RUSH: Dale Hansen is a sports anchor at WFAA-TV Eyeball 8 news in Dallas, and he had some thoughts on Michael Sam, the University of Missouri football player who has sex with other men and who is going to be joining the National Football League in the draft this year. This is Monday night on air, Dale Hansen speaking about the University of Mizzou defensive end Michael Sam’s announcement that he is gay.
HANSEN: You beat a woman and drag her down a flight of stairs pulling her hair out by the roots, you’re the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft. You kill people while driving drunk, that guy’s welcome. Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes? We know they’re welcome. Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away? You lie to police, trying to cover up a murder? We’re comfortable with that. You love another man? Well, now, you’ve gone too far.
RUSH: That’s his take on the current makeup of the NFL. That sounds like he sees it as the Crips and Bloods. “Well, you beat a woman, drag her down a flight of stairs, pull her hair out by the roots, you’re the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft. You kill people while driving drunk, you’re welcome.” That’s true. There’s a player… That’s also true in politics, by the way. That happened in Massachusetts.
You kill people while driving drunk, that isn’t just the NFL. That’s also Massachusetts, but let’s just be honest about it here. “Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes. We know they’re welcome.” Hey, that’s happened for mayors of Washington, DC, too. Marion Barry. “The b-i-itch set me up,” remember that? Washington, DC, hotel room. “Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away?
“You lie to police, trying to cover up a murder? We’re comfortable with that. You love another man? Well, now, you’ve gone too far.” Nobody’s saying keep the guy out. In fact, they’re bending over to… Unintentional. People are, I think, really opening their arms to be welcoming to Michael Sam. Now, Dale Hansen continued and got a little bit more political in the next sound bite.
HANSEN: It wasn’t that long ago when we were being told that black players couldn’t play in our games because it would be uncomfortable, and even when they finally could, it took several more years before a black man played quarterback, because we aren’t comfortable with that, either. So many of the same people who used to make that argument, and the many who still do, are the same people who said government should stay out of our lives, but then want government in our bedrooms. I’ve never understood how they feel comfortable laying claim to both sides of that argument.
RUSH: Well, is that an attack on conservatives there? Is that what that was? Let me see. “It wasn’t that long ago when we were being told that black players couldn’t play in our games because it would be uncomfortable…” Well, it was the fifties. “[E]ven when they finally could, it took several more years before a black man played quarterback, because we aren’t comfortable with that, either.
“So many of the same people who used to make that argument…” Who still makes that argument? Who is still saying blacks can’t play quarterback? “So many of the same people who used to make that argument, and the many who still do, are the same people who said government should stay out of our lives,” that’s a non sequitur, “but then want government in our bedrooms”?
Who’s he talking about? Who wants the government in our bedrooms? What is that in reference to? Is that in reference to abortion? Is it in reference to prostitution? What’s that reference to? “I’ve never understood how they feel comfortable laying claim to both sides of that argument,” and finally, he wraps it up with a plea for all of us to celebrate Michael Sam.
HANSEN: I’m not always comfortable when a man tells me he’s gay. I don’t understand his world. But I do understand that he’s part of mine. Civil rights activist Audre Lorde said, “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” We’ve always been able to recognize ’em. Some of us accept ’em, and I want to believe that there will be a day when we do celebrate ’em. I don’t know if that day’s here yet. I guess we’re about to find out. But when I’ve listened to Michael Sam, I do think it’s time to celebrate him now.
RUSH: Okay. Fine. Let’s see. Now, this gets back to my other question. Why is there…? I’m asking this as an open-ended thing — and let’s not forget, Jackie Robinson was a Republican. Let’s not forget this. Branch Rickey was a Republican. They try to stereotype all these things. But my question is: Why is there a political agenda attached to men who love other men?
Why is there a political agenda to men having sex with other men? Why is it a big deal here? If we have colorblind and other types of blind, what is the big deal? Why are we celebrating, or why should we celebrate a homosexual joining the NFL? Don’t read anything into the question. The question is self-contained, and there’s nothing behind it except a desire for an answer. Why should we celebrate it?
