Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Pink Police of San Diego
I’d submit that the most important political observation of our time is James Poulos’s theory of the pink police state. A pink police state, as Poulos understands it, is a regime that abandons political freedoms in exchange for interpersonal ones — a regime that exists not to preserve political liberties as conventionally understood, but to guarantee social entitlements. The pink police state isn’t concerned so much with whether the trains run on time or whether would-be invaders are kept at bay. No, what really matters is whether the citizens are being sufficiently “nice” to each other.
It’s no surprise, then, that the old distinction between public and private has to go. In the world of the pink police state, your business is everybody’s business, and your self-fulfillment is everybody’s duty. Each citizen is entitled to liberation — liberation from the oppressive structures of traditional society, liberation from suffering, and liberation from risk.
Every day, events prove Poulos right. Take, for instance, the San Diego Police Department’s latest Twitter offering:
At a time of rising crime — real crime, “Give me your money, or I’ll blow your brains out!” sort of crime — the San Diego Police Department thinks it necessary to reassure its citizens that they’re protected from . . . hurt feelings. Because nothing strikes fear into the hearts of (gay) men like the threat of being glanced at askance by some vacationing family from Mississippi.
But what San Diego is doing is par for the course. New York mayor Bill DeBlasio recently proposed sending out police to give stern lectures about “hateful conduct.” Scottish politicians sought to criminalize “hate speech” uttered in the privacy of Scottish homes. Biden’s Department of Education promises “identity-safe learning environments.” Those who would abolish the criminal justice system hope to put group therapy and “restorative justice circles” in its place. Institutions large and small have pledged loyalty to the pink police state, usually in the form of a groveling press release declaring that “The comfort of our members is our highest priority!” or some such nonsense. Meanwhile, Jeopardy! contestants are harassed for proximately “racist” hand gestures, and the unruly denizens of south Chicago slaughter each other with wild abandon. And, of course, we must all wear masks forever.
It’s hard not to look at the behavior of western elites and think, “Good riddance. I hope it all burns.”
Published in Culture
Golly.
And that’s not Portland or San Francisco.
That’s San Diego. Which was once considered sane. Not that long ago.
Suppose somebody goes into one of those businesses, thinking it’s safe, but then gets killed, robbed, assaulted, or stared at disapprovingly. Can that person then sue the San Diego Police Department for damages?
Not any more. Not after the last election. Not a Republican left. San Diego will now go the way of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Adam Carolla has a darkly funny phrase, “Maybe the terrorists have a point.”
We need someone as loud and media savy as Donald Trump to go up to gay businesses ask the owners, “Would you prefer ‘safe places’ or cops who catch criminals?”
There are homosexual businessmen and women who are leaving to Idaho, Texas and Florida because they can’t stand the mix of bad governance and high taxation. Half of these people vote democrat because that’s just what homosexuals in California do. Some Republican should go to them and ask, “What do you have to lose?”
True, but I don’t want my children, or the children of normal, non-crazy parents, to burn with it.
From NBC San Diego:
It doesn’t seem like such a big deal. ??
That’s the best way to institute atrocious behavior: A little bit at a time so it doesn’t seem like such a big deal.
Other than virtue signaling, I don’t get why this is necessary. One might assume that there’s been a number of incidents in SD justifying it, but is that the case?
If I have a business and don’t get a sticker, does that mean it’s not safe? I suppose the idea is that pretty much everyone will get one and there’ll be all over the place. Coming to a city near you?
Correct. Yer business won’t be safe from the mob and vandals until You participate.
Part of the problem is the concept of hate crimes in the first place. I do not think this is a valid category, or one that is effectively enforceable in law. Either a crime has been committed, or a crime has not been committed. Motivations will vary. I refuse to concede that it’s worse to rob and stab someone because of their skin color than because of their hairstyle, or because you had a bad day, or because you needed drug money. If a customer (LBGTQ or not) at a business in San Diego has been the victim of a crime, he should call the police. If he’s mad because someone brushed past him in line and made a rude comment, he should alert the store manager and/or stop patronizing that business. Certifying some businesses as hate-free is meaningless virtue signaling.
Also not true. And it might even be against the law to be hate free, considering that almost any opinion can be construed as hate and there are certain restrictions on keeping employees and customers from expressing opinions.
I’m really sorry, but I don’t understand this comment.
Twenty years ago I think it would have been perfectly understandable. Hate has taken on some kind of magic new meaning, it would seem, even though it’s not a coherent meaning.
It’s entirely possible that, in today’s environment, this makes sense…
The last word on expressing opinions.
Silence is violence, or so we are told.
Shades of Serial Mom! I am in two minds about it. On one hand an assault (for eg) is an assault, otoh an assault because the victim is Jewish (for eg) is also an assault but it’s also something else, and also more disturbing.
I don’t understand this reference.
John Waters (Divine and Pink Flamingos and Hairspray [NOT the John Travolta thingo] fame) film, strongly NSFW and not R rated. The protagonista kills someone with a telephone for wearing white shoes after Labor Day (after being acquited for murder). It’s AWESOME (but I am not a Conservative, so fwiw).
The Reticulator:
“Also not true. And it might even be against the law to be hate free, considering that almost any opinion can be construed as hate and there are certain restrictions on keeping employees and customers from expressing opinions.”
I am a Hater.
I hate Traitors like Lying Joe Biden and Cackles Harris.
So there.
There you are. It might be illegal to say that, but should it really be illegal to say that you hate Trump? Should a person lose his job for that?