Our Betters Make Laws
December 13, 2020
Welcome to Seattle, where a dislike of being robbed, or seeing others being robbed, is disdained as “anti-poverty bias.”
It’s called “the poverty defence,” and would not only make stealing legal, but apparently fencing items as well, and would cover over 100 misdemeanour crimes.
Because enabling criminals and demoralising their victims will result in flourishing neighbourhoods, a boom in employment, and a future that’s more progressive and compassionate. Full of hugs and puppies.
Update: via the comments:
As noted in the piece, the most enthusiastic supporters of the proposal, the ones disdaining objections as “anti-poverty bias,” are remarkably contemptuous of the people whose lives will be degraded, should the proposal succeed. And who almost certainly have a much clearer understanding of the proposal’s supposed beneficiaries, having encountered them first-hand, most likely more than once. But the compulsion to indulge criminal choices, from a safe distance, and to then bask in the subsequent in-group elevation, is, for some, quite strong, despite the contortions it can entail.
And regardless of the consequences for the victims of such posturing.
In the comments, Burnsie quips,
Look at it as a way for people to steal their way out of poverty with dignity and respect. Don’t you feel better now?
Grim humour aside, this is a recurring theme of leftism, a defining thread. Pretentious compassion for Degenerate Group X is much more statusful – i.e., beneficial to the leftist – than compassion for the law-abiding victims of predators and sociopaths.
If that nice Mrs Wilson down the road finds her meagre possessions suddenly reduced in number, this allows little opportunity for advancement within leftist circles, where unobviousness and perversity are a kind of woke currency. Showing sympathy for Mrs Wilson, and those like her, is commonplace and humdrum, i.e., low status. Practically conservative. But feigning compassion for the person who robbed her and who will merrily rob others until forcibly stopped - on grounds that thieves and burglars are vulnerable, marginalised or in some way oppressed, unlike the people on whom they prey - is much more promising.
Yes, it’s contrived and selfish and morally perverse, but we’ve seen it many times.
Also, open thread.