Should sex-offenders be allowed to use Facebook?

There has been some controversy regarding the use of social networks by sex-offenders.

If I had to venture a guess as to what percentage of Americans would instinctively, and emphatically, answer “no” to this questions, I’d say it would hover at around 90%. There can be little doubt that many (maybe even most) of those people would, themselves, be considered “sex-offenders” if the government knew all their dirty secrets.

But in reality, the question makes no sense. There is no natural category of people, distinguished in any meaningful way, as “sex-offenders”. While, to the uneducated masses, the term is synonymous with “child-rapist”, in fact it is nothing but a government-created concept whose only real meaning is the legal status of an arbitrarily defined group of people.

Readers of the blog “human stupidity” are well aware of the absurd circumstances that can lead to one being considered a “sex-offender”. Even the term “rape” has little meaning any more. Urinating on the side of the road can earn you this stigma, as can keeping photos of yourself taken while you were still a minor.

Punishments and restrictions, imposed by power of the law, should certainly be utilized in order to protect the public. Thus, if a person clearly poses a threat to those around him, we have no choice but to keep an eye on him or restrict him. But many “sex-offenders” do not fit this description. While it’s true that some jurisdictions do distinguish between different types of offenses, any question that starts with “should sex-offenders be…” needs clarification.

“Sex-offender” is just one of many terms the ruling elite has created, and used as ammunition, against us. “Racist” is another such term; it lumps together violent neo-Nazi skinheads with reasonable, nonviolent, bloggers – or anybody who takes a stand against the oppression against whites.

Let us stop playing along with their word games.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, libertarian thought. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Should sex-offenders be allowed to use Facebook?

  1. Apopkian says:

    Today a man can be arrested and kicked out of his own house if his wife accuses him of beating her. There is no real trial or due process because a wife beater doesn’t deserve it.

    I predict that in ten years gay bashing will mark you as a sex offender in the more liberal states. And by gay bashing I mean saying anything bad about gays.

  2. Shana Rowan says:

    Aside from the very valid points brought up in this article (that the majority of people who commit sex crimes aren’t on the registry therefore unaffected by the laws), making life difficult for sex offenders doesn’t make children safer. If we are truly as interested in “child safety” as we claim to be, then we’ll get over our own selfish need to “punish” or “avenge”, and realize that taking away all incentive for people to lead crime-free lives creates MORE victims.

    And despite what law enforcement wants you to believe about internet-related sex crimes, they still comprise a very, very small percentage of crimes against minors – and of those crimes, most of them are statutory sex crimes with consenting teens, not forcible assaults against little kids.

    If anything, we should make laws for better parenting… that’s what prevents most sex crimes, anyway.

  3. Amadou says:

    I agreed with you up until the last paragraph. I do agree however that usage of the term ‘racist’ has gotten out of hand. It is now racist to notice racism. Which leaves us in a strange conundrum to where the person who noticed the racism of the person who noticed racism is racist themselves for noticing that person noticed racism. Both sides of the ideological social/political divide abuse this term in my opinion. I think the term itself should be retired considering it’s a misnomer in the first place. Whether you believe the account in Genesis or the one given in the Theory of Evolution we all came from the same ancestors and if that is the case then there is no such thing as “race”, at least not in the classical sense that’s founded on the concept of “pure race”, because if there were to be such a thing as pure race then each “separate” race would of each had to have their own separate genesis.

    • Annoyed says:

      I guess species don’t exist either, right? Derp.

      • Amadou says:

        Derp de derp. Species is a separate concept from race with a better defined meaning. It’s pretty much the consensus that humanity is comprised of one single species which would seem to further validate my point. Thank you.

    • Apopkian says:

      No race is pure and the definitions are not clear cut but race certainly does exist. Humanity can have a common origin and still drift apart through mutations and evolution. This is obvious because people from different regions look different.

      • Amadou says:

        I guess it depends on how you want to define race. And I guess the term could still be useful to describe our superficial differences but the racial definition employed by “racial purists”, I.E. no mixing of the races, etc. doesn’t make sense in the context you’ve given since our genetic markers are still pretty much the same and any physical differences are only skin deep. It’s our cultural differences that run deeper and is the real cause of conflict. What you’re talking about here is what is termed by some scientists as “clusters and clines”, which is a theory that shows how the traditional idea of race, that being that there’s an explicit division between ethnic groups, is a bit more complicated and that these different so-called “racial groups” have a lot of overlap, as well as genetic drift back-and-forth, so the physical attributes that we might associate today with one particular race may become the attributes of another and the other race may have lost those attributes altogether.

      • Apopkian says:

        Amadou,

        Race differences are more than skin deep. Blacks have smaller brains and higher testosterone levels than whites and Asians.

    • Are you sure the classical sense is founded a concept of “pure race”? The 1911 Encyclopedia doesn’t really imply it. It does imply that race is not a specific level. That is to say, by the 1911 definition the human race would be divided into e.g. Caucasoid and Greater Asian races, and the former would be divided into the Hungarian Race and Romanian Race, and so on.

      Obviously, informed by taxonomy, modern folks won’t want a race to be divided into races. We’d be better off if the realist geneticists picked a specific level for terms like “clade” and “cluster” so we could figure out how many there are. Say, five Great Races, twelve Clusters, or whatever you want.

