bode well for this country, especially city dwellers.
I wonder if progressives really understand the level of resentment that has been packed down inside of normal people that have not only been forced to listen to this form of bullsh*t, but have been bullied, often dominated by institutions, to accept it and even voice approval, simply in order to have a semi-normal life. Too many people have the Howard Beale pajamas-and-wet-raincoat newscast playing inside their mind. There is a reckoning coming.
Murder my Golden retriever and you get to do a dirt nap.
"She was attacked by a violent man who needs to be located, detained, and provided services to protect him and the community."
She needs to get a gun. Then she can provide some services. Didn't Mao say something about that?
NYC has professional beekeepers? It's a cool and necessary position, but if the Althouse scare quotes indicate doubt, I'm with you.
I'm also with the commenters. (There's hope yet for this country.) If someone is trying to argue that mental illness is somehow a subset of Blackness or systemic racism -- Dude, wokeness has taken you around the circle and landed you on white supremacy.
"I am so tired at the foibles of men being elevated to the same level as the safety of women"
Still a little PC even as she (?) gets mugged by reality: not the "foibles of men" but the violence of black men. Over 1000 assaults on whites per day.
"his illness DOES NOT EXCUSE NOR JUSTIFY violently attacking people. How is this even a debate?"
Due to decades of prog propaganda.
"[J]ust the stuff that gives the right fodder for saying we are nuts."
But you can only stop the supply of fodder by ceasing to be nuts. A long way to go in blue jurisdictions.
"She was attacked by a violent man who needs to be located, detained, and provided services to protect him and the community."
Yeah, yeah, you systemic racist. Some truths still unspoken here, even as progs deal with a reality-mugging.
What are the odds that this psycho's problems are caused by something organic or were caused by some kind of mistreatment by his family when young? Is his predicament due to racism or to other causes?...Will the next victim of his attack be someone white and middle class? Such people clearly deserve punishment for their class and racial identity although some clemency should be extended towards women. There is,however, the possibility that his next psychotic lesion might involve someone of color. This should figure in the calculus and be uppermost in people's minds.......Also he is picking through garbage and living on the streets. Is institutional care or even incarceration so much worse than his current status? The only advantage I can see for his current mode of living is that he is free to take drugs and alcohol when available. Also, as a subway rider myself, I can appreciate his reluctance to be put into a confined space with other people such as himself. Perhaps we can find a way to integrate violent psychos of color into the Betty Ford Clinic and other such places. The experience would, undoubtedly, be good for everyone involved.
" ...located, detained, and provided services to protect him and the community."
God help those people for whom progressive wish to provide services. The person who wrote this meant "lock him up" but really can't say that.
Ideas so foolish only a professor would entertain them.
But go ahead have a dialog with the homeless guy. Provide him comfort, shelter and therapy.
But house him in your home for the duration.
Does anybody know how bioethical reasoning proceeds? Foundational documents or principles? Or is it just some guy spouting off? Some credentialed guy! What is required to obtain those credentials?
As for the "unhoused" mentally ill, There once was a place for them. There were warm rooms, beds, three meals a day but lefty politics shut down those places and sent the mental illness out to the streets and parks.
Some commenter says this violent dog-killer “needs services.”
How about life without parole? Does that fit the definition of services?
Richard Wrangham, in The Goodness Paradox, speculates that we went from being anti-social chimp-like creatures to the co-operative ones we are today because band members would help out natural selection when things got too bad. That man who kept attacking people? He went out with the guys on a hunting trip and didn't come back. Today, if we are good and civilized, we say he "needs to be located, detained, and provided services". Then, he refuses services and lives as a danger to those around him.
“[J]ust the stuff that gives the right fodder for saying we are nuts.”
Is there going to come a time when we, as a country, realize that deinstitutionalization, meaning the closing of facilities for the dangerously mentally disturbed and putting the inmates out on the street, a policy which the left pushed through forty years ago, is a complete and total failure? Women should be able to stroll through a park without fear of being forced to fight for their lives. What’s wrong with that? Why is that supposed to be a right wing concept?
Social justice is an oxymoron. The people promoting it aren't morons, they're evil.
Stolen elections have consequences.
So does actually supporting democrats.
Right now there are only a few people who are actually scared of being cast out of the progressive tribe. The really stupid ones who think the NYT's is a useful source of information.
