Advertisements

A Market for Bullshit

So the New York Times writes a piece about 45’s CPAC speech quoting him as having “included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants ‘the hell out of the country.'”

Only that was actually an outright lie, as caught by the Gateway Pundit. 

Trump said no such thing, according to the transcript of his speech. 

We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration offers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country.

So what he said was that drug dealers and criminal aliens are getting tossed “the hell out of our country.”

So is the NYT guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Trump – of being a bigoted asshole who pigeonholes all “undocumented” immigrants into the “violent drug dealer” box? 

Because it certainly sounds like that’s what the New York Times is doing. They paraphrased the President’s speech and took his words, which referred very specifically to a certain type of alien, and applied them to “undocumented immigrants” writ large. 

This says more about the “journalist” who wrote the piece – Glenn Thrush – than it does about Trump. 

Very telling. 

And, yes, I’m perfectly aware that they’re simply trying to paint the President as a bigot by misquoting him. Question is, how many believe it? If there wasn’t a market for bullshit, the crap would fly. 

Take, for example, the flag flap. Apparently, the Russian flags with Trump’s name on them were handed out prior to the 45’s CPAC speech by Democratic operatives. Question is, why did so many CPAC attendees take them and proceed to wave them around?

Because there’s a market for bullshit. They were either too ignorant to know what the Russian flag looks like, or they didn’t care, and grabbed it in their frothing zeal to show Trump their blind adoration. 

Whatever the reason, they grabbed up those flags. And whatever the reason, those anxious to believe that Trump is a an anti-immigration bigot, would immediately believe the NYT piece without doing any fact checking. 

The fact that the quote is utter bullshit doesn’t matter. It supports their preconceived notions, so it’s good to go. 

If there wasn’t a market for bullshit, it wouldn’t exist. 

Advertisements

I Really Shouldn’t Laugh, Right?

I’m a bad person; I can’t help it. I shouldn’t laugh at others’ misery. But when the misery is brought on by one’s own lies and refusal to admit wrongdoing, then I can’t help it. I giggle.

dolezal26n-2-webRemember Rachel Dolezal? She’s the former college professor and NAACP official who was exposed by her own parents to be pure, unadulterated white, and who had been lying about her race.
In the aftermath of the scandal, Dolezal lost her job and her position at NAACP. She claimed – spitting in the face of biology and common sense – that race is just a “construct,” and that she’s “transracial,” because she identifies as black, even though the bug shit crazy bitch is whiter than I am.

And now, poor little lying Rachel is having a tough time finding a job.

The former professor and columnist told the Guardian she’s applied for more than 100 jobs, but not a single place will hire her. The only offers that have come her way have been for reality television and porn.

Dolezal now relies on food stamps to feed her family and has been receiving help from a friend to cover her — next month she expects to be homeless, the Guardian reported.

You know, I just can’t find it in my heart to feel any sympathy for her. She lied. She lied to everyone about who she was. She used those lies to get a position with a civil rights organization and a college. And when she was discovered to have lied, she decided to pull the victim card and claim how she’s always felt wrong, how she FEELS black, and she made a mockery of black people’s experiences.

So, no. I don’t feel sorry for her, especially since she refuses to even acknowledge she did anything wrong.

Oh, and she has a memoir coming out, discussing how she “suffered” as a black person. This, after more than 30 publishing houses turned her down.

I really want to give her a high five. In the face. With a chair.

How to Respond to SJWs

The other day, a friend of mine on Facebook wound up posting a rant about an Uber fare who deigned to lecture him on his racism. The story itself is interesting, because my friend is a very rare breed. He’s a fellow musician of a largely small-l libertarian mindset, an extreme rarity in an industry that’s probably 99% Leftist. But music is a tough gig, and so like myself, he has another job too. For him, Uber pays the bills. Here is his brief story:

Ok I have to post about this, since its been eating away at my mind from the moment it happened. I am an Uber driver and it was roughly 2:30 in the morning. And that’s when I get calls to gentlemen’s clubs, bars, clubs and what not. I picked up these two dancers (one hispanic girl and one white girl) outside of their strip club and the ride went on like normal. Then out of nowhere, the hispanic girl rants on to her friend about how Trump is going to fuck her and her families life up. I ignored and continued to drive her while her tears ensued. After a while she says “I can see who you support by your lack of talking.” Mind you the white girl was getting real embarrassed and trying to tell her friend to shut up…… I then retorted that “I dont talk about politics while I’m working”. She called me ignorant. All right, things are then getting heated. I then asked her “what about me makes you think I’m a Trump supporter?” She replies, “your skin color.” That’s when i said “NOW WHO’S FUCKING IGNORANT” (mic drop).