Why should we celebrate anybody else that goes into the NFL for any reason? Maybe somebody who is escaping poverty and finally, through hard work, is gonna get drafted in a high round and earn some money. Should we celebrate that? I think Mr. Hansen has some decent points he’s making. I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything here. I’m really questioning: Why is there a political agenda to this?
What is the politics of this?
I mean, we know the answer. I’m just asking it, out there.
Should we celebrate the people who disagree with us? We celebrate our differences? It says here. Yep, celebrate those differences. We are different. “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” Okay, so we celebrate the people who disagree with Dale Hansen that Michael Sam needs to be celebrated? Yeah. Right. He’s critical of those who don’t want to celebrate.
So being critical of those that is different.
Well, I don’t know.
Let’s just grab a bottle of champagne and be done with it, okay?
RUSH: Judy in Clarkston, Michigan. Judy, I’m glad you called. Great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I’m so happy to speak to you.
RUSH: Thank you. Great to have you.
CALLER: I was calling regarding the gay NFL player coming out to be celebrated, as you said.
RUSH: No, no, no. It’s not saying that. I was asking why. It’s the sports anchor in Dallas.
CALLER: I realize that.
RUSH: That’s okay. Go ahead. I just want to be clear.
CALLER: My point was, though, if the football players are not supposed to feel anything about this or be uncomfortable in the showers — you know, in the locker room, in the showers — in that case, why don’t the cheerleaders and the football players shower together? I mean, if nobody’s supposed to feel uncomfortable.
RUSH: Hmm. Let me see if I understand this. Let’s take this beyond cheerleaders, because cheerleaders are not gonna be in the locker room of football teams. But you’re still trying to make a point here.
RUSH: You’re saying if men and women shower together, men may be unable to help getting excited — and maybe the women, too. Who knows?
CALLER: Exactly. Or feel shy and uncomfortable.
RUSH: Either one. Either one. Okay. So what you’re asking, I think, is, if you put a man who gets excited by other men, rather than women, in a shower full of other men, you’re thinking that somebody in there might feel uncomfortable?
RUSH: Okay. So then what?
CALLER: Well, I don’t know.
RUSH: Cause the uncomfortable are supposed to get over it.
CALLER: The cheerleaders and the football players showering together, they’re not supposed to feel anything, not supposed to feel uncomfortable. And yet I just think it’s human nature to feel uncomfortable.
RUSH: Okay, let’s not use cheerleaders because we know that isn’t gonna happen. Not that we would ever hear about it, but, I mean, it’s —
CALLER: The principle is the same.
RUSH: What you’re saying is, okay, let’s take a female girls volleyball team and let’s have men go and shower with ’em. All right?
RUSH: You’re saying that would never be permitted because it’s a recipe for absolute disaster. The woman won’t like it, the men can’t help but being excited. These are female beach volleyball players, not wearing much to begin with, okay, you’re giving an example of men and women in the same shower together, and you’re thinking it’s ridiculous to ask both of them to act like there’s no big deal here. Right?
CALLER: Yes. Yes.
RUSH: So you’re extrapolating further, okay, so you put in a room full of men one guy who’s essentially looking at a lot of women if he were heterosexual, excited by other men, then there’s gonna be a level of discomfort in there, and you’re saying if that’s okay, then why don’t we let men and women shower together. Right?
CALLER: You got it.
RUSH: Okay. And what’s your answer? Why don’t we let men and women shower together?
CALLER: For that very reason. They’re gonna shy and uncomfortable and feel very awkward.
RUSH: Well, how about it’s because we’re a backward society?
CALLER: I don’t go with that. (laughing) I don’t go with that. There’s not many jobs where you shower with your coworkers, or where you’re in that intimate setting.
RUSH: I know, it’s a sad thing, too.
CALLER: So I don’t know. Get them their own shower room? I don’t know the answer. But what bugs me about it is acting like the guys that would feel uncomfortable are no good, homophobic.
RUSH: They’re being set up to be called names —
RUSH: — simply by acting naturally? They’re gonna be chastised as insensitive or what have you. Well, let me ask you this, Judy, since you’re attuned to this issue, do you watch football?
RUSH: Okay. Do you watch the National Football League?