There are only a few corporations that can fire everyone who speaks ill of democrats and still have employees.
Everyone hates the democrats at this point. They are obviously stupid, malicious, and trying to tear down the foundations of our high trust society.
When twitter goes open source and the shackles come off, twitter is going to start looking like this chat board. A couple stupid progs here and there who have room temperature IQ's amid a sea of decent people who understand what the Regime's Policies are meant to do. Only really stupid people will be able to deal with the humiliation of being a democrat.
In 5 years nobody will have ever supported Joe Biden or this Regime. There will be a few holdouts for Democrats in general after they pretend to move back to the center.
It seems to me that the left's position on nearly everything is: If the right is for it, we are against it, if the right is against it, we are for it. It comes from the brainwashing that is pervasive in leftist culture that the right is evil. That is the only way one can explain the absolute insanity of many of the left's positions. The cognitive dissonance does eventually catch p to some people, but many have yet to give up the core premise of their world view that the people on the right are inherently evil. Just look at how that commenter framed their position. not that the right is right, but that the stupidness of the left elevates the right. But there are cracks in the dyke....
The response to the attack on Ms. Chrustic and her dog is exactly why we Progressives are losing the hearts and minds of Americans every day.
Well, seeing everything through the lens of The Party, of us vs. them, is part of the problem itself. The argument of "we need to do better because Trump" is itself the problem.
I think I have it. The hierarchy of who is allowed to kill someone is:
Indigenous American
Homeless black man
Black man
Woman
Dog
Insect
Insect wearing a MAGA hat
Dog wearing a MAGA hat
Woman wearing a MAGA hat
Black man wearing a MAGA hat
Homeless black man wearing a MAGA hat
Indigenous American wearing a MAGA hat
Do you accept memes of Leonardo DiCaprio being smug in these comments?
About deinstitutionalization:
Take note that it is all to easy for government to lock YOU up in some institution on specious mental health grounds especially if you engage in wrong-think.
Michael K said...
As for the "unhoused" mentally ill, There once was a place for them. There were warm rooms, beds, three meals a day but lefty politics shut down those places and sent the mental illness out to the streets and parks.
Apparently we have about 3% of the number of mental health beds we had in 1955
But kill a dog? Well, at least a few progressives will acknowledge that things are getting out of hand. This crosses a line.
Don't get me wrong. I love dogs. But if this is what it takes to wake people up, while assaults and murders of regular citizens merits a shrug, it doesn't bode well for this country, especially city dwellers.
I've literally spent decades saying that if a vet set up a practice where he did nothing but provide abortions to cats and dogs, the Left would hound him out of business and pass a law making it illegal.
“Crime is an abstract term that means nothing in a lot of ways,” said Sky. “The construct of crime has been so socially constructed to target black and poor people.”
There are a couple of links in the article that just MUST be followed. One is to a Hell Gate article and another is to a Common Sense article, both about a meeting to form a neighborhood watch group in response to the murder of poor Moose. They were interrupted by 4 z’ers, one of whom offered the priceless nugget quoted above. Just Google “Saturday morning with the park slope panthers”. I promise that you will be richly rewarded with many yocks.
- Krumhorn
"...people who are unhoused..."
"Unhoused?" Jesus...Really? As opposed, say, to the Wicked Witch of the East?
Where are Inga and Howard when we need them
Well, seeing everything through the lens of The Party, of us vs. them, is part of the problem itself.
The bigger problem being, "us or them"ing, or otherizing, is endemic to the human condition. It probably goes back to the caveman days, where competition for food and shelter was extreme. I doubt we'll ever be rid of it. Otherizing is in fact natural, and can be benign. I like USC, you like UCLA. I'm a Dodgers fan, you're a Giants fan. Note that even these trivial differences can be enough to get you killed.
Now how about Crips V Bloods, killing people because of the color of their bandana. The Hutus and the Tutsi or the Catholics V Protestants in Northern Ireland.
The solution we came up with in the United States was twofold. First we had a pretty expansive definition of what "us" meant in the bigger sense. We were a collection of different peoples banding together for mutual benefit. One of the reasons this worked was because people also still had a smaller definition of "us", the State we lived in. Secondly we had a system, sometimes informal but often government sponsored, to teach immigrants how to "be" an American, something most immigrants wanted to do. In our schools it was even called Americanization.
