Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

149 Views

With all the discussion of tolerance and the number of genders (Spoiler Alert: still 2), there is a relatively new phenomenon: preferred pronouns. Thanks to Chief Running Mouth, Elizabeth Warren, putting her preferred pronouns on her Twitter profile, the Left had a collective joygasm. Finally, the Democrats were talking about a subject that matters to approximately 0.0000000325% of the population!

What started out as a way for people online to describe what they consider themselves (while at the same time increasing the number of times lesser used letters like X, Y, and Z appear in words) has turned into a social and judicial issue due in no small part to the Left’s use of identity politics. As a result, we now have yet another way to enter the twisted, mixed-up world of Leftist thought.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means – a way for people to express their sexual preferences and identity, an important statement about one’s self

What it really means – creating more division using stupid means

I’ve often said the Left uses language to control the narrative, but in this case, they’ve invented their own language reminiscent of feminists of the 1990s purposely misspelling words so they didn’t have to use the word “man.” Thanks to websites like Reddit, though, the preferred pronoun movement took off like a rocket. At first, it was pretty harmless, but now it’s gotten downright litigious.

In some states and countries, it is now illegal to use the wrong pronouns if a person tells you what he/she/it prefers you use. And people are okay with this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes because in their minds “misgendering” someone by not using preferred pronouns should be illegal. Even if it’s a 6’4” 280 pound linebacker born Hunk Slabchest whose preferred pronouns are zee/zyr (and, yes, these are actual preferred pronouns, ladies and gentlemen), if Hunk asks you to use them and you fail to, there are now legal punishments. Granted, the people who feel this way tend to overlap with the “words are violence” crowd, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they managed to find a way to make pronouns punishable by the Pronoun Police.

Yeah, maybe I’d take this personal pronoun business a little more seriously if their advocates could spell. And, yes, I’ve seen how you spell in your Tweets. Maybe work on mastering actual pronouns before you tackle the preferred ones, okay?

At the heart of the personal pronoun issue is a need for sexual individuality, which isn’t bad in and of itself. When it gets to the level we’ve reached, though, it goes into the land of delusion and scientific illiteracy. Biology, physiology, anatomy, and other life sciences have shown time and time again there are two genders, male and female. It doesn’t matter what you think or how you feel, that’s pretty much a done deal. You are either male or female at the genetic level. Period. Just because you don’t identify as a member of one of the two genders doesn’t mean you’re not one of them.

This is where preferred pronouns undercut science. By allowing the idea of multiple genders outside of the male/female dynamic, any variation on a theme can be seen as a legitimate gender, thus increasing the number of possible preferred pronouns and creating more potential for misunderstandings, division, and even legal penalties. On the plus side, it also creates the potential for a lot of mockery, but overall it’s not a great idea.

There’s also the potential for psychological damage. Just because you want to be called zyr doesn’t require the world to cater to your will, and those who think it should aren’t helping. They are creating an environment where your feelings trump fact, and that isn’t healthy for anyone, especially not the little zyr they’re coddling. Once you allow yourself to define your own reality irrespective of the reality around you, you have bought into the delusion, and it becomes harder to ween yourself off of it.

The main problem I have with preferred pronouns is one of respect. The people who want us to use them expect us to respect their wishes, but they don’t offer respect in return. If you tell me your personal pronouns and I slip up, forget, or just don’t care to use them, it shouldn’t result in legal action against me. That’s more heavy-handed than Iron Man giving you a high five while holding onto a bar of gold, and probably a lot less painful. I live by a simple philosophy: I will show you the respect you show me until something happens to change that dynamic. If you insist I use your pronouns but you don’t give me time for a learning curve, that’s not respect; that’s dominance in search of deferential coercion. Put in Leftist terms, it’s your privilege and agency attempting to subdue mine.

Guess how likely I will be to use your preferred pronouns in that scenario.

Look, if your entire identity is wrapped up in whether people use the right two or three letter combination to describe you, there is a lot more wrong with you than the whole preferred pronoun thing. If you want to be unique and stand out, focus on what makes you special and share that. Don’t create a weird combination of letters that won’t get counted when used in Words With Friends because it’s a false sense of identity. You are actively self-segregating, which means fewer and fewer people may want to try to get to know you. Eventually, you will become the individual you always wanted to be and you will be lonelier for it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

80 Views

Sometimes politics make for strange bedfellows, and other times it makes for “no duh” bedfellows. The Left’s Congressional Freshman phenoms fall into the latter group. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley and their supporters are calling themselves “The Squad.” Although they came from different backgrounds, they are united by their politics, positions, and drive to make the country more progressive.

What makes these four women and their followers so special? I’ve been trying to figure that out since the Left made them their de facto leaders/golden children/rock stars. Are they the next generation of leaders or the political equivalent of Pogs? Let’s find out!

The Squad

What the Left thinks it means – four strong female Congresswomen who represent the future and care about the important issues of the day

What it really means – the personification of identity politics

I have a confession to make. I actually do know why The Squad is being held up as the Great Not-White-At-All Hope, and it has nothing to do with what they do or have done. Their appeal to the Left is literally skin deep. The fact they’re women and progressive only adds to their appeal to many. And the fact they’re all vocal opponents to President Donald Trump makes them the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which begs the question of how great an invention sliced bread is, but that’s the blog post for another time.

As someone who looks for results rather than hype, I did some digging to see what The Squad has accomplished. In terms of legislative accomplishments, let’s just say I tied them and I wasn’t even trying. Outside of the political realm, they’ve created a great brand that people can identify with, especially on social media. Of course, social media isn’t the real world, so their accomplishments are pretty much the same as mine: being opinionated in cyberspace. The differences, though, are I don’t try to pass stupid legislation while I do it and I’m not wasting taxpayer money to do it. Taxpayer time, yes, but not taxpayer money.

