Do you want to protect the perps?

This clearly appears to be a female thing. No, not all women, but I can’t think of any men here who are taking the same position — and that position doesn’t make much sense from a male perspective.

Let me try an example that everyone is familiar with.

The piles of bodies in Auschwitz, after the camp was liberated, and Allied soldiers were force marching Germans (mostly women, going by photos) through the camp, to see what their leaders had done.

In that case, the only people who could be shown were the victims, their bodies stacked in piles.

Because the perpetrators were long gone. All that remained was the evidence of what they did, and to whom.

Still, it was very effective, showing the victims, discarded like so much trash in a heap, after having been abused and starved and shot or gassed.

Now, imagine if there had been cameras, and there were photos and film of the murderers, in the very act of murdering their victims.

If we had that, it would be orders of magnitude more damning, than showing just the remains of the victims, after the perpetrators were long gone.

But we’re not talking about either one.

No.

We can’t show the victims, because we’re more moral than everyone who came before us, all the way back to Adam. We know better, because we’re more sensitive, and more righteous, and more principled, and more evolved. Or something. We’re certainly more feminized than ever before. We just know better, darn it.

So we won’t show ‘victims’, not even with identifying features blacked out, in order to prove our virtue and our superior civility, or something.

None of that is masculine, by the way. Not even one tiny ounce of it. It is all the product of feminine ‘feelings’, which the Left has co-opted as a weapon to destroy Western civilization from within.

Effectively, by analogy, we’re just going to show photos of the soldiers, in various poses, without the necessary context, without the human context, without showing the human beings who were the victims of their atrocities.

Maybe we see a soldier with his arm raised, poised to strike a redacted black blob. Or maybe with arm raised, pointing a Luger, before the shot, pointing at nothing, just an anonymous, amorphous, blacked-out blob.

Imagine the world famous Pulitzer Prize winning photo of Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, the Saigon government’s national police chief (roughly equivalent to our Pam Bondi, I suppose), personally executing Viet Cong prisoner Nguyen Van Lém (Saigon, 1969) — except completely sanitized, without showing the victim:

Here is the real deal:

.

Now the sanitized, redacted version:

.

Does it have the same visceral impact, without seeing the victim?

Would it have won the Pulitzer Prize, in redacted form?

Would it even have been submitted in redacted form, much less considered?

Without the context of the victim, what’s so bad about it? Nothing at all. It’s just a guy holding a gun, like millions of similar photos, without the necessary context showing the horror of what he was doing to another human being.

Most men understand this intuitively.

Apparently most women don’t, possibly because women are genetically programmed to avoid physical conflict, to avoid violence, to protect, to nurture, to be as far as possible from the harshness and ugliness of the reality that is necessary to provide relative peace and tranquility and prosperity.

For thousands (or millions) of years, women gathered food and nurtured children and kept the home, while men hunted — and did barbaric, unspeakable things to the enemies who would murder them, rape their women and enslave their children.

Anyone who thinks that has been (or can be) ‘bred out’ after a generation or two of ‘modern living’, is mistaken.

So we have men and women commenting here on this subject, coming from very different perspectives.

Some subjects expose these differences more than others.