“Teach me to feel another’s woe, to hide the fault I see, that mercy I to others show, that mercy shown to me.” – Alexander Pope
Who, or what gives us rights? Human rights are given to us by God, and some of those God-given rights are secured for us in our constitution. As Americans, we have the right to speak freely, to assemble peacefully, and to keep, and bear firearms—among many other rights. But what gives us the right to violate the rights of another American? Is there any point at which it is acceptable to ignore someone else’s rights to benefit ourselves? And if so, once that line is crossed, can a new one be effectively drawn?
According to Kristin Tate of Breitbart:
“Oliver Friedfeld, a senior at Georgetown University (GU) and his roommate were recently mugged at gun point – but Frieldfeld says he deserved it because of his ‘privilege’…“
Friedfeld claims in an op-ed for a campus newspaper that he cannot make judgments as to the motives of the mugger, because he is blinded by his own privilege:
“Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem…Not once did I consider our attackers to be ‘bad people.’ I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine…We should look at ourselves first. Simply amplifying police presence will not solve the issue.”
Where do I even begin? Let’s get the requisite insults out of the way. Friedfeld is an idiot, and his understanding of the world around him is so mightily skewed by leftist ideology that he seems to be totally unaware of the comedic goldmine that is his op-ed. Now, let’s actually take what he said seriously for a moment. I know! But trust me; there’s something to be learned.
Friedfeld claims that he is unable to judge his muggers because of his “privilege.” For the uninitiated, “privilege” is a buzzword used by idiots to give off an air of intelligence, and nuance. It is a contrivance concocted by the left to shame those who have more into thinking they don’t deserve it—generally by virtue of being white. Friedfeld’s claim is patently absurd. To think that one cannot pass judgment on another, or “condemn” another because of one’s position above or below that other upends the very basis of our legal system.
If we cannot condemn a gun-point mugging because we have more money than the mugger, or because we have a better life than he does, what can we condemn? What other rules can be broken by those who are allegedly disadvantaged? If the criteria for getting away with a crime is to be disadvantaged in some way, why prosecute offenders at all? I would argue that most who commit crimes come from some kind of disadvantaged situation. Generally speaking, a well adjusted person doesn’t rob people at gun-point.
At what point are we allowed to pass judgments on crimes? If someone mugs a person who has less than they do, or who is less “privileged,” does that mean the mugger is finally in the wrong? Or is there another set of criteria that allows the mugger to escape condemnation?
Friedfeld claims that it is “otherization” that fuels the problem, but isn’t it the other way around? It is the problem that drives us to categorize muggers as “thugs.” It is the act of aggressively taking something which does not belong to you that makes someone a thug. Placing blame on “otherization” (another BS buzzword, by the way) is to take blame out of the hands of the individual, and place it squarely on the “system” in which they incubated. It removes culpability from anyone who has ever been less-than should they ever commit a crime against someone who has more than they do—be it money, or status, or even looks.
Friedfeld also claims that he somehow knew his attackers were not trying to hurt him, and that they were not “bad people.” This is, of course, speculation on his part. I can speculate, too. Had he resisted his armed attackers, he may have been shot, at which point I suppose they could be labeled as “bad people.” But perhaps even shooting someone else is within the realm of being acceptable so long as the individual being shot is more “privileged” than the shooter. Let’s simply extend Friedfeld’s logical line for a moment. If robbery at gun-point is acceptable because of one’s lack of privilege in the world, what else is also acceptable? I would argue that shooting someone would be perfectly acceptable. Perhaps not murder, but just a nice, clean shoulder shot to get the cash. The victim can deal with it, they probably have insurance—they’re privileged after all.
Friedfeld’s final assertion is the most ridiculous. I know—how can that be? He already seems like the person you would hate to have in your Freshman English class because he would debate the teacher about the use of the deeply misogynist word “Freshman,” and offer the gender neutral option of “first-year student.” But there’s more.
Friedfeld implies that because his “universe” is light years away from that of his muggers’, he cannot pass judgment on their actions. Once again, I would ask: when can judgment be passed? His implication is that we are not intelligent enough to grasp how cultural and lifestyle differences impact the lives of those around us. If that is indeed the case, we cannot, and should not create, and enforce laws, because crime is entirely subjective, based on perception, and status that we cannot possibly grasp. It renders the entire legal system obsolete.
If one crime is justified, where is the new line drawn? Can we even draw one? The law is a wall, and once that wall has been breached, a whole new world awaits.
Oliver Friedfeld is exactly the kind of person whose only contribution to society will be the money he spends at the grocery store. He is the kind of person who will likely go on to teach. He will fill young minds with the very nonsense he professed in his op-ed, leading to a new generation of sponge-brained pseudo-intellectuals, who use words like “privilege,” and “otherization.”