Entry 2268, on 2023-04-04 at 16:03:09 (Rating 4, Politics)
You might have noticed in the past that I am critical of people who get offended too easily, but what would happen if I was in a position where I personally, or a group I identity with, was insulted to an extent that I could reasonably be offended? Would I demand the person who insulted me gets cancelled; would I demand an apology; would I call for a campaign criticising the person? Well, maybe I might indulge in the third option, but I would utterly reject the other two, unlike many of my opponents.
As you might have guessed, I am referring to the recent comment by Green leader, Marama Davidson, who claimed that it is "white cis men who cause violence in the world".
Now, that statement isn't precise enough for us to know exactly what she meant. Did she mean all violence is caused by that group, or most, or just an unspecified proportion? Or maybe she didn't mean it at all, and just said it as a result of a traumatic event like being hit with a motorcycle at a protest.
This, of course, was her excuse, but looking at frames from the video of the event it is clear she was wandering around, not paying attention, and a had a near miss with a motorcycle, causing no obvious harm, so this seems more an attempt at playing the victim, a very common trick used by the woke mob, a group which she undoubtedly belongs to.
But there's really no way of justifying this comment. If she claimed that all violence is caused by that group she is indisputably wrong. If she claims that the majority is, she is also wrong, based on any reasonable interpretation of the data. If she claimed that group is one cause of violence, amongst others, then why not mention the other groups as well?
So the comment is offensive, but I don't care about that, and I would suggest to other white cis men that they shouldn't care as well. I don't want an apology; I want a correction. I want her to admit that the comment is wrong and say what the real causes of violence are.
So let's look at the stats on violence. I will look at the situation in the World as a whole, in certain countries, and here in New Zealand, although the claim specifically mentioned the world.
Here in New Zealand, Maori (who most people would not claim are white) are the main cause of violence, both in absolute numbers, and as a percentage. Maori, make up between 10 and 20 percent of the population, depending on how you measure it, but are involved in 56% of family violence and 51% of violent crime. In contrast, Europeans (mostly men, but some women as well) are involved with 29% of violent crime.
These stats vary a bit from year to year, so if you research this, you might get slightly different numbers, but they are approximately correct. So, clearly Davidson's claim is simply wrong in the context of New Zealand, but what about other countries?
Well, I have clearly documented the fact that black people in the US are hugely disproportionately involved in crime there, so a similar argument applies.
In 2023 the countries with the highest rates of crime are: Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Afghanistan, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, El Salvador, Brazil, and
Jamaica. And the most violent countries are: Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, South Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Congo (Dem Rep of), Libya, Central African Republic, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela, and North Korea. Not exactly a list of countries traditionally associated with white cis men, are they?
The events around this comment were primarily the pro-woman activist, Posie Parker's, visit to New Zealand. One concern of hers was that women should not be subject to potential violence from trans "women" (who are actually men). The trans activists denied this was a problem, then proceeded to engage in violence against the women who disagreed. If the women's advocates had no reason to be worried before the riot, they certainly did afterward.
So, on this occasion, it was trans men who were the originators of the violence, although I have seen no stats to indicate they are a major cause of violence in general.
Of course, the woke mob do have what they think is a counter to my points above. In the rare event where they admit it is not white cis men who directly cause the violence, they claim that they do so indirectly through colonial oppression, the patriarchy, and all those other nonsense buzz-words they are so fond of.
But if that was the case, we might expect to see very low violence in countries, like New Zealand, prior to colonisation, and low rates in countries, like South Africa, which have been "freed" from colonial oppression. Of course, we don't see this. We see the opposite. Here in New Zealand, the Treaty was signed to a large extent because Maori wanted protection from being slaughtered by other Maori, and the violence in post-apartheid South Africa is amongst the worst in the world.
So, although Marama Davidson is a racist, a misandrist, and just a general bigot, that's not what I'm worried about. What concerns me is that she is wrong. But not only is she wrong, but she's so confident in her incorrect beliefs that she feels it's OK to spread them publicly, then refuse to backtrack from them in any meaningful way.
Of course, she's not the only person on the left whose whole belief system is based on massive delusions; they are all this way, to varying extents. Being woke, which is arguably the major identifying feature of the modern left, is itself delusional to a large degree.
Just for balance, I do have to say here that people on the far right are equally delusional (except in a different way, obviously), so any criticism of Davidson and her cohort here applies to them as well, but currently the far left have far more political power than the far right.
Why anyone sensible person would vote for these clowns is a mystery to me, but I guess there are plenty of other people out there who are tangled up in thee same delusional dogma, so there are enough non-sensible people to ensure some level of success for them.
So, come on Marama, do the right thing. Don't apologise; just admit you're wrong!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2023-04-04 at 16:42:38:
What a well reasoned commentary. I agree with your sentiments entirely.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2023-04-05 at 12:01:56:
Thanks. I think a lot of people would agree with me, especially if they look at the facts I have included here. Of course, many are scared to present opinions contrary to the standard politically correct dogma.
Comment 3 by Ken Spall on 2023-04-05 at 22:30:06:
Excellent reasoning, I just wish such reasoning and comments could be published more widely. But I guess such action would stir up a bit of a hornets nest, but then again that’s what may be needed.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-04-06 at 08:54:13:
Feel free to distribute a link to this blog to anyone who might be interested. Take out any parts to quote for whatever purposes you want (but add a link back to the blog if you don't mind). Thanks.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