Most people, even a few who were somewhat Leftist, agreed that he acted appropriately. This woman was trying to make a big deal out of the fact that he didn’t want to talk politics. Silence, it appears, is grounds for attacking your Uber local driver.

And in that, this incident reveals something about the political Left: there is no neutrality with them. As some of you already know, I did support Donald Trump, in a limited capacity. You might call me a ReluctantTrumper. Nicki, on the other hand, did not. She was NeverTrump.

And yet, here I am, posting on her blog. We agree on a lot, but even when we disagree, it’s not grounds for personal attacks. Agree to disagree is a common (but by no means universal – don’t misunderstand, there are assholes on our side too) trait on the Right. It’s exceptionally rare on the Left. Tolerant Leftists are fast becoming an endangered species.

To them, the Uber driver who is silent on political matters is a literal Nazi. Donald Trump is literally Hitler, and even those on the Left who are insufficiently supportive of whatever the SJW is doing, are literally Nazis. Disagreement is evil, silence is evil, and not being wildly enthusiastic about the latest cause is evil.

It’s utterly insane.

But the story doesn’t end there. You see, another SJW had to come into the conversation. He/she/it (I legitimately couldn’t tell) was a genderqueer something or other, and despite no relationship with said friend, decided it was time to lecture us stupid hicks on proper Social Justice:

Because you are white…… Most white people do not give a fuck about hispanic people. Most white people do not give a fuck what happens to marginalized people. I feel like in the current climate she was right to assume. It is better to be safe sometimes.

While i very much so agree to not talk about politics in the work place i feel like the world is changing and her mentality is completely justified. I do not think a crying woman of color was trying to fight you, or trying to say you are a monster… But from her perspective people like you are a monster…. So her assuming that you are one of the bad people or “ignorant” by not responding makes sense from trauma brain.
You not responding (whether it makes sense or not to you) does not make sense to her. By inaction you are taking a side with her oppressor….Trauma brain is not always easy to see.

And to top that off:

Their whole life is built in a structure that builds you (as a white cis male) up and tears them down.

I do not think her discriminating against you is anywhere near the same as acting like her oppressor.

She cannot be racist against you. NO ONE can be racist against white people. Not only is it impossible but it is something racist white folk do to justify being racist.
White people have to be the minority, not the top of the food chain, not benefitting from the patriarchy and our current system.

It is impossible to talk to someone with logic, psychological and historical truths who do not actually understand any of these concepts….

I can tell that you are hardcore racist, but i really wanted to try and get through to you and maybe help you see another perspective other than the white cis male hand you were given.

I just genuinely care about changing the minds of the evolutionarily challenged and help them think. I have a very high IQ and trying to get people like you to actually listen is impossible.

I had seen enough. Those of you who have read some of my material elsewhere probably know what happened next. I’ve long advocated that you cannot prove you aren’t racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever to a Leftist. You are already guilty, you see, by virtue of being accused. Accusation + wrong politics = guilt in the Leftist mind.

The best thing you can do is get angry. If someone calls you a racist, the proper response is “fuck you.” If they call you a Nazi? Fuck you! A fascist? Fuck you!

Or you can do as I did, and add some flourish to it:

If you call my friends racist, fuck you. If you call me racist, fuck you. If you want to brag about being your supposed high IQ, fuck you.

You are a blind fool, thinking yourself morally superior to everyone else because you go around calling white people racists, while roaming around the world dressed like an Oscar Meyer wiener.

Where was your sanctimonious arrogance you when gays were thrown off buildings by ISIS? Where was your superior morality when China violated pretty much every human right ever thought of? You think a stripper having to put up with a white Uber driver is oppression. You fool, you utter moron. You are an intellectual amoeba, the sludge at the bottom of the evolutionary barrel, discarded and laughed at, the butt of all jokes. Your brain is the mental equivalent of a sewage treatment plant, filled to the brim with shit. When they say someone is full of shit, know that they are speaking of you.

When my grandfather spoke to me of my family barely escaping the Armenian genocide, *that* was oppression. When a Jewish friend of mine explained what happened to some of his own ancestors in Nazi Germany, that was suffering. When a friend of mine who emigrated from Nigeria explained to me the conditions he grew up in, that was difficulty in life.

You and your ilk lose your mind when somebody doesn’t agree emphatically with every bit of ignorant spew expelled from your mouth-hole. And then you say “I am oppressed, I suffer.” In the name of my own genocided ancestors: FUCK YOU.

You can’t have a logical conversation with an SJW. But you can tell them exactly what you think of someone who associates you with the trash of humanity because you happen to share a skin tone with a dead asshole.

Remember that. And if you’re an Uber driver, well, you’re going to get a one star review and a complaint from miss trauma brain Hispanic stripper anyway. What have you got to lose?