RUSH: Let me construct a scenario. Michael Sam is drafted by a team and makes it and is playing in a game. He’s a defensive end so he’s not gonna ever really catch passes, run with the ball, unless he intercepts it. But let’s say that at some unfortunate point during the season he blows out his knee, and here is instant replay from every possible angle of the jury, as they do for every injury. What happens if somebody thinks that it was purposeful and that it was a hate tackle or a hate hit?
RUSH: Can you see that happening?
CALLER: Absolutely. Absolutely. That’s my whole point. It’s just wrong.
RUSH: Now, the reason why — I better jump in here and make a point real quick. The reason why is because there are gonna be a lot of people who I think are hypocrites. They’re gonna say that this ought not be any big deal, and they’re gonna be the ones making it a big deal. They’re gonna accuse others of being bigots, who aren’t gonna say a thing about this, who aren’t gonna have an opinion expressed about it, nobody’s gonna know what they think. But it’s gonna be assumed by these people that there are a lot of bigots out there. And the people that are going to make this a big deal, i.e., the media, are the ones who preach to us about how we shouldn’t make it a big deal. They’re gonna be the ones focusing all this attention.
You know there’s gonna be some media people demanding that this guy become an activist. He may just want to play football. He may not want to be. There’s gonna be a lot of pressure on this guy to fulfill a lot of, I don’t know, dreams or desires on the part of other activists. But to most people, I would have to say that it isn’t going to be a big deal except the media is gonna make it a big deal and therefore people are gonna get ticked off because of that. (interruption) Hm-hm. What was the overriding need to declare in the first place? Mr. Snerdley is asking me why I think the player felt it necessary to go public and come out when he did. What I heard him say was that a lot of people knew, his Mizzou teammates knew, and a lot of people in the NFL already knew, just nobody is talking about it. And what he said was that he wants and wanted to be in control of how the story is told.
He wanted to be on offense, if you will. He didn’t want to have it leak out by somebody else and then immediately be on defensive explaining himself. He said it wasn’t activism; it was he wanted to be in control of his message or in control of the story coming out. No, I don’t think the guy is an activist. That’s my point. Others certainly are gonna try to make him one. But I don’t know. We’ll see. To most people, particularly in this country, this day and age, most young people, this isn’t a big deal. I guarantee you a lot of 16, 18, 20, 24-year-olds are running around watching, what is the big deal? It isn’t a big deal to them. Homosexuality is not a big deal. They’re trying to figure out what is the big deal about this? This is my point, is who is it that’s making it the big deal?
RUSH: You know, folks it’s actually kind of interesting out there. I have an article here from The Nation — a far, far left-wing, extremist publication, rag — and they are mad that there hasn’t been any right-wing reaction to Michael Sam. The headline of the article: “Why the Curious Right-Wing Silence on Michael Sam? — Jonathan Cohn asked an interesting question at The New Republic this week.
“Where is the mainstream, right-wing reaction to NFL prospect and SEC defensive player of the year Michael SamÂ’s announcement that he is gay?” The left is actually mad that conservatives are not outraged about this — and that, folks, is very interesting in and of itself. The left is a little upset. They’re curious, they can’t figure it out, and they’re a little mad that there isn’t any opposition to this, no reaction to speak of from the so-called right wing.
Here’s how that piece ends: “Republican elites, caught between their own friends and family and their own donors and voters, have decided that silence is the better part of valor. History will judge this as cowardice. That we now hear nothing from them but a chorus of crickets just makes them look odd.” So, you see, folks, if conservatives react negatively, that fulfills the stereotype and the left is happy.
If conservatives don’t say anything, that means they’re cowards, because we know what they all really think. They just don’t have the guts to speak up, and that makes ’em look really odd. That’s right. And if, if a right-winger happened to stand up and say, “Hey, Michael Sam, we love you, too! Welcome to the NFL,” they would accuse the right-winger of lying. So the conservatives can’t win, no matter what.
Don’t say anything?
“Cowardice! They’re trying to cover up what they really think!”
If they welcome the guy to the league, they’re lying.
But the left is curious. They can’t figure it out. So, I go back to my original question: Why is there a political agenda to this? What is the left’s overall political agenda in the hierarchy of things? What animates them more than anything? It’s their opposition to us, their hatred for us, and they get really disappointed when they don’t see any outward behavior that would warrant hatred, on their part. They’re ticked off here. I find it all fascinating, both from a political and a psychological basis.
