PC Causes Racial Violence

A reporter crouches behind an SUV as bullets ring out in his direction. Once the shooting stops, he stands up to look around. He sees angry people. He sees people yelling racial epithets; now they’re running in his direction.

The reporter makes a break for it. There are mobs on either side of him, so his escape window is narrow. Soon he drops his cameras to shed weight.

His colleague picks up the cameras but is soon overwhelmed by the crowd. They begin kicking the downed colleague until one of the crowd members yells out “Stop! He’s not white! He’s Asian!”

With that, the colleague was spared from any further attacks and the reporter was able to make his escape.

Across town bullets fired by protesters hit a young white man in the neck.

These protesters were not pushing back against cops, or against business owners, or against government officials. They were pushing back against white people.

The protest against systemic inequalities became a protest against a race. They were attacking people and pulling people out of cars not because of an ideological divide, but due to the color of their skin.

How Did This Happen?

Modern American culture abhors racism. There are debates about which verbiage constitutes racial microaggressions. Politicians are routinely accused of using “dog whistles” to appeal to racial animosity without explicitly doing so.

Nothing in modern American culture justifies racial violence. Nothing, that is, but PC dogma.

These protesters did not attack white people as part of a rationally planned strategy. They did it because they have been led to believe that white people are routinely exterminating blacks, a belief only rational through the lens of PC dogma.

Racial violence becomes rational when your race is in an existential struggle. Of course, black Americans are not victims of a modern-day genocide.

The specific action which led to these Milwaukee race riots was a black man, with a gun, being shot by a black police officer. The officer claimed the deceased attempted to fire at the officer, but by the time the riots began no other information was available.

This follows in the wake of a movement birthed in Ferguson. There, Black Lives Matter was formed before the investigation into a black man being shot had finished. The investigations found strongly in favor of the officer’s story.

It may seem odd that lack of evidence is seen as proof by so many. But it makes sense with the dogmatic beliefs and the cognitive biases that Political Correctness brings on.

Disparate Treatment

One dogmatic PC rule at play demands preferential treatment for groups considered to be more oppressed. While the exact layout of this oppression hierarchy can be debated, there is no question that blacks are considered more oppressed than whites.

This allows the media to bend the truth and twist the narrative in a way they think favors black Americans. So every black person shot by police is reported on heavily before much information has come out, and ignored once forensic data clears the officer.

For example, most BLM supporters still think Michael Brown, at the heart of the Ferguson riots, was in the right.

This type of slanted narrative makes an impact over time, and can be taken advantage of by politicians or other public figures.

What results is major politicians and newsmakers making blanket statements in support of Black Lives Matter.

Black Americans, then, reasonably believe themselves to be living in a world where white cops are killing black youths without sanctions. This is happening at such a significant level that presidential candidates must weigh in.

This false narrative is only possible through PC dogma.

Malice

Another rule of PC is that members of the outgroup act with malice. This changes the officer trying to do his job, despite being part of a system with inherent racial biases, into an evil man actively working to oppress black people.

This changes the white reporter taking pictures to an evil member of the oppressor class who deserves a violent beating.

Attributing membership in an outgroup to malice is a very powerful tool, and one that only grows stronger in situations of uncertainty.

When people are doing something routine, like shopping at the local store, they don’t look to other people to see how to do it. When people are in a new and uncertain situation, like a riot, they need more guidance and subconsciously look to how others are acting.

And when rioters hear: “He white — beat his head — bitch,” they are more likely to comply than if they heard that while shopping in a supermarket.

Social cues become much more important in novel situations like riots. PC dogma’s rule declaring members of an outgroup to be malicious is one built on social cues. As such, that rule becomes much more powerful in an uncertain situation.

Where PC Dogma Puts Us

PC inspired media coverage lets many believe America is on the verge of a race war. At the same time, PC’s demand for malicious attribution fosters cognitive biases like social proof and outgrouping. In these ways and many others, PC separates people from their rationality.

Those who honestly feel members of their race are being killed by the government for sport, or as part of a genocide, might feel justified using violence against the system.

If I held such beliefs and found myself in the middle of a riot, it would be much easier to join the crowd beating a member of the oppressor class.

That is how you get Milwaukee. That is what you get from PC dogma.