The Squad has also been thorns in the side of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (which makes me laugh because of what her party has done to bring about The Squad and how they repay her with openly suggesting she’s a racist). The same Leftists who propped up Pelosi are now ready to throw her under The Squad bus because…she’s not as progressive as The Squad is! (Quick investment tip: buy a LOT of shares in Orville Redenbacher.) Although this kind of behavior is red meat…sorry, white tofu to the Left, it isn’t working very well with the rest of the population. I can’t account for all of them, but from what I’ve read at least half of The Squad are seeing approval ratings lower than the President’s. Not nationally, mind you. In their own districts.

Granted, The Squad may be in districts safely in Leftist hands, so there may not be reason to worry…except if people decide to challenge them from the Right and the Left. So far, there is at least one known challenger to The Squad’s most vocal leader, the aforementioned Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a. the Socialist Socialite), and there is enough time before the 2020 elections for more to join the fray. This has the potential to open a wider rift between The Squad and the Not-Leftist-Enough Democrats, who have watched The Squad go from back-benchers to unintended spokespeople for the Democrats. The impending Leftist civil war is going to be interesting to watch, if only because it underscores the pyrrhic nature of the victory they achieved in 2018 in part because of The Squad.

Congratulations, Leftists. You’ve created the means of your own destruction. But unlike in the original (and vastly funnier) “Ghostbusters,” it’s not a giant marshmallow man coming to destroy you; it’s identity politics which you helped to make mainstream.

Of course, anyone who decides The Squad isn’t all that great will get showered with allegations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, fascism, white supremacy, patriarchy, Nazism, and other invectives that have become the new slang for the Left (along with copious amounts of vulgarity). The issue is none of the legitimate criticisms raised about The Squad have anything to do with any of that. Sure, there are people out there giving as good as they’re getting, but most of us between the Left and the Right see The Squad not as a powerful force for good, but as a group whose watched their expectations drop lower than a snake’s belt buckle because it’s hip to hate President Trump yet manage to limbo underneath these expectations all while standing upright.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ilhan’s faith. I have an issue with her possibly breaking the law repeatedly prior to becoming a Representative.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Tlaib’s faith, either. I have an issue with her ties to Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Pressley’s race. I have an issue with her suggesting there are blacks that should be silent on racial issues because they may not agree with her.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s gender. I have an issue with her being intellectually and emotionally unsuited to represent herself, let alone her Congressional district.

And collectively, I don’t have an issue with any boxes the members of The Squad can mark off on a checklist. I have an issue with them criticizing others for doing what they do instead of finding a way to bring people together. As the old Spider-Man comics say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe The Squad prefers DC to Marvel, but the point is they still haven’t grasped the concept of leadership, all while putting themselves out there as leaders. The longer The Squad goes unchecked in the political and communication arenas, the harder it will be to topple them.

And, no, I do not condone violence or threats against these women. Beat them with better arguments, not with your fists. And given some of the stupefying things The Squad has said since taking office, you won’t even have to work that hard!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

120 Views

Once again, the US Women’s Soccer Team has won the World Cup. With this win comes the usual fanfare: wall-to-wall coverage of the tournament, puff pieces about the players, parades, media appearances, and the inevitable answer/question on “Jeopardy” in 2+ years before fading away into obscurity. This year is a little bit different, thanks to one of the players, Megan Rapinoe. Even before the team won the World Cup, she came out and said she wouldn’t go to the White House to visit President Donald Trump in part because she doesn’t feel he’s been inclusive to people like her.

Meaning white female soccer players with purple hair? Oh, wait, I forgot Rapinoe is a lesbian because I really don’t care what or who she does when she’s off the field. What she’s doing in refusing a trip to the White House over inclusion is taking a stand Leftists are applauding (because…Orange Man Bad?). But she’s also giving us a topic for a Leftist Lexicon blog!

inclusion

What the Left thinks it means – making sure everyone feels welcomed and comfortable in a social/political environment

What it really means – agreeing with and condoning Leftist behavior under any and all circumstances

Leftists talk the talk when it comes to inclusion. They invent multiple genders (most of them variations on a theme), insist you call people by their preferred pronouns (even if they’re harder to pronounce than Klingon), and talk about “safe spaces” where people can go to be validated for being the way they are. They tell their followers how powerful these differences are and nurture the idea these differences are core to who they are.

Until someone comes along who doesn’t follow Leftist dogma. Then, the Left’s inclusion talk goes the way of Eric Swalwell’s Presidential campaign. Now, I’m not saying the Right doesn’t do this, but it’s been my experience the Left is faster to the banhammer than the Right is over what amounts to a miniscule deviation from the ideological playbook. The purpose of this hardline approach is simple: the Left needs to keep its talking points straight, and any difference of opinion endangers that.

The funny (and by funny I mean weird) part is how willing the Left is to embrace inclusion the further left you skew. Today, the Left celebrates prepubescent drag queens who aren’t even old enough to get pimples, let alone wear pumps and feather boas. Tomorrow, the line will get shifted further leftward, and the Left will rally for more inclusion. But it’s not just inclusion they’re looking for; it’s normalization. Once something is seen as normal to average Americans, the controversy that preceded it falls away. Then, people can frame those who still see the controversy as backwards…with the help of our Leftist friends in the media. After all, if our neighbors think an 11 year old drag queen is fine, why shouldn’t we?

This is what is known in logical fallacy circles as an appeal to popularity, with a little appeal to authority mixed in for good measure. The Left has a stake in creating what they consider an inclusive environment because it helps solidify their political power and coerces people into agreeing with their ideas out of fear of ridicule, or in the case of Antifa, physical violence.

Not an inclusive position, don’t you think?

The funny (and by funny I mean funny, yet fitting) part is the Right already does what the Left claims they want. With only a handful of exceptions, most conservatives are easy-going and are willing to accept anyone into their groups, even if these folks disagree with them. They enjoy discussing issues and ideas with passion and purpose and they typically don’t end friendships or cut ties with family members over political disagreements. I probably shouldn’t do this, but I happen to have the super secret Conservative Inclusivity Plan which I will share with you now.

