[2Wycked]

A few years back, I commented idly to somebody I knew that there is a good bit of evidence that Matthew Shepard's murder wasn't motivated by hatred. Stupid. I was accused of homophobia, hatred and a whole bunch of stuff. After the tirade, I was just looking at them. The person seemed a little embarrassed by their outburst. What causes this behavior? Let's consider Matthew Shepard, homophobia and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder - referred to as puritanism from here on out.



Matthew Shepard was a young gay man living in Wyoming in 1998. He was attending University of Wyoming, majoring in Political Science and by all accounts was a stereotypical liberal who seemed destined for a make-work job as a policy analyst for our bloated government bureaucracy.

Curiously, and this is rarely discussed, is he claimed to have been robbed & raped in Morocco in 1995. Pattern of careless behavior?

On October 6, he went to a local bar for reasons that have been disputed, but my reading of the situation gives him twin impulses: acquiring drugs & hopefully sleeping with a masculine man. I forget the term, but there is a concept that male homosexuals - effeminate ones - entertain serious desires for conventionally masculine men, a few (like Shepard) get off on the bad boy vibe.

Two men approached him, interested in him as a robbery target because of his expensive clothing, and told Shepard they were gay and looking to have a 3-some on some country road in the middle of nowhere. They took him to the spot and robbed and beat him. The beating got savage and they left him to die, strung up like a scarecrow. His beating so awful he was already in a coma when they left him.

When was found 12 hours later, he was too far gone. He died in a hospital a few days later.

For those offended by my mild characterization of Matthew Shepard as a fool & careless: if you are reading this, it is for you.

The story was an instant media sensation and GLBT advocates saw an opportunity to hijack a dead gay man's life for political gains. Immediately, it was labeled a hate crime and advocates pushed for federal hate crime legislation. It was bemoaned how homophobic our society was and this was a clear example of it. Talk was made of one of the murderers as bisexual, suggesting he killed Shepard out of homophobia. However, the media blitz was so intense that the narrative was established it was clearly a hate crime and it was so awful that the two men couldn't be charged with a hate crime.

Of course, when you rob and brutally murder somebody, you are most likely going to get life in prison, or the death penalty (if I am the prosecutor). The two men were, of course, sentenced to consecutive life sentences and are still rotting in prison to this day. Justice served, right?



Not at all. Of course, Bush had the sense to not sign any hate-crime legislation; but Obama, of course, did in 2009. Let's consider two quotes that advance my thesis:

President Obama:

Quote:

After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are...

Classic puritan hedging. The point of hate-crime laws is slaking the moral judgmentalism of those observing the process, not protecting people. You really think people will think twice that their crime can get enhanced legally?

Jarret Barrios, President of Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation:

Quote:

President Obama and Congress have sent a message that violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is wrong and that our community should not be excluded from the protections of our nation's laws,

Consider this post of mine. In it, I talk about how people use issues like domestic violence in narcissistic ways. Here, Barrios is displays that what he worries about most is authority figures saying X is wrong and needing to agree with that. It wouldn't surprise me to see this man openly wonder if President Bush truly cared about violence against gays. It is a bizarre stance because I don't think anybody who violently violates a gay person gets away with it. Still, it is representative he is more worried with the right message being sent by authority figures than actually concern himself with violence against gays.

This unseriousness isn't just displayed in the lack of concern as to whether Shepard was murdered because of his homosexuality, but we see this in hate-crime hoaxes by gays. Predictably, they are usually lesbians. I recall two instances in the past year of lesbians talking about hate notes taped to their dorm room door or some lesbians in Colorado claimed somebody spray painted homophobic messages on their garage door. Both were fabrications. Narcissism attention-seeking matters here, as they willfully invent hatred in order to bolster their victimhood.

Even if what I said was a lie, we need to have a serious conversation about violent homophobia in America!

2Wycked: No, we need to a have discussion as to why you need people to hate you in order to perpetuate your self-image

Why is the world so unkind to people who care about homophobia?