Here John in Salt Lake City, Utah, as we head back to the phones. Great to have you, sir, and the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Ah, the pleasure is all mine, Rush. I’ll get right to the point. I think I have an answer to your question that you asked a couple of days ago as to why the traditional values of America are being attacked so fervently by the left. My belief is that at the core it is, as you well know, power. Where they get their power from is they’re able to get control over the narrative and pretty much just go. As long as they are getting people all behind them, they’re able to then take power over the situation and then twist it around on the Republicans or the conservative right, if that makes any sense.
RUSH: So liberals are trashing traditional values…?
CALLER: Maybe I should elaborate. Think of it this way: Liberals know history just as well as the conservatives do, whether they show it or not. You look back at history. America was able take down one of the greatest nations at the time, England, from men sharing values of freedom. Of course, the English nation was everything that the liberals strive for — control, power — and then that’s why things like the tea party happen, the original tea party. They were able to push an entire empire out of their nation. The liberals are trying to do it from within the nation, but they’re just using a different tactic of doing it. They’re trying to eliminate the freedom aspects so that they can have free reign.
RUSH: Okay, it is an assault on freedom, you think.
CALLER: Essentially, yes. They claim to be big proprietors of freedom, but everything that they do is contrary to that, whether it’s going against the Constitution or whatever the case may be. Everything they do goes against freedom.
RUSH: But why? Don’t they want to be free themselves?
CALLER: Absolutely not. Think of it this way. All the kings of England, they were terrified of freedom for one person, and they tried to block it out by blocking out knowledge. The Catholic Church, the British Empire, they had their own church. I mean, as you point out in your great book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, people who strive for freedom, they couldn’t get it there.
CALLER: They actually had to leave to accomplish their end goals. So they don’t want to be in the position that the Pilgrims were in. They want to be in the position that King George was in where he is the one controlling the people: “Oh, we will save you from everything that ails you. Just make sure we get the credit. Make sure we get the power.”
CALLER: And they’re able to do what they want.
RUSH: So even the schlubs of the left want to be able to exercise power over people? Even these pajama-clad guys that don’t have jobs and live in the basement, still want to be able to wield power over people?
CALLER: Exactly. Think of it this way. A person just sitting in their basement, doing nothing all day, they probably don’t feel powerful. But if an issue comes up — oh, for example, your last caller, a gay football player is coming out — all of a sudden they have the power to say, “Yeah, yeah, we support him, and we do not like anybody that has even a smidgen of an opinion saying otherwise,” and it gives them a little bit of a sense of power to a certain extent.
RUSH: Okay. Well, I understand that. You know, I asked this question a couple of days ago in a series of questions. Sometimes I do that. For those of you new to the program, the problem is once I opine on something, there generally is not much left to say about it. That really denies a lot of people an opportunity to get their opinion out there, people in this audience. So sometimes I hold back.
Sometimes I do not present my full opinion on things and instead I pose questions to the audience that are designed to get the mental juices flowing and to cause independent thought, as I think that’s key, and I think it’s also educational. I think it’s fun. I actually think it’s a great exercise, thinking. It’s hard work to a lot of people, but it’s nevertheless fun. There are always results to it. There are always results when we start thinking.
I think it’s fascinating. It’s not taught, thinking. Most people are programmed and propagandized and told what to think, not taught how to critically think. It’s one of the big problems we have. So sometimes I just sit there and ask questions. Okay, typical question: “What is the politics of one man having sex with another?” What is the politics? Why is there politics?
What is the agenda to one man loving another man? What is it? Because there is. Everybody knows it. No, everybody doesn’t know it, actually, when you get down to it. Everybody doesn’t think that there is a political agenda attached to it. One of the reasons for asking the question was to establish the fact that it is political. It isn’t just interpersonal relationship stuff. It is political.
‘Cause everything the left does is political, and everything the left does political has an agenda. They have an agenda. There’s an endgame. There’s a desired result to it. There’s a reason why they do it all, and oftentimes the real reason has nothing to do with what they say the reason is. But if I were to just tell you what I think, that’d be the end of it; there would be nothing left for anybody else to say. So sometimes I just pose questions.
