Skip to main content

Collectivism in Action

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358402,00.html
Actress Sharon Stone, known for her off-the-wall comments, is at it again — this time saying the devastating earthquake in China might have been "karma" for the Communist nation's treatment of Tibet and the Dalai Lama.

When the earthquake hit, Stone wondered if it was a case of what goes around, comes around.

"Then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice, that the bad things happen to you?" said the 50-year-old star.

This is an example of collectivism in action. Instead of judging the individual actions of individual people according to a moral code, Sharon Stone lumps all Chinese together, paints them all with one brush. Thus, the victims of the earthquake, most of whom are unlikely to have ever raised a finger against the Tibetans, become the targets of Stone's scorn.

You'd think that since she changed her mind in the end, that she is not a collectivist after all. But you'd be wrong - she changed her mind because a Tibetan group wanted to help the Chinese victims. So she damns all Chinese, and does exactly whatever some random group of Tibetans wants. (I am not criticizing this Tibetan group for wanting to help. That's their business. The issue is Stone's immediate, unreasoning following of their example, and her unprincipled treatment of the whole affair.

This is morality by popularity, this is right and wrong by majority, this is precisely the sort of collectivist, socialist non-thinking that stands opposed to Western civilization.

Let's hope that Sharon Stone is an exception.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Transparency needed in investigations of police

I have not sat on a grand jury any time in my life. I am disinclined, having not pored through records, nor listened to dozens of witnesses, to second-guess the difficult decisions these jurors have had to make.

HOWEVER. There is a clear problem of trust going on, and it stems from a couple different sources.

1) Grand Juries are usually secret. There are good reasons for this. Simply investigating whether a crime might have occurred, which is what Grand Juries do, collects a lot of evidence which could put people's lives at risk, or could be embarrassing. You want folks to feel free to talk. And you don't want the person being investigated to get unduly smeared.

However, the flip side of secrecy is that the lack of transparency can lead to a loss of trust. Clearly, in the two incidents discussed recently, many people who have no idea what went on in the GJ's or what evidence was presented, know, they just KNOW, an injustice was committed! And, because they have no opportun…