The truth about reality is that is often highly ambiguous. Only the most perceptive of us have to ability to discern the intentions of those around us, much less broader society. Even then, those people still are wrong often.



Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is the other serious original sin of America. My posts will start to reflect this new focus.

Paranoid people (like me) fundamentally don't trust themselves. Narcissists fundamentally hate themselves. OCPD people fundamentally fear themselves.

In their head, their approach to life relates to their ability to face the chaos of their minds and life. As such, they are deathly afraid of doing anything wrong. I mean anything. To their credit, their fears have some positive effects. They often grind out shitty jobs, boring jobs or emotionally draining jobs simply because of their psychology - they can put up with much more monotonous and unpleasant work than other people.

That being said, the most invidious aspect of their psychology is their desire to inculcate their untoward psychology in others. Only when everybody around them is one the same page can they finally feel safe - of course, if that happened, they would have the terrifying realization that they finally have to face their true repression: their fear of their anti-social impulses.

Deep down, OCPD people have serious anti-social impulses endeavoring to claw their way out in their open psychology. Their dogged insistence on obeying the rules and supreme social conformance reflects their desire to avoid facing down their anti-social behavior. Unable to fully comprehend the human mind is full of all sorts of thoughts - some good, some bad - they can't understand that maturity isn't repressing those thoughts, but identifying them and not engaging in them.

This isn't enough, as they need to create more OCDP's like them and their favorite - and only - tool is punishment. From outright censorship, to condescending lectures about your moral inferiority, to outright violent oppression OCPD's love inflicting pain on others. Not only is it a bad approach to regulating other's behavior (as it is more effective to reward good behavior), it also stealthily allows OCPD's cover for them to do bad things to other people - acting out their anti-social behavior.

Such brutal levels of punishment are just ways for people who conceive of themselves good to act their bad sides under the moral guise of seeking justice. If you take anything from this piece, it is that this disorder sees punishment as justice.



OCPD has a variant referred to as puritanism. Moral puritans see the world as fundamentally hostile to truth, love and justice. They think, through their endeavors, they are making the world a much better place thinking their actions are completely selfless. It is completely divorced from reality, as they are often the instigators of what they claim to oppose.

Once again, it needs to be stressed puritans see the world as fundamentally hostile to moral people. This results in them thinking it is okay to return the favor. They believe in clear settling-up of moral accounts in the world, so to them engaging in what they claim to be against means nothing to them, as they can also resort to claim they are just seeking equality.

What separates puritans from OCPD folk is the need for approval from authorities. They need an authority figure to step in and praise the saints and condemn the sinners. In the absence of said figure, they will step in and punish the sinners themselves - often with horrible results. This fuels their unhappiness, as they are almost always angry, but completely unable to admit just as to why they are angry.

Consider Christians and feminists. Both groups exhibit this disorder greatly. They clash so often and have bizarre episodes of collusion, as they both have very different approaches to morality and punishment. Still, they are mirrors of one another, and as such, they clash mightily. Always have a sense of awareness of what makes you very angry - often it is because it is an uncomfortable reflection of how you perceive yourself.

As for feminists, they fit this profile of puritanism perfectly. The analysis of this could probably span multiple posts, so I will be brief. Their anger stems from the inability to come to grips with their anti-social thoughts. The hyper-insistence on domestic violence, rape and hate in general signify that they have many, many of those thoughts and need to port out their inability to deal with them. If they beat you, rape you or harm you, be very careful in your response. They don't have the ability to see themselves as bad, so they will always blame you for what happened. See where the concept of victim-blaming originates for the perpetrators of said issues?



Reconsider hate-crime laws in light of this disorder. While I have absolutely no doubt that many good people truly believe in hate-crime laws just because they want to end hate-based violence, we have two serious issues.

