One of the things that happens in hate situations is the use of words as weapons and tools to damage, isolate, and eventually justify further hate against minorities (Doesn't have to be a minority. It could be an opposing party, retaliation, in opposition to something, etc. The point is that it is directed and intentionally destructive to its fellow Americans.) Hate is a tool used by some to set a stage against others. Let us explore the concept of hate form a hypothetical standpoint. It is helpful to sort of put some of these things into context for greater understanding and awareness.
(FYI You will see the concept of principle. Principle is not a rule but more of an observation that can be used to summarize knowledge from a particular phenomenon to create models. If the literature research more or less fits with what might be found in the thought experiment of a hypothetical situation we might say there is construct validity. A tool for pulling out the essentials in an argument for greater clarity. One could hypothetically code them, cross reference with literature/studies/observations for validity, and then chart potential connections of behaviors to better decipher what actually happened from a cause and effect. Some of this can be done by secondary data. I'm just saying hypothetically because it would depend on how much information could be obtained. That would be an intensive and intrusive process I suspect. Unless say departments, people, officers, etc. voluntarily did it just for the science of it all. We could use such information to solve similar problems in another place and save lives and protect liberty. I think if I was sort of thinking about the greater good. 🤔)
Its helpful to notice that this group of individuals have been spreading rumors for a long time and few within those networks can say that they didn't understand what is/was going on. If we (family and 10s of millions of Americans) were not seen as out-group "others", people would have likely questioned and disagreed with the dangerous hate based rhetoric. Yet because the other is a seemingly appropriately place to dump one's insecurities it then becomes fashionable in these networks that were prior predisposed through inappropriate perceptions to hold these perceptions.
Ok, ok, ......yes people often hold some bias against a lot of things and that isn't necessarily a problem. However, when there are racial, religious, and other differences matched with intentionally ostracization and aggressiveness that is an issue. Maybe not? The issue becomes more troubling when we find that there may not be backstops in the local justice system to protect our citizens. It might be important but that could also depend on what you think the role of our institutions are. I think they are to help society and I sort of put them in that framework (not everyone does).
(People like me know sort of how these systems work. Mostly people have their hearts in the right place but not everyone. We are considered somewhat disposable members in networks like this. In many ways, we learn what the most likely end result is and people will make decisions in complex ways but end of the day typically history repeats itself. As we have seen over the past few years in our struggles to hold to account local extremism that the laws sort stop apply where someone wants something and holds a biased view. All the flattery words we give lip service to don't really matter when they swear their oaths for liberty and justice just to look good and then walk out the door to do the exact opposite. While that may be a minority of people, there are still some who do it and there is almost no mechanism to get beyond their immunity. These people knew they were immune when they started and they were good at what they were doing so there was likely other situations and times when the intent of law was thrown out the window for the technicalities. Its a manipulation that has been going on with people for generations. From what I hear, that is a possibility. I'm not noble anything but there are moral issues when you target adults, kids, and community members. Its a shared experience for a huge percentage of society so I don't think any leader at any political persuasion of any religious background should ignore millions of people because they have an issue with our central American principles. There are some of us who know that justice sometimes reaches it intended goal many times it just gets short of that. Hypothetically but I suspect much of society might feel the same. Here is one person's view of the topic in 'Corruption and Discrimination: Two sides of the same coin?' Before you get excited I'm 100% for police, 110% for civil rights and freedom of religion like the first Pilgrims wanted, and 150% for our Constitution and values of freedom. In todays world, not sure everyone understands those concepts. Its about making the best system in the world based on our shared values and those extremist views should not be given official recognition and credibility. For example, no one has been held to account and it makes no difference how obvious or illegal the behavior. That is what a huge swatch of society sees in these hypothetical cases. Sometimes it works out a different way and the law comes through on a higher order universal system. Likely the next stage in our democracy's development.)
Once people follow their social networks without thinking based on already distorted perceptions of the world we have what is called a socially constructed reality (There was a discussion on this prior.👆). To anchor this, I think there is an extensive library of history books of similarly motivated incidents and the atrocities that resulted from blind followership only to be debunked in hindsight by history. There are times when one must have distance to recalculate the way in which they selectively misinterpret information (That is why I love being a pacifist for the most part because you have the patience to be patient. Plato and Allegory of Cave)
Principle: Group hate follows social networks and creates its own logic like a cult.