1) Be friendly
2) Find common ground with each other
3) Don’t let the differences spoil the commonalities
4) Grill meat of some fashion

Okay, so I added that last part under direction from some friends of mine in Texas, but the point remains clear. Inclusion isn’t and should never be about indoctrination or conforming to an idea or cause. Inclusion requires, well, including people. If you follow the #WalkAway movement online, you will see account after account, testimony after testimony, of people who have been welcomed, even if they don’t plan to vote for Donald Trump because it’s not about Trump. It’s about finding that place where you feel like you belong without fear of running afoul of the unwritten codes of a particular group.

Although Rapinoe’s message is the right one, she was the wrong person to be the messenger for it because she has shown her notion of inclusion is rather exclusive to those who agree with her. And here’s the kicker, if you’ll pardon the pun. On the whole, Donald Trump has been more inclusive with his Cabinet picks and staff than people realize. After all, Trump is the first President in our history to have been in favor of gay marriage from the outset of his Presidency.

And who was the candidate who said repeatedly marriage was between a man and a woman? Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, Megan. Looks like you just scored an ideological own-goal here. Or two.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

136 Views

The recent Antifa attack on Andy Ngo has opened up a number of interesting questions. Is violence necessary to bring about political and societal change? What responsibility do the police have to protect people? How many Antifa members still live at home with Mommy and Daddy?

One of the more intriguing questions is what constitutes a journalist. Leftists can’t seem to define what a journalist is in this case, but they know for sure Ngo isn’t one of them. According to them, he’s a hack, little more than a provocateur for a radical alt-right website who defends Nazis and President Donald Trump. Instead, they think people like Jim Acosta are “real journalists” when he’s little more than a provocateur with a CNN press pass. (Actually, I take that back. It’s far too insulting to compare Ngo to Acosta, so I apologize…to Andy Ngo.)

So, let’s take a moment to delve into what a journalist is…and isn’t.

journalist

What the Left thinks it means – a hard working person charged with the task of revealing the truth

What it really means – an overworked individual charged with the task of revealing the truth, even if his or her colleagues don’t agree with it

As a former/recovering journalism student, I have my own perspective on what constitutes a journalist today, but I will save my thoughts on the term for later. Right now, I want to get at the Left’s concept of journalists and journalism in general. And it starts with a favorite phrase of theirs: “Facts have a liberal bias.” The Left believes they always have the high ground when it comes to factual discussions, so naturally they treat any reporting that supports their ideology or personal biases as the truth. Granted, we all do that to some extent, but this is confirmation bias on steroids.

Remember that old chestnut that 97% of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis of manmade climate change? The Left throws that out like candy at a parade run by the National Tooth Decay Association. Yet, when you dig a little deeper, you find the 97% is just a little overinflated by…oh, I don’t know…a factor of two. Going from almost certainty to a coin flip should take the steam out of the argument, but it doesn’t to the Left. They repeat the debunked 97% claim as though they get paid by George Soros to do it. Then again…

Anyway, the point is the Left is perfectly willing to ignore, cherry-pick, or out and out deny facts if they clash with their ideology and talking points. Apply that same logic to the news, and you have the Left’s approach to journalists and journalism. That’s why you’ll hear Leftists continue to bow at the altar of Dan Rather as a credible reporter/commentator in spite of the fact he and some of his CBS cohorts got fired for…making up a news story out of whole cloth in an attempt to discredit and possibly defeat George W. Bush in 2004. It’s also why the Left champions the cause of people like Jim Acosta, who is little more than a pimple on the late Edward R. Murrow’s ass.

By now, you might have noticed a trend. Leftists’ positive examples of journalists tend to be…Leftists themselves! Why, that’s…completely expected! In reality, Leftist news sources merely reinforce what Leftists already believe because they never take off their ideological blinders to see else is going on out there. They still can’t figure out how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton even though the facts are right in front of them.

Ahhhhhh! I think we’re onto something here! To borrow a line from Ben Shapiro, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” The Left thrives on emotions, and their truths are deeply rooted in what they feel to be true. Hmmm…I swear I’ve heard that articulated by a Leftist darling of recent memory, but I can’t remember exactly who…oh well. Good thing she’s not a Congresswoman who represents a district in New York City or anything because that would be really embarrassing, right?

Speaking of embarrassing, the modern journalist falls into one of two categories: Leftist stenographer, or relatively unknown person who has a nose for digging up truths, no matter where they are. While the former get awards and recognition for merely repeating the tired refrain Orange Man Bad, the latter rarely get noticed until they find themselves within the stories they cover, as Andy Ngo did. Then, the “real journalists” come out in droves to mock and/or discredit the real journalists for daring to do what they do (at least in their opinion). In truth, the latter group is doing what the former group used to do and fail to do now.

It’s been said there is more real journalism going on in cyberspace than there is in editorial boardrooms across the country, and I tend to agree. What passes for journalism today wouldn’t have gotten past my Journalism 101 professor’s desk without being returned with a failing grade and a request to rethink journalism as a profession. Regardless of who is putting in the legwork and where their work is getting published, the derided reporters are the ones carrying the torch for the profession, not the perfectly quaffed talking airhead who makes Ron Burgundy look like a MENSA candidate. For the Jim Acostas of the world, hitting a beat means having to walk to get to the open bar at a party. And for those of the current journalism field offended that I am taking their jobs less seriously than a paper on atomic energy written by Cardi B, suck it up because you have been doing the journalism profession a grave disservice for decades, and to claim you’re on par with firefighters and are in danger because President Trump says mean things about you is the height of narcissistic cluelessness. Andy Ngo had to go to the hospital because he dared do what you Brooks Brothers-clad bores wouldn’t do: report on actual news as it was happening at risk to his own life to cover Antifa after they targeted him.