One, is the idea I sketched earlier is that very rarely can we ever have a clear picture as to a person's motives. Considering that the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt," it stands to reason you really have to have a handle on a particular person in order to make that claim. Further, it ignores the reality of violence. Anything can happen in a fight. Consider Shepard. Do you think the two men planned to brutally kill and leave him for dead? Possibly. However, as many commentators failed to understand, anything can escalate in a fight. Using proof of the brutality of the attack proves absolutely nothing as to their original intentions.

Which begs the question: why is intent so important? It clearly matters to many charges, especially murder, but there seems to be a broader interest into why somebody commits serious crimes. Part of this impetus is nobody really wants to see the world as a bad place, so we rightfully demand explanations for people's behavior. We feel better when we get socially-approved explanations like depression, childhood abuse, etc.

Still, the question of intent is very relevant when considering moral puritanism. There are only black and white worlds to a puritan. Either you all good or all evil. Either you are with us or against us. Either you are a feminist or a misogynist. When considering Shepard's murder, there are bizarre levels of this psychological splitting in the media. There are no nuanced opinions, no dissent and certainly no challenging of the facts promulgated by authority figures - either Shepard was murdered because of gay hate or homophobia (they seem to be interchangeable to the intellectually infirm) or you are a rank homophobe who condones violence against gay people. This with-us-or-against-us mindset is very unhealthy. The need to punish, punish, punish is reflected in hate-crime legislation. It is amazing that people who critique the criminal "justice" system for too lengthy sentences also support hate-crime legislation. It is classic OCPD settling up of moral accounts.

Hate-crime legislation doesn't deter crime nor stymie hatred. It doesn't save taxpayers money or help rehabilitate haters. It exists to slake the judgmentalism of those viewing the proceeds, thinking the heavy hand of Uncle Sam slapping somebody down does justice. It doesn't. It is just more needlessly heavy-handed punishment meant to shore up the psychology of those engaging in it.

What happened to Matthew Shepard was downright evil & disgusting. It does not need to be said. Anybody with a heart & brain already knows this. The fact that you have to reinforce this to ardent supports of hate crime laws inspired by Shepard is telling. You have to reinforce this to somebody with puritanical issues: you have to prove you are a good person.

Hate-crime legislation is completely emblematic of how puritans play people & society. They co-sign approaches favored by authority figures, but then put an incredibly extreme and unhealthy spin on them. They appropriate moral considerations that are, in theory, healthy but them on blast so hard they alienate many people. The issue, then, becomes them labeling the dissenters, questioners or just those simply skeptical of their claims as hateful and "bad people."

This happens so often in feminist circles it is just depressing. If you dissent from a particular claim, the response is swift and vicious: You aren't one of those misogynists? Hmm? Those shit lords? You really don't want to be seen as one of those.

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Sometimes they mix. People with healthy mindsets can realize this. This idea that your goodness or badness is determined by the court of public opinion controlled by authority figures is beyond wrong. However, it is how America has always done business.



If you still aren't convinced by my strong opposition to hate crime legislation, consider this post by The Last Psychiatrist about the wages of narcissists.

The legacy of narcissists - or puritans - isn't so much about them as people, but as a warning to those would engage in said behavior.

Do you really want to leave your life constantly worried about being judged for the wrong opinions? Take Michael Richards from Seinfeld who was brutally dumped after some black hecklers coaxed a racist sentiment out of him. The response to Richard's statement was completely and utterly overblown in media. I very much understand the history of racism, but to brutally down a man who was stressed by some narcissistic hecklers does not merit the punishment levied on him.

That is classic American justice. Completely and utterly delusional responses to untoward stimuli based on completely false ways of rehabilitating said behavior. That is the mindset of a puritan - always on the lookout for offenses and then cruelly dumping people who have violated their codes of conduct.

Reconsidering TLP's post, it is a warning shot about puritanism. Living in a such a world is always exhausting and frightful. You have to become one of them and live in a world where you deny who you are. Isn't it surprising homosexual activists take so strongly to this disorder? As usual, they are still trapped in the matrix while pretending to be liberated. It is a world of hatred, anger and violence just bubbling under the surface.