Principle: Hate speech can be embedded into the messages and intent of rumors.
Principle: Lack of accountability and back stops indicate potential clan type systems of justice.
While we can profess fairness and justice we cannot yet claim that in this hypothetical situation until we know the final outcomes. (As a hypothetical there needs not be more outcome than understanding. If it was real then it would be a pretty big problem!)We should not expect justice to be 100% accurate all the time but we should always expect it to reach for our ideals and do the very best it can with tools it currently manages. In earnestness to do the right thing, update its tools, ask the right questions, follow our American ideas and at its very root have awake 'moral conscious' that leads to moral conscience.
(Don't get too hung up on the example I included. Most major religions I studied have a similar strain of logic and I could show that if someone was in doubt. Often this is the cause because they share histories and moral essentials. For example, in most countries its immoral to murder, steal, and commit offenses but not all countries enforce those basic values from a universal perspective. This was writing by a doctor in the field that has published many times about these topics so I think that trumps extremist views on professed beliefs. I wonder if he would have an opinion on the hypothetical situation for learning and teaching sake?🤔)
Principle: While we cannot expect justice to be 100% accurate we should expect it to reach for the highest of justice ideals (i.e. not being stuck in blind processes without constantly challenging them.)
When such situations occur with obvious bigotries and acts of sanctioned aggression, we should to start thinking about the long term impact of its potential to be repeated in other places in similar ways (I would guess a side argument might be how many other places?)
Principle: What happens in one place can be happening in others so we must be diligent in providing realized justice in each case.
What if we had a country that only a small sliver of religious were accepted, laws were disparate among people, there were no backstops to crimes, no accountably when issues happen, no ability of certain races or religious to obtain employment (blocked and ghosted from a local part-time employment after employer said a person was more than qualified. If so it would be a serious EEOC violation), intentional targeting of minority children by officers/friends/network, etc.? We could get really excited and add to the confounding situation officers trying to protect their own from getting in trouble when they should have reported these potentially illegal behaviors right away. They were caught in false expectations of their roles. Under that impossible scenario it would create serious long term risks to stability.
Principle: It would be strategically misaligned to allow an emphasis on allowing disparate treatment between diverse religions, races, social networks, political ideologies, etc. in a nation as large as ourselves and within our cultural perspectives of freedom.
Ask yourself how such local defunct systems might seem to the targets and the vast majority of now diverse Americans? Especially important for vets and others who served their country but then found when its convenient these groups can wipe away all the centuries of people who have fought and died for their country simply because that person wasn't the right race or religion. Its disrespectful and in my humble opinion against our Constitution and thus unamerican in its root orientation.
Principle: Its unamerican to target veterans (that includes others), intellectuals, community activists/improvers and/or police, government officials or others simply because of one's distorted outlook on nationalism and patriotism.
Being a free people and a free nation rests on encouraging freedom and justice in hypothetical cases just like this impossible scenario which we know could never happen just because we know it! It becomes increasingly difficult to convince the next generation we actualize those values without taking steps to preserve them from dissolution. (Notice I didn't say profess those values and then not follow through. I think deep down people know the difference between leadership and used car salesman within their souls. It might take them a while with reflection to understand what they sense but I think we are rooted to know the difference in professed and actualized values.)
Sometimes it is better to whisper, "Who are you and what defines you?" or perhaps, "Who are we if we allow such behaviors to go unaccounted or unimproved?" (Make the connection between us as individuals and us as a collective. Think through the different perceptual angles of I, ME, and WE. ) There is something called the 14th Amendment but often these are outside the scope of my hypothetical conversation. I suspect if someone violates these amendments, with or without knowledge, then their ability to maintain our principles in a leadership position is compromised. Thus, as a leader they did not function to fulfill their role as a public servant. Thus, I leave the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to those who discussed this concept at Yale “Equal Protection” Origins and Legacies of the Fourteenth Amendment)
(I think I might be more of a Harvard man but I'm not really sure, Yale sometimes comes up with some good stuff! My friend just got a degree from Harvard and he likes it, so I suspect Yale would be pretty similar. I took a couple of classes but failed/abandoned my economics class and then got busy so I didn't reenroll. Kind of want to poke around and take a few more to keep my brain pliable update my skills. Maybe take on from Yale and just see if they are similar or different. I hear they are just different type of people. Anyway, this is kind of funny.😅💨 Why Did I Choose Yale?).
