Inconsistencies in Defining Crime and Criminality
One of the most frequent claims of right-wingers, alt-rights, CONservative, LIEbertarians and other assorted morons is that “blacks” are somehow more likely to commit “crime” because of “lower IQ” and “low future orientation”. Let me start exposing the bullshit inherent in such beliefs by asking a simple question-
Do we define crime and criminality in a consistent and rational manner?
Take violence.. A black man who is part of a street gang working for a drug boss is considered a criminal, whereas a white man who serves in the US army to murder and rob people in other countries for the benefit of the moneyed class in the USA is considered a hero. Face it.. with the possible exception of WW2, every war or conflict which the USA has ever been involved in has been a money-making racket. At least the black gangster gets lots of respect, pussy and drugs for accepting the risk. In contrast, the white working class moron who serves the criminal state gets a snappy uniform, some colorful but useless pieces of metal and most likely a cuckolding, nagging fat white wife for their services to the enterprise.
How come guys who go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill people who had not attacked them considered heroes and worthy of emulation, while gang-bangers shooting a few people (who really deserved it) are considered to be dangerous criminals.
Which brings us to the next example- What is the real difference between a Black or Hispanic crime boss and a mayflower WASP in the higher levels of US government or business? Aren’t they morally and ethically similar people doing pretty much the same job- albeit for different corporations? Would you trust a drug baron or a mayflower WASP? Who is more likely to screw you over for a small profit? It is my contention that high level drug dealers are less sociopathic than those who populate senior management and boardrooms of publicly traded corporations.
Why is a white guy who makes money by defrauding, abusing or scamming other through “legal” means seen as a great businessmen, while a black guy who builds an empire selling drugs is considered a criminal mastermind? What if the actions of the white guys destroy the lives of more people than the black drug baron?
and while we are on the topic of drugs- Why is a black guy who sells marijuana considered a criminal, while the white pharmaceutical representative who promotes useless or dangerous drugs seen as a model member of the middle-class? Why is the white guy who sells alcohol or profits from it a legitimate businessman even though alcohol kills more people than pot, cocaine, crack and heroin? We can still legally buy nicotine cigarettes though they still kill more people than all “hard” drugs combined. Odd, isn’t it? and yes, I am aware the comedian Chris Rock mentions this issue in one of his standup acts.
It seems that the legal status of a drug is dependent on the skin color of those who profit from it rather than their objectively measurable effects on the lives of users.
Then there is the issue of theft, burglary or property crime. It appears that banks and business that steal from you through gotcha legal contracts, collusion, monopoly are just acting in the best interest of their shareholders. However the black guy who steals a few hundred to make ends meet is supposedly a criminal. Cops who steal stuff from average people through unfair, fake and trumped-up charges are just doing their job, but the black guy who breaks into a house or shop to get stuff is apparently a dangerous criminal.
So pretty much everything and anything, however despicable, done by a white person in an expensive suit or snappy uniform is right- but far less despicable acts done by a black person in gangsta apparel are crimes? Aren’t we defining what is criminal or not by the color, race and dress of a person rather than the nature and impact of their actions?