In the aftermath of the Jussie Smollett fraud…I mean hoax…I mean story, there has been a renewed focus on hate crimes, especially by those who said Smollett was the victim of one. One of the more prominent voices during the time Smollett was believed was actor Ellen Page, who is a lesbian. During an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” she blamed Vice-President Mike Pence for the attack because…fee-fees. After the hate crime was exposed as a hoax, Page penned a piece for The Hollywood Reporter trying to gloss over her assumptions and continue the narrative that hate crimes are more frequent than the f-bomb in rap lyrics.
Page introduced me to a phrase I hadn’t heard before: hate violence. Although she kinda sorta maybe says Smollett was dishonest, the fact it started a conversation about hate violence towards minorities was important. Sounds more like setting a building on fire to raise awareness about arson to me, but I’m a different breed of cat.
With that being said, let’s delve into the latest entry to the Leftist Lexicon
What the Left thinks it means – violence driven by hatred of minorities
What it really means – another meaningless term invented by Leftists
Being a word guy, the term “hate violence” is unusual, if not outright bizarre. Regular violence can be bad enough, but to add a qualifier to it means it’s worse? What about indifferent violence? Is that a thing? How about melancholy violence or happy violence or verklempt violence? Though, to be fair, I’ve always wanted to name a band Happy Violence…
If you’ve noticed a similar pattern forming with the use of “hate” before a particularly negative element, that’s by design. Leftists love to play with language to trigger certain emotions. If they want to portray something positively, it’s couched in terms like “pro” as in “pro choice” or by using variations of the word “positive” as in “body positivity” or “sex positive.” If they want to make something sound horrible, the descriptors are negative, like calling pro-lifers “anti-choice” or Republicans “anti-science.” By framing issues and people like that, Leftists manipulate our perceptions to suit their ends. Really, who would want to be against something so useful like science, right?
Once you strip away the emotional element, what you have are words that really don’t belong together in a phrase. Like “uproarious vasectomy.” (By the way, Uproarious Vasectomy is another band name I’ve been considering.) It leads to too many questions that we really can’t answer. What makes hate violence worse than general violence? And how do we know it’s one instead of the other. Could an act of violence be mistaken for hate violence under certain circumstances? And, here’s the big one: can white people, specifically white men, be the victims of hate violence?
Ahhhhh…now we’re getting to the juicy part! Invariably, the Leftist ideas come down to race and gender because they’ve cornered the market on appealing to people on those bases. Although I’ll admit I don’t know for certain, I get the feeling white men aren’t going to be allowed to be victims of hate violence anytime soon unless they happen to be gay. Straight white men like your humble correspondent are always the perpetrators and never the victims in the Left’s eyes. In fact, straight white men have been blamed for everything from war to starvation to the designated hitter rule, so there is no way we can be the target of hate violence.
Except when we are.
Ask anybody wearing a red MAGA hat how much they’ve been targeted for harassment and violence. Or just watch footage of Antifa rioting against police officers and others. Look for the video of the masked Antifa bozo who hit a white man with a bike lock. Wasn’t it Maxine Waters who said people need to get in the faces of people wearing MAGA hats and tell them they’re not welcome? And, last time I checked, that sort of behavior can lead to violence. But, please, let us non-Leftists how white men aren’t victims.
And while we’re here, is it just me, or does the fact the Left can’t see white men as potential victims of hate violence to be unfair treatment under the law? That’s the way hate crime laws have worked for a while now. Accuse someone of a hate crime and the penalties get more severe, as do the consequences of the accusations themselves even if there was no hate crime committed. Even if the accused is innocent of hate crimes, his or her reputation takes a hit because there will always be people who will believe the hype instead of the truth.
Like…oh, I don’t know…Vice President Pence?
Crime is bad enough as it is, but to add more punishment on the basis of hate doesn’t make the situation any better. If anything, the guilty wear it like a badge of honor for their peers to admire. The same goes with violence. Why cloud the issue further by tacking hate in front of it? The violence itself is a crime, but like it or not hate isn’t yet. Deal with the actual violence and punish it accordingly.
And while we’re here, Ms. Page, I believe you owe Vice President Pence an apology for blaming him for violence he didn’t inspire because it never happened. Wouldn’t want you to be seen as hateful, right?