      Purity shouldn’t enter into it.

      • SFG says:

        People like their race to remain pure for evolutionary reasons (if your kids have kids with people related to you, more of your genes get passed on).

        From the strict survival-of-the-nation standpoint, I’m not sure purity’s all that essential. Some WNs are interested in racial purity, but I think a lot of them don’t like getting threatened by NAMs all the time. I don’t think Chinese-Americans (or Indian-Americans) are a net minus; my only concern is that, as China grows as a world power, they may have an increasingly difficult dual loyalty. The USA is Israel’s chief patron; they may spy on us, but a healthy USA is good for Israel, so that limits the damage they can do to us. China, on the other hand…

      • Amadou says:

        The thing about dictionaries and encyclopedias is that they’re like a photograph that only capture the knowledge and/or the common thinking at the time of publication. Our knowledge is always expanding and language is in a constant state of flux. Dictionaries don’t define words, popular usage does. The human conscious has changed a lot since 1911, well maybe not so much but at least somewhat, and we now know that terms like Caucasoid don’t really make much sense now that we have a better understanding of the migrations of human populations. There’s also often a difference in definition (or implication) between the common population and how terms are defined/used in the context of specific disciplines, if they’re even used at all. I agree that it would be much more convenient if these terms could be better defined/explained/categorized so that us lay people could have a better understanding of our differences and similarities but I think the problem is that the whole idea of clades and clusters is that they are always changing and the theory (I believe as a non-expert) is more about this genetic drift -between- groups of people than it is about these different groups of people. And since these different groups overlap it would be difficult to separate them by levels or put them in different categories.

      • Amadou says:

        Now that I actually look at the 1911 Encyclopedia it sort of does imply the idea of pure race, not explicitly, but it does say that race is “a group of individuals descended from a common ancestor.” Which, in my mind implies that each race has a different and separate origin from the other races…unless of course, the idea was that each race’s common ancestor in turn shared one common ancestor, which would kind of defeat the point of saying that each race descended from their own common ancestor.

      • Which, in my mind implies that each race has a different and separate origin from the other races…unless of course, the idea was that each race’s common ancestor in turn shared one common ancestor, which would kind of defeat the point of saying that each race descended from their own common ancestor. – Amadou

        Well, I did mean it when I wrote this part:
        The 1911 Encyclopedia … does imply that race is not a specific level. That is to say, by the 1911 definition the human race would be divided into e.g. Caucasoid and Greater Asian races, and the former would be divided into the Hungarian Race and Romanian Race, and so on.

        We’ve known for years that all humans share a common ancestor, by looking mitochondrial DNA. So all humans collectively form a race as defined by EB 1911. Smaller groups of people have a collective ancestor in more recent history, and are thus also races. Old-fashioned common usage of the word “race”, which you may or may not care about, makes it pretty obvious that race simply means a group based on a bloodline, not a specific size of group or level of specificity. The same could be said of “family”.

        Steve Sailer has updated the term race to mean “partly inbred extended family” which is fine by me. I’d prefer it if there were different terms for different levels. Posit that:
        There are two subspecies (Cro-Magnon and hybrid).
        There are total of five racial groupings (African, Caucasoid (try to replace it with something else if you like; I doubt you will find anything more satisfactory), Greater Asian, Amerindian, and Australopapuan.
        There are nine clusters (Australopapuan, Pacific Islander, SE Asian, NE Asian, Arctic NE Asian, Amerind, European, non-European Caucasoid, African).
        There are countless smaller groups which we can delineate better in the future.

        None of the modern phylogenetic looks at humanity rely on anyone finding pure races.

      • So where do the people of the Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka fit? A mix of Caucasoid and Australopapuan and/or SE Asian?

      • I know very little about any population bordering the Indian ocean. North Indians seem to be more or less Caucasoid while Dravidians are not so much.

      • Wikipedia may help us out on this question. It looks like it is pretty complicated, but some people at least believe Dravidians to be an Australoid group.

      • So where do the people of the Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka fit? A mix of Caucasoid and Australopapuan and/or SE Asian?

        I’m still working on R. Earthdevil’s question.

        J. Z. Li et al (2008) have a quite different view. They work on what I am calling the “variable K” model, which is to say, K is equal to how many big groups you want to divide humanity into, be they sub-species, clades, races, what have you. You can vary K, but you can’t lump “A” and “B” together if you split “C” and “D” unless you can prove that there is less genetic variation between “A” and “B” than between “C” and “D”.

        Thus, at K=2, Europoid (which I surmise is what I would call Caucasoid) peoples don’t yet exist–they are intermediate between Mongol-Amerindian and Negroid groups. They emerge if you allow for a third group, but include both Central Asian-Indian and Near Eastern-European. Those groups stay lumped until K=6, and by K=7 you finally get Whites as their own group.

  4. Gay State Girl says:

    Why not? Social Media is an FBI/CIA/NSA data mining tool. It can enable the Feds to better track their behavior.

  5. John Rowse says:

    Nobody should be allowed to use Facebook since they would be supporting stock fraud be pretending the company has future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s