You know, I really need to learn how to open up a bit more on certain subjects. I hold back too much.

Seriously, I don’t envy those who hold true to the principles of good journalism. Not only do you have the usual grind of fleshing out stories, building trust in sources, and finding good leads and story ideas, but you have people who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on a beat telling you that your work isn’t journalism because they say so. And those of you who are out there in the field risking life and limb on top of all that? Nothing but respect.

The sign of a real journalist is not what they report and how it’s reported, but what they don’t report or deem as newsworthy. The fact the “real journalists” haven’t bothered to do even a little research on Antifa being violent Leftist thugs should tell you loads about how disconnected they are to reality.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about their judgment on what real journalism is and who is doing it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

121 Views

There is a crisis at our Southern border. Or not. It’s so hard to determine by listening to Leftists over the past few months. It was waaaaaaaaay back…a month ago, that Leftists said the immigration crisis we’ve been seeing since, oh, forever, was a manufactured crisis. Now, when the visuals are in their favor, it’s a humanitarian crisis.

Don’t try to figure it out, folks. It’s not meant to make sense.

But it does raise the question of what a manufactured crisis is. If only I had a means to explore this in greater detail…oh, wait!

manufactured crisis

What the Left thinks it means – a bad situation created by Republicans designed to assist them in some way

What it really means – pretty much anything Leftists say is an actual crisis

Say what you will about President Donald Trump, he did call out the current immigration crisis well before the Left decided to make a hypocritical political spectacle out of it. The problem was the Left was too busy trying to cultivate the notion President Trump was a racist to bother with actual human lives. Hence, they went with the “manufactured crisis” talking point.

Today, that talking point has blown up worse than the Hindenburg, only less flammable.

The key to the Left’s approach to any crisis, real or more fictional than a Joe Biden anecdote, is primarily political. Can the situation be used to further a cause, shame the GOP, or make money that can be funneled to like-minded politicians? Ideally, they try to check all three boxes, but any combination of the three will do.

Let’s take a look at a “real crisis” the Left was championing at the same time the immigration crisis was brewing, gun violence. Whenever there is a shooting of any kind, the Left seems to have Tweets, talking points, and videos ready to go asking the GOP and the NRA about the blood on their hands. The visuals they put forth are compelling, which makes it easier for them to insert their solutions, which always seem to fall back on taking steps towards restricting gun rights. And it almost always works because it plays on the visceral emotions we have after a tragedy while hiding the real motives behind the proposed solutions.

And what was accomplished after all of that falderal? A few of the survivors got media attention more favorable than Il Duce in his prime, some feel-good legislation was demanded, and nothing got done. Sure, the Left blames Republicans and the NRA for that, but there’s another element to consider: Leftists need crises to justify their actions (or inaction) while creating an environment where they can simultaneously be white knights for the cause and cursory victims. In other words, they want to be heroes and martyrs at the same time without understanding the irony behind it.
The thing to watch for when Leftists talk about a real or manufactured crisis is the kernel of truth within the rhetoric. The best liars are those who can take an insignificant amount of truth and turn it into a well-crafted lie, and the Left does this like maestros. Yet, even the best liars occasionally slip up or give up what is known in poker parlance as a “tell,” a little something that gives away the illusion. With the border crisis, the Left’s tell is trying to rewrite recent history when a previous President was caging children in substandard conditions. If only I could remember that guy’s name…he had a funny sounding name, like…Barack Obama. Once the lie is discovered, the Left will tell another one to make it seem like the first lie was no big deal and the current lie is the important truth you need to know. That’s why when the Left got called out for saying nothing when President Obama started the program to separate children at the border they moved to “But Trump’s doing it now.”

Kinda puts a bit of a damper on the Leftist talking point about Obama not having any scandals in his 8 years of being President. (Brian Terry and Christopher Stephens were unavailable to comment on Obama’s lack of scandals.) By moving the goalposts, Leftists are trying to protect Obama at the expense of people they claim to care about, or in this case didn’t care about until the optics were right.

Whenever the Left talks about crises, it’s important to walk it back using a simple question: Who benefits? Who benefits if the border crisis gets worse? The Left, because it can be placed at President Trump’s feet when they are the ones trying to milk every last drop of political gain they can out of it. Who benefits if gun violence isn’t curtailed? It’s the Left again because they can continue to fundraise off painting the NRA and President Trump as prohibiting sensible gun control laws. With every crisis, see who benefits from it to figure out what the truth of the matter is.

The same principle applies when the Left doesn’t make something into a crisis. Who benefits by calling the border issue a manufactured crisis? The Left, because once you start digging into the reasons behind the crisis, their fingerprints are all over the place. Once you figure out the set-up, you can unravel the lies pretty simply with a little deductive reasoning and just enough political disdain like your humble correspondent.

The border crisis isn’t manufactured by any stretch of the imagination. It’s real, and calling it manufactured does a disservice to those who have to deal with the consequences of inaction. On the other side of the coin, giving attention to crises that actually are manufactured makes it harder for people to trust and react compassionately to real crises, a little something the kids like to call empathy burnout. With a little discernment, you can pick out the charitable wheat from the political chaff consistently and can act accordingly.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

109 Views

It wasn’t that long ago that your humble correspondent was applying to college for the first time. Although I didn’t get accepted everywhere I wanted to go (who knew women’s colleges had such strict enrollment guidelines), I did manage to get into a college I liked.

Such was the case for Second Amendment fan and Stoneman High School shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv. He applied to Harvard, got accepted, and then had that acceptance taken away from him after it came out he used racist language in a social media post. Kashuv and his supporters questioned the decision while Leftists mocked him, all the while saying “actions have consequences.”

Which brings up an interesting question: what are consequences to Leftists? I’m glad I asked! Oh, and I’m glad you asked, too.

consequences

What Leftists think it means – when bad people, usually Republicans and conservatives, get their comeuppance for bad behavior

What it really means – Karma giving you a Shiva-style bitchslap

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Kashuv exercised poor judgment and a lack of maturity. Racism, even in jest, isn’t cool. It doesn’t matter if you’re 5, 50, or 500, you just don’t throw around racial slurs, especially not on social media. I won’t defend him for what he said.