Today we no longer teach immigrants how to be an American, the very idea is condemned as racist. In fact for most of the Left the whole point is to destroy what it means to be an American and replace it with something else. What do you think the "fundamental change" they've been obsessed over means?
The problem for all was that perpetrator had the good sense to be a black guy. Had he been a white guy, he would be in Riker's Island right now awaiting trial.
Ronald Reagan emptied the psychiatric hospitals in California. That wasn't "lefty" politics, just sayin'. Now we have the largest homeless population anywhere.
"How is this even a debate? … [J]ust the stuff that gives the right fodder for saying we are nuts."
How are you still a "we" as in "we are nuts"? This is who the "we" are! Once the scales have been removed from your eyes if you remain a "we", you are nuts, or just plain evil.
Add this one to the newspeak dictionary
"Provide services" = "imprison"
Update your dictionaries
"provide services" = "imprison"
"What are the odds that this psycho's problems are caused by something organic or were caused by some kind of mistreatment by his family when young?"
Well, that might be an interesting question, if there were some reliable way to answer it, and something useful to do with the answer. But there isn't. What are the odds that a bullet through the head would put a stop to his assaults? Fair to excellent.
Long term help funded by the state or if you will, involuntary incarceration - it's the answer for some, such as this man but it isn't being considered for the reasons below.
And to be honest I don't support long term care myself at this time. I myself feel pretty sure that prolifers like myself would end up being detained as mental heath problems unless there were safeguards which do not now exist. At present, when mental health problems result in a crime you get a longer-term in a rather difficult kind of lockup but it has a definite ending date that cannot be messed with. Prolifers can end up in mental wards. In England I was put in the ward for the Criminally Insane for a prolife protest in which I went into a waiting room in an abortion clinic and passed out literature and left when asked to. You have to be insane to do that was the attitude. My fellow prisoners were a great gang and quite sane and extremely interested exactly how my "criminal" career led to me being there. Unlike the abortionists, the media, the police, the courts and the prison warden, they didn't think I was either insane or a criminal and I thought they were sort of fun which just shows that we all belonged there together.
Why no one wants long term mental heath incarceration.
Part of this problem stems from the eugenics programs of the early Twentieth century in England and America. These led to people being detained for life in mental asylums for a depressive episode or for "moral imbecility" (short for pregnant and unmarried). The discrediting of eugenics by the Nazi crimes led to these programs being discontinued in England and America after WW II. Or so people thought. In the Seventies it turned out that people rounded up in the Thirties were still being detained in institutions, many of whom were merely lightly retarded and who were in fact, unpaid custodians. The story of Meanwood Park, Leeds England documents this aspect and is online. The horror and revulsion were intense and, furthermore, at the same time, psychotropic drugs became available which would allow people to function in the community. Since then long term care has been considered dangerous questionable, and unnecessary. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest shows the general attitude. And abuses of Russian psychiatric hospitals shows the dangers still exist. But also since then the question of those people who do not take their meds has emerged. All this history has made it difficult to impossible to force anyone who would be OK if they took their meds to stay long term in a mental hospital. Yet there are individuals whose history shows that they will not stay on their meds. One of my oldest friends ended up on the streets for this reason. Picked up, cleaned up and re-medicated, back to her old self, released, stopped taking meds, back on the streets, rinse, repeat - no one could help. I can't even say I know a long term stay would would have helped but short term surely did not.
Furthermore, long term run by the state would be expensive.
So idiot asshats vote for this shit for years, over and over and over. Then they are surprised when ignorance and idiocy bite them on the ass. Good, you should be allowed to enjoy the consequences of your ignorance and stupidity, good and hard. Serves them right. What's the word schadenfreude, yep that's the word.
Wa St: I disagree. I think the recent (last 20 years or so) insanity can be traced to a "virtuous status ratchet", combined with NIMBY. I.e. Supporting last year's progressive thing is, this year, so last year. You don't get points for that. You can't make yourself stand out at a party or on an editorial page, for that.
No. You always have to be in the avant-garde. Hence the ratchet.
