‘Act of Hate’

liberal" Meme Templates - Imgflip

From now on, Syracuse University is going to punish you for being present whenever, wherever, an “act of hate” is committed: the bystander will be as guilty as the person who actually does the deed.

Disregarding the question that immediately presents itself in 10-foot-tall flaming orange neon letters, “Then who the devil wants to go to Syracuse?”, we come to the next question: what exactly is an “act of hate”?

What–are the creators and enforcers of these policies entirely free from hate? They hate the haters, don’t they? So what would they consider an act of hate, to be punished by university authorities?

How about wearing a MAGA hat, or a “Re-elect President Trump” button? Would those be “acts of hate”? We know, don’t we, that hardly anyone anymore dares express a non-left-wing opinion on any subject. But suppose you said or did something that exposed you as a pro-lifer. Would you be deemed guilty of “hate”?

What would happen if you said, “White people are to blame for every single thing that’s wrong in the world, and they ought to be killed off”? Think you could say that without the U getting all bent out of shape? But of course you could! College professors everywhere say things like that every day.

Syracuse is going to install “new methods” of surveillance in the dorms and elsewhere. If you happen to be standing somewhere in the student lounge when An Act Of Hate is committed, and the spy-cam spots you–well, again, why did you want to go there in the first place?

Now, could we establish this new legal doctrine outside the fascist bell jar of the university? Like, all the customers who were in the bank when it got robbed, they’re also guilty? No doubt this would appeal to Democrats: they’d throw everyone in jail except the robber. But wouldn’t the whole thing be just blatantly unconstitutional?

We are dealing with head cases who think it makes them righteous, virtuous, to hate hate. The fact that we let head cases take over our schools and universities speaks very poorly of our judgment.

Let’s see if Syracuse’s “bystander guilt” formula spreads to other colleges.

You’re paying how much to go there? You couldn’t find anything else to do with all that money?

Honk if you agree there must be no more public money for the universities. Shouldn’t be any more of your money, either.

10 comments on “‘Act of Hate’

  1. All anybody needs to know is that “acts of hate” are ALWAYS committed by those who are politically incorrect. No left-winger can EVER be guilty of a hate crime even when they commit murder.

  2. I’m sad that our nation is coming to that place (actually is there already) when one cannot have their own opinion, express it, and still feel safe. No longer can we each disagree agreeably when met with an opposing opinion. I so miss that America.

  3. I remember when the schools started the anti-bullying campaign. It is still going and is a good one – no one likes a socialist, I mean a bully. But “no hate?” – outrageous! That is saying you cannot be a normal human being anymore, sorry.

  4. The problem with this, is how do you define an act of hate? What might seem like a hateful act to one person, might not see, that way to someone else. The Who,e concept of a “hate crime” is puzzling to me. How can we judge the thoughts and motivation of another. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter.

    Some decades back, a talk radio host was murdered because he was Jewish. His killer was a person that belonged to what could be thought of as a “hate group”. But at the end of the day, it was a murder. It doesn’t matter why he was killed, the act of killing him was the crime.

    Defining hate groups and hate crimes quickly becomes a matter of judging which opinions are allowed and which are not. I certainly don’t agree with the philosophies of a group of people whom would advocate the murder of someone because of their ethnicity, but I also know that regulating opinions is futile and dangerous. Actions are regulated; it’s not legal to murder someone. But defining hate and punishing on the basis of perceived hate will only lead to greater intrusion into the lives of all. One at the people who promote the adoption of such rules and policies forget it that their way of thinking, their opinions and standards could someday be the target of the same sort of regulation. They may be opening Pandora’s box.

    1. I’ve always been opposed to the “hate crime” laws. First of all, how do they determine what people’s emotions were at the time? Time machines and Vulcan mind melds? But more important, especially for violent crimes, why is it worse to assault or kill someone because you hate him than because you just like assaulting or killing people, or because you don’t care at all but just go around assaulting or killing people for no reason at all or because they got in your way? Frankly, I think those other cases are more dangerous than the first case, the “hate” case.

Leave a Reply