Yet, our fiends…I mean friends on the Left don’t have the same set of standards. If a Leftist says something stupid and racist, they are allowed to apologize in a fashion, the matter is dropped, and anyone who brings it up in the future, even if the Leftist in question makes the same or similar statements after the apology, is considered a meanie-head. A great example of this is the late Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia. For those of you unfamiliar with the Senator’s history, he was an actual member of the Ku Klux Klan and used racist language every so often (a certain interview where he talked about “white n-words” comes to mind). Yet, Leftists a) don’t see the problem with their side being literally linked to the Klan, and b) say it’s water under the bridge because he apologized, essentially saying it was a youthful indiscretion that he felt bad to be a part of.

If only Kashuv had apologi…I see here he did, and shortly after his racist posts came to light. As a result, the Left should forgive him and drop the issue, right?

Nope. When it comes to Kashuv and other Republicans/conservatives, once you’re a racist, you’re always a racist.

The Leftist double standard on consequences hits at the core of its ideology. They truly believe they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone who isn’t them. That’s why they look the other way when someone with the moral instincts of an alley cat in heat while supporting the Leftist agenda gets caught acting true to his or her nature. To them, Leftists can’t be held accountable by anyone but themselves because anyone else isn’t a peer.

Not only that, but Leftists are allowed to “evolve” on an issue, no matter what. It wasn’t that long ago President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were vocal supporters of traditional marriage, while during that same time President Donald Trump was a vocal supporter of same sex marriages and gay rights in general. Yet, the former two can flip-flop like John Kerry working the griddle at IHOP without so much as a sideways glance while painting the latter as a homophobic bigot who secretly wants to kill or convert all gays.

That’s not to say the Left doesn’t believe in no consequences. If you are a Leftist or a recovering Leftist like yours truly, the greatest sin you can commit is to walk away with no intention of returning to the fold. Once you do that, the consequences of your betrayal are you become a non-person, which opens you up to all the hatred, vitriol, and scorn the Left can heap upon you. But, if you are a Republican/conservative who embraces Leftist ideology, any past sins against the Left are wiped clean. Think of it as Social Justice Warrior Jesus (and, believe me, there are plenty of Leftists who think Jesus was one of them).

The problem with this approach is it doesn’t remove the hypocrisy. Just because you choose not to acknowledge the double standard doesn’t mean there aren’t two standards right in front of your face. If you think your ideology gives you the moral authority to pick and choose what consequences for bad behavior are allowed, you are missing the point about consequences. They aren’t handed out like pieces of candy to good girls and boys; they affect everyone. Oddly enough, the Church used to have a similar approach to salvation called indulgences, where people who wanted to make sure their departed loved ones got into Heaven by filling the Church’s coffers.

Actually, I take that back. Indulgences were far less scummy than the Left’s hypocrisy here.

No matter how much the Left wants to ignore bad behavior on their side and hype bad behavior on the other side, it is up to us to call out the double standard. And it is also up to us to call out bad behavior on our side. If a Trump supporter does something reprehensible, it is our responsibility to hold him or her accountable and not rely on the Left’s hypocrisy as justification. That way, we can claim the moral high ground while at the same time exposing the Left’s double standard. Hold them up to the standards they want to hold us to and watch them squirm.

Then again, any side that had a literal Klan member in their midst who they ignore and/or justify might not have a leg to stand on when it comes to Kyle Kashuv.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

123 Views

A topic that we keep talking about but rarely see in today’s society is ethics. For example, Leftists (and some NeverTrumpers for that matter) have their panties in a bunch over allegations Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it (mainly because you have more of a life than your humble commentator), the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities. Originally, it was meant to curtail the likelihood of bribery and corruption, but as we’ve seen in the past few decades, the Hatch Act is like training wheels on a Slip N Slide.

Of course, the Trump Administration is pushing back by defending Conway’s right to free speech, which made Leftists lose their shit and start talking about ethics.

Yes, folks, my irony meter broke just typing that sentence.

While I wait for a repairman to fix my irony meter, let’s talk about ethics, shall we?

ethics

What the Left thinks it means – a set of guiding principles that everyone else should follow

What it really means – a set of guiding principles that people today make up as they go along

Cynicism, thy name is Thomas. In my defense, though, I have seen a lot of ethical lapses in my nearly 50 years of schlepping around on this water-covered rock, from Watergate to Washington State and more stops in between than I can shake a stick at. That is, if I even have a stick to shake. Politicians, athletes, celebrities, and even Joe Average have all been getting looser with their ethical standards.

Remember the 1990s, where sex scandals would pop up like the men in said sex scandals? Granted, it was the 90s, the decade that gave us Crystal Pepsi, but at least we had some standards. Nowadays, sex scandals are more resume enhancers than career enders.

And it’s not just in the sexual arena, either. In general, we are allowing more and more stuff we used to decry not even 10 years ago. Recent surveys just within the past 2-3 years have shown college students are okay with plagiarism, cheating, and lying. Even adults are starting to throw their hands up in the air and give in to unethical behavior. (See Congress for proof of this.)

Neither major political party has clean hands when it comes to ethics, unfortunately. For every Democrat calling out Republican corruption, there is a Democrat doing the same thing, and vice versa. The problem is few people are willing to call out members of their own “team” when they are in the wrong. A big part of the problem is the entire “team” concept. In every political case where ethics are looser than Bernie Sanders’ grasp of Econ 101, you will find people lining up behind someone as scummy as they come in order to defend these scumbags against “partisan attacks.” There is a bevy of great reasons the Founding Fathers didn’t like political parties, and this is as good of a reason as any.