NIMBY comes into it in an opposite sense. People don't practice what they preach, at the avant-garde extreme. The people advocating for the abolition of private property are themselves well-propertied. The professors advocating for abolition of standards in writing, are well-trained in it. The people advocating for abolition of bourgeois standards are usually products of, benefiting from, and raising their own kids, with such standards.
(New) rules for thee, but not for me. Or, as the navy has it, RHIP. Rank Hath Its Privileges. Or, Quod licet jovi, non licet bovi.Ultimately it's about power.
But the interesting part of the story really is how people on line switched from empathizing with the woman to viewing the man — who is black — as an embodiment of manifold social problems.
I appreciate the lower-case "b" for "black."
To me, grammar is about as important as where you sit on a bus.
Not important at all.
Unless society adopts racist rules about how you do it!
It's kind of astounding that 99% of the media said "black" a few years ago, and then after a few riots, some idiot at the AP Style Guide decided that race is so critical we must capitalize "Black" from now on.
It's an idiotic idea to single out black people for special attention, and adopt racial symbolism in regard to them, while nobody else gets that treatment.
Or you could go the other way, and start capitalizing White (I've seen that too). But it's hardly an improvement to start emphasizing how important white skin is to identity(!)
While that's insane, this disparate treatment we now see all the time is also really bad. Does the media really believe that black people are so different from the rest of humanity, and must be identified as such?
I'm just amazed at how thoughtless our media is, and how they just obeyed the AP style guide like a bunch of lemmings as it went utterly racist in its grammar rules.
Anyway, I appreciate your non-racist grammar. Thank you.
@wildswan, I have no way to verify your story, but it mirrors many other stories I heard back from the time when deinstitutionalization was the hot bandwagon that everyone in politics (yes, including Ronald Reagan) was clambering on. I recall hearing about a case where a woman was institutionalized for claiming to have invented something to be used on cars and was locked away for “delusions of grandeur” because, in the 1940s, women were deemed to be not smart enough and not sufficiently mechanically inclined to come up with automotive inventions.
Except she really was that smart and she certainly had invented something (forty years after hearing her [possibly apocryphal] story I don’t recall exactly what her invention was, just that it seemed ingenious.).
So the question seems to me to be how do we safeguard people who were wrongly diagnosed while making our streets safe to walk and our parks safe to stroll through? Because that’s where we’re at and it’s not acceptable.
Happened at 6 am. Sunrise that day 5:54 am. In my day a woman would not be dog-walking alone. in the Park at that hour. On the other hand, I was rescued from 2 muggers after dark just outside the Park by a woman walking her very large dog.
@wildswan: Thanks for an interesting post that points to the problems associated with the chronic mentally ill. @Jupiter: You point to a remedy that's been tried before and doesn't work. I'm sure Hitler's Germany didn't have permit psychos to afflict people on mass transit with their behavior, but use of such tactics tends to spread. Libs should note that Stalin and Mao were charitable in their treatment of the insane and, moreover, deserve particular condemnation because their policies actually drove a lot of people insane....I have above pointed the way towards a just and equitable solution towards the problems afflicting the mentally ill and the addicted. In the future every rehab program including the Betty Ford Clinic and all those Malibu should have DEI goals. At least twenty percent of their population should include patients with a past history of homelessness and violence. I'm sure the interchange of ideas and cultures between such diverse patients would benefit all. Who wouldn't want to see Hunter Biden sharing treatment with this guy who has a history of beating people with a stick. I'm sure that together they could help each other resolve their problems. It would be inspirational. Like a Hallmark Christmas movie.
Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Lose your religion.
Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine in politics.
I'm surprised the Golden Retriever got violent, usually they just wait around for a pet and a treat.
BTW, if you're shocked at how coldblooded the women's Libtard neighbors are - even when her dog is dead and she's injured, just imagine how indifferent they are when its a Trump supporter getting harmed.
These people would cheer if Gulags and execution chambers were set up, or just yawn and go back to watching TV. I kid you not.
Wildswan, excellent point at 11:16.
One of my landlords in College was a total libtard. She was always going on about some liberal/left cause including helping the poor (while trying to gouge poor students for evey penny she could get). Anyway, one day she stepped over a homeless man near the apartment and didn't call the police on him. She spent two days rattling on about how "she couldn't report him it was so sad" or "Get him in Trouble". Expecting me, to praise her for being Mother Teresa.
The idea of actually HELPING the man, never occured to her. The Bum just existed as a bit-player in her personal drama, with herself being the star and compassionate Heroine. That's why the "Bleeding heart liberal" is a bit of myth.
@BigMike
I would think violence is a good standard for institutionalization. Maybe 2 or 3 strikes you're out, so one drunken bar fight doesn't put you into the insane asylum.
By this standard, ranting, having delusions of grandeur, or believing that 2020 wasn't the most honest, secure election ever won't rise to the level of long-term institutionalization.
I hope the next time that particular man assaults a woman out walking her dog that the animal is large and has been trained to know what to do when it receives the command “Take him out.”
Achilles: "Everyone hates the democrats at this point. They are obviously stupid, malicious, and trying to tear down the foundations of our high trust society."
The second sentence is right on. The first, unfortunately, not so much. There are many, many, stupid and/or malicious people who vote for Democrats. Some share their "tear down" goal. Many others are too lamebrained to notice. Democrats count on this.
For example, in a debate the other night, Az. Senator Mark Kelly claimed that since elected he had been working constantly to secure the border. Complete BS, but Democrats in Pima County, 80 miles from the border, will turn out in droves for him.
Empathy is a virtue. The problem is only showing empathy to favored demographics.
Ronald Reagan emptied the psychiatric hospitals in California.
Not quite. He signed legislation prohibiting people from being hospitalized against their will. Many of those people ended up in prison.
And then your precious Jerry Brown emptied the prisons.
Now we have the largest homeless population anywhere.
Reagan was governor in the 1960s. Who's been in charge of your shithole state since then?
J Scott said...
Add this one to the newspeak dictionary
"provide services" = "imprison"
********************
"imprison" = "serve time"
@baghdadbob, you and I are thinking along the same lines, but what about people who aren’t violent but can’t really look after themselves? And what about people who are suicidal? Red Flag laws can take away their guns, if they have any, but that only stops the suicidal people from using a gun to kill themselves. It doesn’t actually prevent them from ending their lives in some more gruesome manner.
The Tried: "Ronald Reagan emptied the psychiatric hospitals in California."
The True: "Reagan was governor in the 1960s. Who's been in charge of your shithole state since then?"
Sebastian said...
"Due to decades of prog propaganda."
Portmanteau it. 'Progaganda.'
Let's be brutally honest.
The man attacked other people and threatened her.
Out of fear of being the next "Karen," she kept her mouth shut.
In doing so, she endangered others and got her dog killed,
Until she changes her behavior, she gets what she deserves. The dog didn't.
In many ways, I wish the crazy guy who attacked the woman and killed the dog had been a crazy white guy in a MAGA hat.
Sure, the left and the media (BIRM) would use it for propaganda purposes.
But the guy would be off the street and no longer a danger to others.
Reagan wasn't governor of Alabama, but the mental hospitals were emptied there too at the same time. There was a national movement to do it. It was a federal judge named Johnson who ordered all patients released in Alabama. Out-patient centers were set up to provide mental health care, mostly pills. The patients didn't go. They moved into abandoned houses and took pills they enjoyed more. They eventually displaced to places with better weather, like California.
If it had been a feral dog, someone might adopt it.
But no one is gonna adopt a feral black man.
Even the attacked woman minimized the crime. She and others had seen the man threatening people many times before. People are contacting her to say he attacked them in the past.
But she, and they, did nothing. Why didn't the previous victims call the police instead of her? And now her dog has been murdered defending her. Because others did nothing.
And she calls the killer, who was also trying to kill her, "unhoused." I do have sympathy for people like her, because if she had done something, she would have been "Karen-ed." But at some point, you have to fight back. And you have to interrogate your motives for not acting in time.
To all the screwed up people who are so afraid of being "Karen-ed" that they don't do a damn thing when a violent black man threatens them repeatedly: feel free to commit suicide by criminal, but don't sacrifice your dog, or child, or anyone else to the bonfire of your pieties.
All the people who did nothing as this thug threatened them are culpable of cowardice that turned deadly for the one creature who couldn't pick up a phone and call the police: the dog.
And the media and politicians and academicians and activists that have left these people trembling in real fear of the loss of their privacy and homes and jobs and lives if they do try to stop a black offender are as guilty as the offender himself.
Post a Comment