RUSH: We have a call via Skype from El Segundo, California. It’s Ron, and thank you, sir. Great to hear from you. Hello.
CALLER: Rush, mega dittos from Southern California, the center of command. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: Do me a favor. Ron, slow down just a little bit so that I can comprehend what you’re saying.
CALLER: Okay, I’m sorry.
RUSH: It’s not your problem, it’s mine, but if you just slow down I can deal with it.
CALLER: The media here is emphasizing on Mr. Sam’s homosexuality, when in fact in doing so they are diminishing his personhood by putting emphasis on something that has nothing to do with his humanity. And in doing so it’s really diminishing —
RUSH: Now, this is an interesting point. Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Your premise or your point is that by virtue of supporters of Mr. Sam in the media and so forth focusing on his homosexuality, they are ignoring everything else about him that makes him human?
RUSH: They’re ignoring everything about him that defines him as a person?
RUSH: That’s interesting.
CALLER: Because homosexuality is a very personal aspect of his private life. It has nothing to do with his public image.
RUSH: Well, it didn’t, but it does now.
CALLER: Yes, because of the media, and what they’re trying to do is destigmatize the homosexual —
RUSH: But wait a minute, he’s the one who confirmed it. He announced it.
CALLER: And he’s making a mistake by doing so, because, again, that’s the root of the problem. When homosexuals say they’re homosexual, it draws attention away from the humanity and puts emphasis on their sexuality.
RUSH: Well, no, they think it’s part of their humanity, and they don’t like living the secret.
CALLER: But it’s not. It’s part of their sexuality. It’s part of a private behavior that I as a public human being, as a person of the public rather, it has nothing to do with that. I don’t need to know that he’s a homosexual. All I know is he’s a person, he’s a human, and he should live his life the way that he should live it.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Why do you not care that he’s homosexual? Why does that not interest you?
CALLER: Because it’s a private behavior. Has nothing to do with his person. His homosexuality has nothing to do with him driving the car to and from work, or paying his taxes, or going to the grocery store and buying groceries. I don’t go to the store and say, “Hey, hi, everybody, I’m a heterosexual.”
RUSH: No, but the day may come where you’ll have to.
CALLER: Yeah, if the liberals have their way, yeah, sure. And that’s why I’m saying —
RUSH: I mean, we’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight.
CALLER: Right. And the lady prior that called made an excellent point. What’s to say the men and the women can’t be in the shower together? I mean, what about public restrooms? Should we have same —
RUSH: Well, but we’ve already answered that, too. There are co-ed dorms at institutions of higher learning.
CALLER: Yeah. So why stop there? Why can’t we have restrooms with boys and girls going in the same restroom?
RUSH: Well, I think that’s a good question, actually. Why can’t we?
CALLER: And the answer is because privacy matters, and you should keep it private, because it has nothing to do —
RUSH: We must lift the veil on bigotry, and the only way to do it is throw people in the shower nude.
CALLER: But it’s not bigotry. It’s common sense. I don’t go into the girls’ restroom.
RUSH: Well, you may think it’s not bigotry, but you’re not the one defining it.
CALLER: Right. Right. I understand.
RUSH: These are all valid questions. They’re all valid questions. And the privacy aspect, after making a big deal and going public is when they then demand privacy.
CALLER: The whole gay marriage aspect, the whole gay marriage movement is based on the person’s sexuality. I am gay and therefore you should accept me as being a gay person. Never mind that I’m a person. Focus on my homosexuality first. And that is wrong. They’re doing themselves a disservice.
RUSH: Well, let me ask you, but what if a person’s homosexuality is, in their own mind, what defines them? What if their homosexuality is the thing they think most important about themselves?
CALLER: Then they need to go see a psychologist, because there’s more to them than their sexuality, and they need to find themselves, and define themselves by their humanity, not by their private parts or who they sleep with.
RUSH: Well, why can’t sexuality be part of humanity? Why are you separating their sexuality from their humanity?
CALLER: Because it has nothing to do with their public — public has nothing — I have no business knowing what they do in private. What they do in private is their private business, and it should remain private.