Outside of the political arena, I think people have decided to give up trying to do the right thing because it requires them to think of other people as fellow human beings instead of inconveniences interrupting your self-worship. We’ve gotten so used to taking shortcuts that we’re not even trying to find the road anymore. Besides, doing the right thing means you actually have to do something other than  sending #somebodydosomething to your Twitter peeps. On top of that, we’re always looking for self-gratification, which defeats the purpose of ethical behavior by taking the emphasis off the ethics and puts it onto ourselves.

Yes, I realize not everyone shares the same ethical background, so calling out a lack of ethics in any situation is bound to make people mad, upset, or just downright offended. Maybe your ethical framework makes it okay to cut corners or take a few pennies here and there from the till at work. Maybe you’re trans-ethical and self-identify as an ethical person. Regardless of where you stand on the topic, there is always going to be points of conflict. What might be right for you may not be right for some, so we may try to soften our stances to allow others to feel good about their behavior.

That’s why we’re in this ethical quagmire in the first place. By trying to be understanding of other people’s differences in ethics, we soften up our own ethics to the point even the most reasonable expectation of your fellow men and women becomes milquetoast so we don’t get in trouble. In social situations, that may not be a bad move, but it’s a terrible way to live a life. Everybody has standards, but we shouldn’t surrender ours because a transgendered woman with rainbow hair and more piercings than Julius Caesar outside the Forum wants you to accept his/her demand to breast feed. If you’re not okay with that, you shouldn’t force yourself to be okay with it. Holding your tongue in a situation where your ethics are challenged is surrendering without a shot being fired.

Look. I get we’re supposed to be tolerant of other viewpoints, but that tolerance needs to be two-way. I’ve made it a point in recent years to live by a simple code: do what’s right for everyone involved including yourself. And, yes, that means calling out ethical problems regardless of who might be hurt by it. One cannot be ethical without being honest, and brutally so at times.

So, let me be one voice in a chorus of people who think Kellyanne Conway should submit to whatever legal punishment awaits her should she be charged with violating the Hatch Act. Ethical standards shouldn’t be upheld in some cases and ignored in others just because of who violated them. We should hold all of our elected officials to the same ethical standard: don’t break, bend, or skirt the law, period. If a politician can’t hack that, he or she isn’t fit for the job and should be given a pink slip at your earliest convenience.

As for the Democrats and NeverTrumpers complaining about Conway, clean up your own houses first. Ditto for the Trump supporters backing Conway. A bad person with questionable ethics isn’t going to change as long as there’s no incentive to change. That means we’re going to have to stick firm to what we believe to be right, dig in our heels a bit, and be ready to defend said beliefs. It won’t be easy or always rewarding, but ethics are worth it every time.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

123 Views

This past week, there was a great disturbance in the conservative Force, as though millions of voices cried out in anger and were silenced. Turns out YouTube just demonetized Steven Crowder’s videos after a Vox reporter got mad at some of the “harassment” he received from Crowder’s fans. That Vox reporter, Carlos Meza, refers to himself as queer and, surprise surprise, got upset when Crowder called him one! (Granted, there were other statements made to deride Meza, but the point is still the same.)

After YouTube initially said Crowder didn’t violate their Terms of Service, they reversed field like an NFL running back and demonetized his videos, meaning they wouldn’t be promoted and he wouldn’t receive ad revenue from them. Had it not been for Meza’s complaining to YouTube about their allowing Crowder a platform, we might not have the chance to analyze this relatively new Leftist tactic to shut down conservative speech: deplatforming.

deplatforming

What the Left thinks it means – not allowing hateful or potentially dangerous speech an audience

What it really means – a Leftist tactic to discourage discourse they don’t like

There is a key concept central to understanding deplatforming: this isn’t directly a free speech issue. Our right to speak doesn’t guarantee an audience. This principle is backed up by the fact so many talk shows get cancelled after the first season. Complicating matters in Crowder’s case is the fact YouTube is a private company and can set its own rules for use.

That is as long as those rules are enforced equally. And in YouTube’s case, they make Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes. Put simply, YouTube’s enforcement is all over the board, with conservatives and those perceived as conservatives (i.e. hateful according to Leftists) bearing the brunt of the punishment. Channels that promote racism, homophobia, and general hatred are struck down while those that promote racism, heterophobia, and general hatred go untouched.

And it’s not just on YouTube. Leftists on college campuses (or would it be campusi?) have found ways to prevent people from Ben Shapiro to Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus through the use of procedural roadblocks, false security issues, and general overall whining, while they allow more radical left-leaning speakers a free pass in spite of outrage at what these speakers have said and done in the past.

As a side note, I’ve created a pretty reliable test for parents and students to determine the best schools. It’s called the Mumia Test. If the college your son or daughter wants to attend has had or would consider infamous cop-killer and Leftist icon Mumia Abu Jamal speak via telephone or other communication method, don’t send him or her there because it’s too far gone.

Anyway, the Left is able to have its cake and eat it too through deplatforming. They can still portray themselves as champions of free speech (that they approve of) while making a case that not all speech is worth hearing. And it’s consistent with the letter of the First Amendment, but not the spirit. Back in the Founding Fathers’ day, their remedy for bad speech was good speech. They didn’t run to George Washington whenever something bad was said about them (and, believe me, a lot was said about Thomas Jefferson that would make TMZ look like the New York Times before Leftists took it over and turned it into, well, the print version of TMZ.

The reason Leftists rely on deplatforming conservatives whenever they can is simple: they can’t hang in the marketplace of ideas. Leftist ideology is all about control: what you see, what you hear, what you do, what you think. If they eliminate the competition, they have more control over all of that. Part and parcel of that approach is they don’t have an answer for what conservative rhetoric outside of name-calling and forcing platforms to abide by its own rules, even when it would require using situational and biased decision making.

