More on Liberal Vigilantism

Last week, I wrote about how much liberal college sex vigilantism reminds me of the right-wing 1970's Death Wish vigilantism.  Here is Ezra Klein proving my point:

For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it’s written on if some of the critics’ fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases—particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons—that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

Good God, I have had many differences with liberals on a variety of issues but I have always made common cause with them on civil rights and criminal justice issues.  I can't believe he wrote this.  What is the difference from what Klein writes and and having a 1960's southern sheriff argue that it is OK to hang a few black men because it has the benefit of making the rest of the African-American population more docile?   Last week I asked:

 It is the exact same kind of rules of criminal procedure that Dirty Harry and Paul Kersey would have applauded.  Unacknowledged is the inevitable growth of Type I errors (punishing the innocent) that are sure to result.  Do the proponents not understand this tradeoff?  Or, just like the archetypal southern sheriff believed vis a vis blacks, do women's groups assume that the convicted male "must be guilty of something".

I guess we have our answer.

  • ErikEssig

    One small suggestion. Remove the parentheses in the last paragraph and bold the text.

  • tristerotrumpet

    At least he makes his point directly. Reminds me of a quote from Politics and the English Language.

    "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

    Looks like Ezra's making the brutal argument.

  • DukeLax

    i believe that American gender-feminists are going to keep pushing more and more "manufactured statistics Alliances" into law enforcement, until we reach the point where hetero-relationships become such a legal liability for guys, that we are forced to go MGTOW, just to not be harassed by a perverted law enforcement.

  • skhpcola

    I have had many differences with liberals on a variety of issues but I have always made common cause with them on civil rights and criminal justice issues.

    They aren't "liberals" in any past sense of the word, they are leftists. Modern D-ooshbaggery is pure leftism/Marxism and aligning yourself with them in any way is degrading to you, your opinions, and your ideals. I get pissed off at this blog frequently, because while it is incredibly informative and entertaining when addressing non-political topics, it nosedives into the slums of progressive retardation about anything political.

  • Sam L.

    Every white man IS guilty of something--according to the Left in its infinite variations.

  • Russ R.

    "What is the difference from what Klein writes and and having a 1960's southern sheriff argue that it is OK to hang a few black men..."

    Simple... it all boils down to the left's class framework of "Victim vs. Oppressor". If you can't claim victimhood status (gender, ethnicity, disability, poverty, addiction, etc.) then you're, by default, part of the oppressor class.

    To inflict punishment upon a member of the oppressor class without concern for trivial issues of innocence or guilt, isn't merely acceptable (i.e. collateral damage), it's considered "necessary".

    When it comes to dealing with oppressors, Type I errors are a feature, not a bug.

  • wonderloss

    Am I the only one that wants to see this get turned around, with guys making accusations against the ladies they sleep with, in the hopes of either getting this changed, or forcing the hypocricy out in the open?

  • Darth_Randall

    I can see it now:
    She shamed me into having sex with her by calling my manhood into question. I didn't really want to do it, but what would everyone think when she complained about how I turned her down?

  • Billford

    I will say this: I am an optimist and I see some equality here. It used to be that in the "good ol' days" that we asked a young woman who claimed to be assaulted, "well what did you think was going to happen, you going out dressed like that, drinking, and going home with a guy you barely knew? Bad things can happen!" Now we can also ask young men who claims to be falsely accused, "what were you thinking getting drunk and having sex with a woman you barely knew? Bad things can happen!"