Yes, People are Stupid

shirtIf you haven’t heard, there’s another “The Walking Dead” controversy brewing. Because perpetually offended, howling snowflakes have apparently run out of things about which to be outraged, they are now screeching about a T-Shirt. Thankfully, the shrieking outragery is in the UK… for now. But there are almost certainly aggrieved social justice zealots in the United States who are standing in solidarity with their squealing comrades in the UK in their indignation. Hell, I’ve seen quite a few of them on social media!

The “offensive” language revolves around TWD baddie Negan’s use of the old rhyme “Eeny meeny miny moe, catch a tiger by the toe…” to select the victim he would violently bash over the head with his trusted, barbed-wire baseball bat Lucille..

Now, when I was a kid, we used that rhyme all the time. Most Americans, I would wager, are not and have never been aware of the rhyme’s history, which apparently used the N-bomb instead of “tiger.” I certainly had no idea. But apparently, that’s what it was, and because most of us didn’t know about the rhyme’s history, we’re obviously steeped in white privilege… or something.

Yeah, I know. I had black friends in school, and when we used the rhyme, none of them were insulted, probably because like most Americans, they had no idea about the rhyme’s history.

But in their search for things to get offended about the SJW howler monkeys have now decided to target the TWD t-shirt.

It doesn’t matter that the show is not even close to racist.

It doesn’t matter that Negan ever used the word, and has never, as a character, been shown to be racist in any way.

It doesn’t matter that the show’s and comic book’s creators almost certainly didn’t know the rhyme’s history and meant exactly zero connotations to be gleaned from Negan’s taunts.

And it certainly doesn’t matter that the alleged “insult” wasn’t aimed at anyone.

You see, intent doesn’t matter, because according to one zealot, “the people at the tail end of the insult are the ones who get to decide if it’s offensive.”

Which basically means that anything we do or say can be constituted as offensive to someone.

Which essentially surpasses “thought crime” and lands directly into “insensitivity crime.”

morganLiterally stupidest claim ever.

TWD’s Jeffrey Dean Morgan agrees, this is stupid, and I can’t blame him.

A rhyme that’s been used for decades, and apparently at some point (in the 1800s) contained a word that was common then, but we now  – after more than 100 fucking years – find unacceptable. A t-shirt that doesn’t even contain that line. A show that is in no way racist. A scene that in no way had racial connotations.

Imbeciles are literally getting offended at a t-shirt referring to a fictional character’s use of a rhyme that more than 100 years ago contained a word that was commonly-used then, but that is considered unacceptable now, that the t-shirt doesn’t even contain.

And apparently, it doesn’t matter if no insult was actually intended, that the rhyme wasn’t hurled at anyone, because the only thing that matters is pwecious feewings.

And if you disagree, you’re wrong.

If you refuse to bow down to the subjective snowflakery and confirm that what you say and what you mean doesn’t matter, but what the grievance mongers claim offends them does, you’re a racist… or privileged… or something.

The content of the rhyme doesn’t matter. The indisputable fact that the rhyme as said by a fictional character did not contain any racially charged language doesn’t matter. The fact that the majority of people involved with the show, with the manufacture of the shirt and its sale, and in the world writ large, were not aware of the rhyme’s history doesn’t matter.

What matters to these whining, sniveling fucktards is that their subjective feelings be accepted as fact, because apparently, their offense somehow gives them moral superiority over the rest of us.

Yeah. stupid.

Nope. I refuse to play these games. It’s an intellectual (or in this case, sub-intellectual) trap that marginalizes everyone except those seeking indignation and gives them license to accuse anyone and everyone of facism/racism/sexism/*insert ism here, regardless of whether their interlocutors really are guilty of fitting those descriptions. It allows the perpetually affronted to offend, denigrate, and demean anyone they don’t like merely by claiming offense. And yes, I find it insulting and and downright abusive to be called those things – especially since I’ve spent my life fighting them.

There’s no justice in this – social or otherwise. It’s a disgusting, biased, discriminatory retaliation tactic against those whom the snowflakes seek to marginalize – those evil, cis/het, white people, whom they believe to be deserving of retribution for the “crime” of being privileged. And while they treat the rest of us like something smelly that attached itself to the bottom of their shoes, they treat minorities like fragile morons, who have to be protected from anything that can even remotely be viewed as “offensive.” Dog forbid someone’s delicate labia get chafed – even unintentionally! MICROAGGRESSION!

Here’s an idea, snowflakes: go fuck yourselves. With a barbed-wire bat. There is no “right” not to be offended.

A Short Note on Milo (UPDATED WITH AN INTERESTING NEW VIDEO)

There will be a longer guest post probably sometime this weekend on the subject of free speech writ large, so I debated whether to address this on the blog today. But given the gleeful crowing on both the left and the right about the so-called “fall” of Milo Yiannopoulos, I wanted to quickly address the issue from my perspective.