This is why YouTube demonetizing Steven Crowder (and many others who are being caught up erroneously by YouTube’s algorithms) is such a big deal. Crowder’s comments/insults were crude and over the line, but others who have said far worse have been given a lighter punishment…if they’ve been punished at all. And if you think this is “whataboutism” to defend Crowder, check out fellow YouTuber Gazi Kodzo, whose nickname in some parts of the Interwebs is “Black Hitler.” He has been just has hateful as Crowder (if not moreso, given his open hatred for whites and straights), but there does not appear to be any attempt to demonetize him on YouTube.

Yes, I know the tech giants went to Capitol Hill and swore up and down they were enforcing the rules right down the middle, but that’s as believable as Joe Biden writing his own material. The truth is YouTube, Google, Facebook, et al, lean left and apply the rules with that in mind. Hence, Crowder gets deplatformed and Kodzo gets ad revenue. Unfortunately, those tech giants are pretty much the only games in town if you want an online presence.

That’s why it’s important to fight back within the rules, and that starts with your mindset. If you express any opinion to the right of Che Guevara, no matter how reasonable it may be, Leftists will attack you, often personally as a means to get an emotional reaction out of you. As someone who’s been at the receiving end of such vitriol, it’s hard not to fight fire with fire, but I’ve learned to fight fire with sugar water. Don’t sink to their level, address the meat of their concerns (provided they have any meat), and let them keep escalating. In time, they will either get frustrated you aren’t taking the bait or will act in a way that even the Leftist gatekeepers can’t ignore the bad behavior of their online allies and drop the hammer. Most of the time, it will be a Nerf hammer, but the goal isn’t to get them deplatformed because you complained. It’s to protect yourselves and let the haters deplatform themselves.

It’s harder to do the same on college campuses than it is online, but it’s not impossible. Demand to hear other speakers from all sides of the ideological spectrum. If the colleges and universities can’t or won’t fulfill that need, find ways around it. Nothing says a college conservative club can’t have an off-campus event with a famous or semi-famous figure in conservative circles. Plus, the added bonus is if there are any threats of violence from Leftists or actual violence and property damage from Leftists, the police can get involved, thus bypassing campus security altogether. And I’ll bet there would be more than a few members packing heat (check local CCW/open carry laws before attempting), so security shouldn’t be an issue. Just serve cake and punch and you’re set!

Although deplatforming isn’t against free speech, it’s certainly a corrosive force that undermines it. With a little intellectual judo, though, it can be overcome while maintaining a true appreciation and love of free speech.

Plus, there could be punch and cake involved, so that’s a win-win!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

169 Views

If you’ve noticed more rainbows recently, you might think it’s due to all the rain in the Midwest or people protesting the opening of a new Chick fil A. June is Gay Pride Month, so members of the LGBTQABCEASYAS123 community will be out and about letting their Pride flags fly.

And along with that, a Leftist agenda.

Not every LBGTQ person is a Leftist, but the idea has been hijacked by the Left, which makes it a great addition to the Lexicon.

gay pride

What the Left thinks it means – a celebration of gay people and a force to bring equality for them

What it really means – a sense of pride stemming from trying to separate people

Leftists look at everyone in terms of labels: what color you are, what gender you are, what color of wine you drink when insulting Trump supporters, and so on. That helps them make decisions about who they’re dealing with quickly and without much effort. And once they label a person, it gives them a sense they control the person or people being labeled. Combine that with the Left’s natural tendency to believe they know what’s best for everyone, and you have a recipe for intellectual domination.

This is especially true of the gay rights movement. Leftists think they know what’s best for gays and at least try to appear to support them, including appearing at Pride rallies. They support legislative remedies to what they see are “gay problems,” support judicial remedies, and back candidates who are friendly to the gay rights movement or are gay themselves. And who is on record in support of gay pride? You guessed it. Canadians. Oh, and Leftists, too.

Where problems arise is when you look at the source of pride itself. The popular line of thought today is that being gay is genetic, meaning it’s out of our control, which means gay pride is taking pride at something you didn’t and couldn’t plan on. Like…oh, I don’t know…having brown hair because it runs in your family. Yet, I don’t see any Brunette Pride rallies being formed because it’s no big deal ultimately. The Left wants to treat gay people as though they’re Fabrige unicorns, rare and delicate, which makes it harder for people to see gays as anything but and helps Leftists make the argument that they’re oppressed and need protection.

In other words, creating oppression out of little for fun, profit, and, oh yes, votes.

To hear Leftists talk, gays of all backgrounds are in danger because of the mean ole GOP who wants to take extreme measures to prevent them from existing. Just listen to how they treat Vice President Mike Pence based on well-spun narratives with little to no basis in fact. Yet, in spite of the barbed rhetoric to the contrary, Vice President Pence has been cordial to gay people he’s encountered. Whatever he believes doesn’t prevent him from treating gay people as, well, people.

This is where the separation part comes into play. By creating imaginary oppression and casting anyone outside of Leftist circles as the enemy, Leftists have forced gays to choose between the Leftist hivemind and being ostracized like Pence. And when the Left offers gays the illusion of happiness, it’s hard to say no. It’s even harder when they see how Leftists treat non-Leftist gays. Let’s just say marching in every Pride parade from now until the end of the world (or 12 years, whichever comes first) won’t absolve the Left’s homophobia where conservatives gays are concerned.

This alone should be enough to make gay people question how deep the Left’s commitment to gay pride is. Passing legislation or getting favorable judicial rulings on same sex marriages don’t mean much if the people behind them don’t respect gays as people. And, from where I sit, the Left doesn’t give one-tenth of one shit about gays as people. They see you as tokens to move around a game board as they see fit. Meanwhile, outside of a handful of hateful religious types like the Westboro Baptist Church, most people don’t care if you’re gay. They just want you to be good people. That’s it.

And, let me just say you’re not doing any favors with some of the antics at and after Pride parades. Assless chaps may make you feel empowered, but they’re scaring the normal folks into creating a negative stereotype of all gays, lesbians, trans people, and so on. The biggest enemy of gay pride is the gay pride movement itself. Most groups have swallowed the Leftist Kool Aid like it was their last drink before hiking through Death Valley, so they will advance agendas that have little to nothing to do with actually being gay while letting the outliers be the only thing people see.