When somebody cracks and admits they are a human by committing an anti-social act, they will be quickly shunned and ignored. Do you want to live in that society? I would rather live in a society where people can say stupid shit, suffer a bit, but then move on. I would rather live a society that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment.

I have really come down on liberals in this post, but understand my critiques of conservatism about this disorder will come out eventually when I eventually examine Christianity & Nietzsche.

I am a strong conservative with significant libertarian impulses, but I like to be as fair minded in theory as I can, so I like to apply my analyses across the board; I will eventually analyze conservatism - might use the "War on Drugs" as the framing device for one post.

Still, I am strongly against hate-crime laws. Extreme fact patterns make bad law, as we see here with Shepard. He was a victim of a supremely horrible crime that deserved serious punishment. Hate-crime laws do nothing to stop violence or hate, but serve to act out puritanical need to punish in order to make the world safe for justice - in reality, their judgmentalism.

These sorts of folks are dangerous for many reasons, but they are most dangerous for their inability to understand moral nuance. Sometimes good people do bad things. All that signifies is that said person did a bad thing. Doing repeated bad things suggests you are a bad person, but one or two acts do nothing but signify you messed up. Healthy people recognize this, admonish said person reasonably, then move on. Unhealthy people fixate on the wrong and use it berate, hurt and oppress the person who committed the act.

Puritans are dangerous, but they are not bad people, they are just pure chaos. Treat them as such. Tell them they are good people, tell them they are making the world a better place - even if you strongly disagree with the latter sentiment. It is surprising how much more malleable they are once they get their sense of morality affirmed.

TL : DR: Hate crime laws are not about helping the victims, but about serving the psychology of many of those who push the laws.

[AntiTrace]

Great post. Great timing as well, with the Zimmerman results being released.

I don't remember much of the Shepard media outcry, by I'm sure if you replace Shepard with Martin it would pretty much the same story.

[kbell]

What's the relationship between OCD and OCPD?

[Architekt]

Quote:

President Obama and Congress have sent a message that violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is wrong and that our community should not be excluded from the protections of our nation's laws,

I like that. It's almost like they were excluded from the law to begin with. What about violence towards the other 90% of society? Is that ok now instead?

[2Wycked]

@kbell:

Everybody who has OCD has OCPD, but not the reverse.

Plenty of people have OCPD and exhibit no repetitive behaviors.

If you have OCD, you will exhibit the rigid sort of thinking that characterizes OCPD. It would not surprise me to find people with OCD are more attracted to religion than the regular person.

[Bad Hussar]

If you're expecting different and/or preferential treatment because of your race/sexual orientation/gender etc. etc, ad nauseum you have already lost whatever battle you imagine you're in the midst of. You are merely giving your "energy" (I know, too New Agey) to self appointed vampires, like politicians, who use this rubbish to try to elevate themselves.

There is no reason for hate laws. Each person should have, and in most jurisdictions (including the entire United States) does have, the same legal protection. Your rights and obligations stem from your "personhood", not your "gayness", "femaleness" or whatever. The people who are highlighting some particular aspect of themselves they believe requires additional protection are naive and being played for all they have. i.e They are damn fools.

2Wycked:
I question your negative view of punishment being seen as fundamental to justice. If I read it right you disagree with this. It has always seemed to me that "revenge"(as punishment presumably is) is an appropriate part of justice. I know people in law often state that they believe it isn't or shouldn't be, but I think they are being disingenuous. I mean, as a thought experiment consider a future where psychiatric pharmacology has progressed to the point where the impulses of any person can be controlled completely by the administration of a host of psychiatric drugs. So a person who commits a serious crime, say murder or assault, can have these administered and essentially be guaranteed not to have these impulses while on the drugs. Do you think the victims, and society at large, would consider the administration of these drugs alone to be satisfactory and not demand prison and/or death penalty? I really don't think so. For all our supposed sophistication we want and expect revenge against those who wrong us. It's in our nature. Whether we are Puritans, Hedonists or anything in between.