I see those on the left cheering Simon and Schuster’s decision not to publish Milo’s book, titled “Dangerous” after a video surfaced in which he “appeared to condone” (notice, nowhere is it written that he did so) pedophilia. The left hates Milo, because he revels in his Internet troll persona, because he ridicules social justice warriors, because he refuses to bow to the gods of political correctness, because he got on the Trump Train early, because… well, you know.

Milo also resigned from his position at Breitbart, to which I say, “Good!” He’s much too good for them.

I see those on the right gloating that the American Conservative Union disinvited Milo from CPAC this year, where he was supposed to be giving the keynote address after this video emerged, because he’s gay, because he’s flamboyant, because he’s not what a typical, nice, Christian, conservative should be. He’s *clutch pearls* GHEY!!! And he’s in a relationship with a black man! OH NOEZ!

Here’s the full video and that includes those comments. If you haven’t seen the unedited version of the video in which Milo purportedly “supports” pedophilia, you might want to take a look before screeching about how he deserved it.

 

Here’s a transcript of the part that was edited out.

Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo:
“And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

So what did Milo really say here?

He said that child abuse charges have been inflated to such a degree, that we are now even policing relationships between consenting adults, because we disapprove of them.

He said that, generally speaking, the age of consent laws in the United States are proper and right.

He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.

He said that SOME of those “coming of age” relationships can help gay men feel safe and secure.

And he correctly defined pedophilia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children and made the distinction between the discussion about cross-generational relationships, which could happen between a 17-year-old and his 40-year-old partner, and the gross attraction of a full, legal adult to a pre-pubescent child.

How many of you, screeching that Milo condoned pedophilia took the time to read and analyze what he really said before condemning him?

And how many of you denigrated and ridiculed him and cheered the cancellation of his book and his unceremonious booting from CPAC merely because you don’t like him or what he stands for?

Be honest with yourselves.

For what it’s worth, Milo never was accused of pedophilia. He never condoned kiddie diddlers. As a matter of fact, he spent a lot of time exposing and shaming them – fighting the very thing he is now accused of defending.

He exposed creepy, white nationalist gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg/Nicholas Nyberg/Sarah Butts.

Two years ago, he went after repugnant child molester Chris Leydon.

I would venture to say, Milo has done more to fight child sexual abuse than any of the critics jerks now eulogizing his silencing.

By the way, Milo’s full statement about this incident is here. I emphasize the following, and note that Milo himself was a victim of sexual abuse as a child.

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Do I think that Milo is very often over-the-top? Yes.

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Do I think that his gallows humor is many times inappropriate? Yes. Vicious? Yes.

Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. (I note here our differences in whom we liked for POTUS, for one.)

But am I going to cheer concerted efforts to silence him by those who disagree with what he says and how he says it? No, I’m going to slam them hard, as I would any attempts to silence dissent and opposition.

I see the glee and exhilaration with which Milo’s critics applaud his supposed “downfall,” and I’m sickened by it.

Were you upset that someone like Milo, to whom nothing is sacred enough to avoid making fun of, was gaining a huge following?

Were you irritated that someone like Milo – a flamboyant faggot in an interracial relationship, who freely talks about blow jobs – all of a sudden became someone to admire in your precious, oh-so-holier-than-thou “conservative” movement?

Did you not like that Milo essentially told Leslie Jones to man up after she got a bunch of racist Tweets in her direction, because “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS!”

Did you hate his description of feminism as a “cancer?”

Did you think he was racist/homophobic/xenophobic, even though he’s in a relationship with a black man, has a Jewish mother, and repeatedly denied being a member of the “alt-right?”

And that’s why you’re cheering that someone finally found – AND DOCTORED – a video to silence him? How repulsively fascist of you!

You don’t care that the allegations are false.

You don’t care that the recording of Milo supposedly “advocating” child abuse was selectively edited and spliced, and you certainly won’t listen to the unedited version, because that would force you to do some introspective navel gazing to figure out why you were so anxious to believe the worst about someone with whom you disagree politically, that you’re cheering his gagging and the impact on his employment and his bottom line.

You don’t care about freedom or truth.

You’re no different than the shit snorting dick weasels who work to destroy those who do not toe their ideological line. You’re morally reprehensible, petty little tyrants who want to see your ideological adversaries silenced and, ultimately destroyed, instead of fighting them with ideas and reason.

You are gleefully cheering, because someone you don’t like has ostensibly been silenced.

And that makes you exactly the type of person people like Milo and his supporters have dedicated themselves to fighting.

You are the reason he exists.

UPDATE: And if you find Milo’s words to be a problem, but still loves you some Uncle George, you’re a repulsive hypocrite.

%d bloggers like this: