The assassinations of two New York policemen have gained fully warranted attention in recent days, and have knocked out of the headlines the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone rape hoax.
Today I want to re-visit that story, both for its own lessons, and because it's related to the hate campaign against the police -- that is, against a group consisting largely of white males. The rape hoaxes and the "Police Are Nazis" crusade have the same general goal, that being to whip up disabling guilt among Those Who Enjoy Privilege (whites, men, the One Percent, fraternity members, people in uniform, etc. -- anyone who's not among the Politically Correct will do well enough).
The reasons for whipping up guilt among the non-politically correct are multifaceted, but there's one in particular that stands out for purposes of this blog: To sap the moral confidence needed to enforce criminal law. Once we become convinced that policemen (e.g., Darren Wilson) are hooligans, and white frat men (e.g., "Jackie's" alleged attackers) simply walk past the punishments that would apply to others, we come to doubt both the fairness of the system and, thus, our own moral standing to enforce its rules. Their enforcement then becomes irresolute.
Q: Who will most directly benefit when that happens?
A: Criminals. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the point. Don't be fooled.
The rape hoaxes (not including the infamous Duke case) are here.
I think the idea that people falsely level rape accusations for some political motive is farfetched. I would imagine that people make false rape accusations for attention or some other personal motive; in all likelihood, people that do so have emotional problems beyond the accusation itself. I would be very surprised to find a false accuser who did it to "whip up disabling guilt among Those Who Enjoy Privilege."
And there's no need to concoct stories to show that some people (especially rich white people) are treated differently, because people see it every day. From the 16-year-old in Texas who killed four people driving drunk and got no jail time to celebrities routinely walking away from serious offenses, there is a perception, justified or not, that money and power can buy your way out of consequences for your actions.
- Victor
The ultimate irony here is that the crusade against largely fabricated problems such as "nazi cops" and the "rape culture" is it makes it easier for those police officers and frat guys who do commit crimes to get away with it as each hoax of police brutality and campus rape increases skepticism amongst the general public.
I tend to agree that "Jackie" and others who come up with these fake rape stories do it less to make a political point than to draw attention and sympathy to themselves. I also agree that they have, as you generously put it, "emotional problems," one of which is a willingness to lie through their teeth.
So perhaps I should elaborate my point: The PUBLICATION of these false stories, first in one doper magazine and then over and over, far-and-wide in Grievance Culture, is undertaken for political motives.
Do you disagree?
I also agree that wealthy people (black or white), tend to come out better in any given set of circumstances than those without money. There are a couple of reasons for this. One, which you imply, is that they can afford even more clever, experienced and shifty defense lawyers than the average Joe. The other, which you might be overlooking, is that the qualities that make them wealthy to begin with -- typically, the ability to provide quality goods and services and to deal with customers, suppliers and regulators in a civil manner -- also make them relatively more successful in non-commercial areas of life.
So perhaps I should elaborate my point: The PUBLICATION of these false stories, first in one doper magazine and then over and over, far-and-wide in Grievance Culture, is undertaken for political motives.
Do you disagree?
Mostly, yes, I disagree. The primary goal of all magazines, "doper" or otherwise, is to make money, either by selling copies of the magazine or generating pageviews online. I'm sure that stories about rape, and especially stories that confirm people's worst fears about fraternities and rape, generate lots of clicks and maybe sell some magazines. The idea that the editors of Rolling Stone published the U.Va. piece to "sap the moral confidence needed to enforce criminal law" is preposterous. They may have had some tangential goal of increasing awareness about campus sexual assault, but I guarantee you their main goal was increasing readership and thus income.
I'm glad we agree that wealthy people tend to enjoy better outcomes when committing crimes, but I think it largely has to do with money alone, and in turn being able to afford the best lawyers and experts, and very little with the personality traits you describe. I can't imagine how providing quality goods and services somehow makes a jury more likely to acquit you or a judge to go easy on sentencing, but maybe I'm missing something.
- Victor
1. I don't believe for one minute that you don't know Rolling Stone has an agenda. The agenda is anti-Establishment to say the least. And one good way of sticking it to the Establishment (like, ya know, Upper Crusty fraternities at a big social school like U. Va.) is to smear them as rape pits. Which is exactly what the story did. Your claim that the story -- a yarn that had to smell fishy from the getgo -- was chosen for no particular reason just to sell copies is the claim that's preposterous.
2. As a statistical matter, it's necessarily the case that some people in a given group do better than average and some worse. Wealth and income are probably the most commonly referred to measures of success -- being "above average" -- so it's merely a truism to say that the wealthy fare better.
The question beyond the truism is whether they do better, in the legal system and many others, for some illicit reason. You suggest none. Yes, some people inherit wealth, win the lottery or become movie stars. But the huge majority of the wealthy get their money the old fashioned way, by earning it at a legitimate job, providing goods and services others wish to buy. Is there something wrong with that?
I don't resent them, and I don't resent their success. As noted, it's just a truism that some people are going to finish nearer the bottom and some nearer the top. My experience with the legal system is that the same things work there that work everywhere else: Working hard, being reliable and honest, and treating people as you would want to be treated.
I just don't live in a world of anger and envy. I feel sorry for those who do (although not very sorry, because it wouldn't take that much insight for them to change their thinking).
1. We'll have to disagree about what's preposterous then.
2. First of all, I don't think there's any illicit reason why wealthy people do better in the legal system. It's because they have more money to spend, simple as that. I don't agree with your claim that hard work and industriousness also produce better results in the legal system, at least for wealthy people charged with crimes. As a criminal defendant, unless you're testifying, your job is to sit there and look innocent. No amount of working hard or being reliable and honest will help with that. Maybe you mean something else that I'm not getting.
- Victor
I don't know what Rolling Stone's agenda is specifically but their "investigative" articles all tend to end up with the same conclusive - military bad, fraternities bad, big banks bad, white men bad etc... the odds of Rolling Stone writing an article about say the positive aspects of fraternities are well of course non-existent.
Regarding wealthy people, one of my maxims of life is not to worry about things I can't control. Maybe they inherited it, stole it, earned it or won the lotto, but who cares? I will worry about that when I am in the 1% (being the optimistic guy I am).
Matt,
I agree with every single word.
I have never been able to figure out why it's any skin off my back if someone else has a lot of money. And as for Rolling Stone, as you point out, the stones roll in only one direction.