RUSH: Okay. So you think the Drive-Bys, the State-Controlled Media are objectifying Michael Sam, turning him into a sex object?
CALLER: Correct. They’re engaging in political prostitution, if I may be so bold, and devaluing every person’s humanity who happens to be homosexual. It has nothing to do with their person, nothing.
RUSH: Well, that’s where they would disagree with you. They think it has everything to do.
CALLER: Well, they’re wrong.
RUSH: Otherwise he wouldn’t go public with it. Doesn’t that stand to reason? It’s a huge deal.
CALLER: To the liberals, yes, because they don’t see the person. They see —
RUSH: Let’s face it.
CALLER: They see gender.
RUSH: Well, that’s true, that’s true, they see the surface stuff. They see the sex. They see the race. They see the gender. They see the orientation. They see the economic circumstance. They see everything but the humanity.
RUSH: They see victims.
RUSH: That’s what this is about. They see victims.
CALLER: They see victims, and they perpetuate the idea that everybody is a victim, and that’s who votes for them, the victims.
RUSH: Well, you know, you got some interesting points. It’s all genital politics.
CALLER: That’s right. And, Rush, you put on a great show. Thank you for a wonderful 25 years, and a happy belated birthday to you.
RUSH: Thank you, Ron, very much. That’s Ron via Skype. He’s in El Segundo, California, where a good friend of mine, George Brett, grew up in and around El Segundo. Every time I hear El Segundo, I think of number 5.
RUSH: Back to the phones we go. Summit, New Jersey. It’s the Rush Limbaugh program. This is Jeff. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Rush, first let me thank you for maintaining steadfastness in the face of almost insurmountable adversity. So thank you so much for doing that.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: There are times when my knees are a little weak.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate it. Thank you very much, really.
CALLER: I’ve got two things for us, first, I think I have an answer to your question about why the left is so opposed to traditional values, and then I have a comment on a story you read before, but I think the left is so opposed to traditional values because it flies in the face of everything they use to further their agenda, and that is traditional values teach straight morality. It has a straight moral compass, there is a right from wrong, there is a should and a should not. It loops in religion, but I think the underpinning backbone is that there is straight morality. That doesn’t work for the left, and some of the examples are abortion versus capital punishment. Capital punishment sends them into an apoplectic fit but they are all in favor of abortion. If you smoke a cigarette they want you wrapped in a hermetically sealed bubble, but as far as marijuana smoke goes, you know, have at it. All of those things don’t comport to a straight moral compass.
RUSH: All excellent points, but there’s one thing that I really want to add to what you’re saying, and it is that they will not acknowledge that there are people that stray from morality. The people that do that, they’re not wrong, they’re victims. They have been pushed there, and therefore they can’t be blamed for it.
CALLER: That’s true.
RUSH: There’s no accountability for it.
CALLER: That’s a form of moral relativism.
RUSH: Absolutely right.
CALLER: It’s not wrong because circumstances make it not wrong.
RUSH: And because of the people defining it as wrong have no right to do that; therefore, it’s not wrong.
CALLER: That’s absolutely right. And I think that’s why they are so frightened by people who adhere to traditional values, because there is straight morality and there is a defined black and white and right and wrong for a lot of things.
RUSH: From an authority that’s higher than themselves.
CALLER: That’s exactly right. Now, I have a comment also. There was a story you read before about women who marry down intellectually but marry up in terms of economy.
CALLER: If you can marry down intellectually, if somebody who’s nowhere near as smart as you or as educated as you can make more money than you do, doesn’t that completely undermine the left’s argument about income inequality and how those who have higher incomes had an unfair advantage, they had an unfair start, genetic —
RUSH: Exactly. Except it points to sexism as the explanation for the abnormality or the disparity. Yeah, how can you have income inequality when the stupid make more than the education?
CALLER: It think it’s an excellent point.
RUSH: And especially when somebody marries somebody stupider than they are and the stupid one earns all the money, how in the world is that fair? That’s a dilemma.
RUSH: After all, folks, we cannot expect victims to hew to values. How can they? Values are used to oppress the victims. You can’t make victims behave according to values. That’s what’s made them victims in the first place.