Both children and low IQ adults are prone to acting on appetite and impulse rather than discretion. So in the absence of individual experience or intellect society relies upon the moderating influence of parents, social opprobrium, or law enforcement to temper destructive behaviors.
In both instances, granting increasing freedom for the young or dumb to act on inclinations runs directly counter to their own welfare. What they see as intolerable restrictions on their freedom are viewed, with better perspective, as benign extensions of their longevity.
The more intelligent and mature individuals understand (or implicitly accept without conscious understanding) the utility of concepts such as objectivity, conflict deescalation, future time orientation, impulse management, and social empathy. These people require much less explicit guidance and rigidity of enforcement. Often only needing their own internal filtering or mild external reinforcement to induce staying on the rails. That is to say, thoughtful adults require relatively little street-level policing. And what they do require can typically be supplied by a beat-cop’s truncheon as last resort (see pre-diversity England, for example).
In contrast, the unseasoned and obtuse can not well-regulate their conduct natively, and so must rely on external actors: parents or law enforcement. In both cases, guidance must be far more rigidly applied than with those endowed with greater powers of discernment. But by whatever means, those less susceptible to peaceful persuasion eventually learn–through time’s relentless tutelage–to keep their bad behavior in the private sphere.
Sometimes, humans being what they are, that tutelage exceeds social tolerance on its own terms. This when discipline is administered beyond all proportion to the infraction. That’s when people get hurt.
As anyone compelled by honesty could predict, these situations are likely to occur with greatest frequency between parties sharing the least similarity: race, intelligence, culture, etc. It is to the ambient cackling of a madman that we attempt to enforce a single code of behavior on multiple encroaching cultures using agents of the state held in contempt by each. If a child bristles at his own parents’ requirements, just wait until he’s supervised by a stranger he despises. Would we call conflict in this case any other word but inevitable?
Well yes, in fact the words we use for that are diversity, multiculturalism, and our strength. And when friction follows the sunrise upwards, the problem is not that we have manufactured an explosive social petri-dish, but that one component of the reaction is singularly at fault: the white man.
All of which is obviously in reference to the police shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. In the former the officer was apparently Asian, which in no way mitigated his white racism. Though both cases have earned screaming national headlines with no bland dismissals at all as a “traffic stop gone wrong.”
Of course the media’s agenda to keep blacks inflamed and whites groveling is as transparent as a car’s side window. And there’s no cause now to cease what’s working.
Though if we were to talk about what isn’t working, the discussion would necessarily range beyond the obligatory dat raysis. One topic of which being the natural law enforcement evolution from genial one-bullet-in-the-sixshooter Barney Fifes in safe white suburbs and small towns, to militarized trigger-on-a-hairpin domestic soldiers patrolling our best imitations of Mogadishu. How might reactions in these two scenarios differ, I don’t wonder.
Of course no one else who values their employment is wondering either. But if they did, it might trickle into their consciousness that maintaining order in a luridly diverse society requires a heavy blanket of stern law enforcement. And when officer and citizen share few cultural commonalities, their baseline contempt can easily trend vertical when one or both aren’t burdened with intelligence and discernment.
Which makes me realize that in regard to the liberal worldview, there are some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here this week. Which is the way they want it. Well, they got it. And I don’t like it any more than you men.