My approach to gay pride is simple: I don’t care. If you’re proud of being gay, then be proud and proclaim it any way you see fit. However, when you do that, remember what you say and do will get amplified by people who oppose you or wish to use you as a means to an end. Put simply, one can be proud of who and what you are without turning it into a Robert Mapplethorpe LARP.

The great irony in gay pride, or any pride for that matter, is in how public some people feel it needs to be in order to be respected. To me, pride is like being a badass: if you have to advertise it, you’re not one. Using gay pride to build bridges between the heterosexual and homosexual worlds is a great place to start. Not everyone will be thrilled, but most people will accept you as you are as long as you’re willing to do the same. That’s what the Left doesn’t want the gay pride movement to know, and it’s obvious why. As long as gay people feel ashamed or scared, the Left can always swoop in and be a white knight, and once they do, they will hold that over your heads for the rest of your lives.

It really doesn’t matter to me if you’re gay, straight, bi, trans, queer, pansexual, potsexual, polysexual, asexual, or just there. Just be a decent human being and I’ll respect you and try to be and do the same to you. From personal observation, that seems to be what most people want, no matter what gender you like to have sex with.

So, to the gay pride supporters out there, I hope you have a great month and I wish you the best. Now, I have to get ready for my Brunette Pride rally next month.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

249 Views

Hello! I was forced to take a bit of a vacation last week due to Internet issues, but I’m back and I have a humdinger of a Lexicon entry this week.

Abortion has become a hot button issue in the past few weeks, almost as if…there’s an election coming up soon….With state laws in Georgia, Alabama, and Ohio limiting abortion options and political officials in New York State and Virginia seemingly saying abortion can be done up to and even after birth, both sides of the abortion debate are on edge more than people in a crack house next door to a police station. But I ran across a new term the Left is trying to use to promote their pro-baby-death position: reproductive freedom.

Put on your biohazard suits and have a barf bucket ready because this one is a doozy…

reproductive freedom

What the Left thinks it means – a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body, especially when it comes to terminating a pregnancy

What it really means – a new way to get people on board with the idea killing babies is freedom

Someone in the Leftist PR department must have seen recent polling data showing more and more young people are deciding not to bump uglies and have abortions after the fact. The word “freedom” has a lot of power and emotional heft because we like the concept so much. Whether it’s people shooting off firecrackers on Independence Day (or several weeks before it, depending on where you live) or women fighting for what they consider to be a fundamental right, freedom comes in all shapes and sizes.

When paired with “reproductive,” we have a phrase that evokes the love we have as well as the desire to leave the room whenever abortion comes up in conversation. And, yes, this is by design. The Left loves to combine words to create a name that hits you in the heart while not giving you much to hang your brain on. All they want you to do is feel the way they want you to feel.

Of course, that only exercises part of your brain, but it’s the more important part. Whenever we discuss reproductive freedom, we need to think as well as feel. And when that happens, the Left can’t operate as effectively because it allows us to see behind the curtain.

Let’s deal with one important fact about the Left and reproductive freedom: the Left needs abortion to control women. You read that right, kids. The Left gets a lot of money and political power through promoting reproductive freedom, and they wield that power without considering any other possible position on the subject. If you are against reproductive women, it’s because you hate women.

That’s going to come as a big shock to the pro-life women out there.

And that’s not the only fact The Handsmaid’s Tale cosplayers ignore in their desire to obtain what they claim the want. If you really look at it, reproductive freedom is primarily slanted in favor of women. They claim it’s because old white religious men keep making laws that restrict their right to terminate a pregnancy. At the same time, they rely on old white semi-religious men and women to give them the upper hand in the sexual arena. Yet, it takes a man and a woman to create life. How exactly is that fair to men and women? Spoiler Alert: it isn’t. Reproductive freedom is designed to give women every benefit at the expense of men.

This is not to say men’s hands are clean when it comes to reproductive freedom issues. There are untold number of guys who fuck and run, leaving a woman to deal with the consequences of having intercourse before she was ready. Then, there are rape and incest victims to consider. Put simply, for every position on reproductive freedom, there is a position not considered, or at least not considered in full.

What isn’t so muddy is the fact reproductive freedom when practiced as the Left wants all but guarantees a bad result. Look at Planned Parenthood’s latest advertising blitz saying “Abortion Is Health Care.” That may be true, but it’s health care that guarantees at least one of the patients dies in the process. You wouldn’t go to a tire place where two of the tires will blow out while you’re driving, so why go to Planned Parenthood at all?

That’s where things get a little tricky. If you take Planned Parenthood at their word here, how can it be “healthcare” when Planned Parenthood officials are on video saying they sell baby parts after abortions? On the other side, if we accept the pro-life stance, how can we exclude cases of rape and incest as valid reasons to have an abortion, which is part of some of the legislation being proposed and/or signed into state law?

This is why we need to have a long, hard discussion about reproductive freedom so we can find common ground. The extremes don’t want an answer, but I’m willing to bet most of the country does if for no other reason than to have both extremes shut up for a change. And, no, dressing up like a vagina and holding a sign calling a fetus a parasite or yelling at young women that they’re going to Hell if they get an abortion isn’t helping. Instead, let’s do a bit of thinking.

Abortion rates have been declining for the better part of a decade. This means Planned Parenthood and the Left are losing power and influence, which means they have to do something to keep both. What better way than to rile up both sides to react in a way that will guarantee reproductive freedom gets front and center? Put another way, this whole push for reproductive freedom right now is all an act, and as long as we continue to take the bait the act will continue.

The only way that act will have its curtain call is if we talk, not as enemies, but as people with different perspectives. Once that happens, reproductive freedom loses its power and we can get to a better place on this subject.