Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

131 Views

On April 2nd, people in America celebrated Equal Pay Day. I didn’t, of course, because I was too busy working. Although Hallmark hasn’t figure out a way to capitalize on this event, it’s significant to Leftists because it helps them bring up the gender wage gap, a hot button issue over the past couple of decades. According to Leftist studies, women make 78% as much as men for doing the same work, hence the wage gap.

And hence Equal Pay Day.

And hence the reason I’m adding this to the Leftist Lexicon.

Equal Pay Day

What the Left thinks it means – a date symbolizing the amount of time women have to work into the current year to match what their male counterparts made in the previous year

What it really means – Kwanzaa, but with more gender politics and less economic theory

The idea of Equal Pay Day comes from the National Committee on Pay Equity, a conglomeration of women’s and civil rights groups, professional associations, labor unions, and such committed to ending gender and race-based pay discrimination. In other words, they’re Leftists, which means their grasp on economics is as tenuous as the plugs in Joe Biden’s hair during a CAT 5 hurricane. And they’re the ones who keep putting out reports showing how unfair the gender pay gap is towards women.

Of course, that’s assuming their numbers are accurate and account for all factors instead of cherry-picking the data that proves their point. Since I made the previous statement, you can assume the numbers aren’t right, and you’d be right. Mark Twain once said there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics, but the National Committee on Pay Equity use all three to advance their agenda.

Many economists, social scientists, and generally learned people have all but destroyed the idea of the wage gap, and they have done it far better than I ever could. However, I will give you an idea of why the gender pay gap, and Equal Pay Day in general, is bollox. Men and women are wired differently, so they make different choices. Whether to stay home and raise children or be a working mother. Whether to pursue a major in hard or soft science. Whether getting that degree in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing will be in demand once you get out of college. (That last one is easy to answer. There is no future in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing because they lack a sense of humor.)

These choices affect a woman’s future earning capability, which isn’t necessarily reflected in the rhetoric of the Equal Pay Day crowd. Additionally, there are cases where women are paid more than men for the same job. Just ask Google, who did their own internal study and found the gender pay gap was in favor of women instead of against them. Wait a second…isn’t Google known for being Left leaning? Why…yes! Yes it is! But I’m sure the cases of women being paid more than men are reflected in the Equal Pay Day calculations, right?

Not so much.

The problem with the gender pay gap is the statistics don’t hold up under closer examination, which puts the need for Equal Pay Day in jeopardy. In fact, once you take all the factors I mentioned (and several more I didn’t for the sake of brevity) into the equation, the gender pay gap evaporates to pennies on the dollar. In some fields, women make more than men when all of the factors are taken into account, but you don’t see men asking for an Equal Pay Day in those fields, and you won’t find any Equal Pay Day advocates pushing for it because it destroys the narrative.

It should also be pointed out the National Committee on Pay Equity also breaks down how much different minorities make as compared to whites. (Remember, they have civil rights groups as committee members.) And their methodology with these is just as bogus as their statistics about women’s pay.

Underneath the calls for equal pay for equal work, there is a base assumption: The White Man is keeping women down. So, in order to get back power and money, the Equal Pay Day folks have to take down The White Man. It’s fiscal revenge porn with a touch of blaxploitation films mixed in!

However, taking this path not only shows how racist and sexist these folks are, it underscores their lack of economic knowledge. I’ve mentioned this before, so please forgive the duplication. Leftists believe all of economics is a zero-sum game where if someone succeeds, it means that person is stealing from the less fortunate (in Leftists’ minds). However, that’s not the case most of the time. Our economy is elastic in nature, meaning it expands and contracts due to market forces and conditions. One person’s success doesn’t prevent someone else from being successful. In other words, the only zeroes in the economy are those who believe in the zero sum game.

Here’s one last tidbit for you to consider. It’s already illegal to pay people differently for the same work, and it was a law passed well before the National Committee on Pay Equity was even a thing. Of course, their response is that businesses find ways around the law to continue the practice. Well, if anyone from the National Committee on Pay Equity is reading this, let me ask a couple of simple questions.

Who is doing it, and why haven’t you brought them to justice?

It’s far easier to complain than it is to do something, and with Leftists, any problem can be turned into a money-maker. When the National Committee on Pay Equity gets around to filing suit against any of the companies they say make Equal Pay Day a necessity, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, to quote the great philosopher Tallahassee from “Zombieland”, it’s time to nut up or shut up.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

144 Views

America’s slave trade was one of the most disgusting and disturbing parts of our history, and we are still feeling the effects of that period today. In recent decades, blacks have been asking for/demanding reparations for slavery. For the most part, these conversations have been left at that without much political action.

That is, until recently.

A 2020 Democrat Presidential hopeful recently stated we need to create a government panel to discuss reparations and determine a course of action on how to resolve the issue at hand. Was it Kamala Harris or Corey Booker, both of whom have black roots? Nope! It was Ms. 1/1024th herself, Elizabeth Warren. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, folks…

Let’s take a look at the issue from a slightly different perspective.

reparations

What the Left thinks it means – money due to blacks for the maltreatment of their ancestors because of slavery

What it really means – punishing today’s whites by forcing them to pay today’s blacks for something that we no longer do in today’s America

The idea of reparations is easy enough to understand and support, but there is a lot more to the idea than just handing out checks, or in today’s culture, gift cards. The Left is counting on whites feeling guilty about slavery, even though most of those whites never had any connection to slavery whatsoever. And if I know Leftist guilt-shaming like I think I do, it works pretty well.

The key to this tactic is a desire not to be called a racist by Leftists. After all, if you’re branded a racist, people will start shunning you like Lindsey Lohan at an Amish barn raising. Or any place with a dress code, for that matter. Guilt can be a powerful motivator, but when misused, it can lead to people being taken advantage of regularly and continuously.

After slavery ended, the federal government promised former slaves 40 acres and a mule, but somehow I don’t think that’s going to be enough for today’s reparations advocates. If anything, it would open the door for more and greater demands, not because they’re black and I’m an evil racist doodie-head, but because it’s human nature. When somebody offers us a great deal with no real strings attached, we will take it and then ask for more. After all, if they’re willing to give us X with no problem, why not ask for the rest of the alphabet and see if they accept?

And if Leftists’ guilt-tripping is any indication, a lot of people will accept.

As simple as the idea sounds, it opens the door for many more questions than the pro-reparations crowd can answer. So, let me ask them.

– Considering whites were brought over as indentured servants, which were slightly above slaves in historical context, would whites be eligible for reparations?

– Millions of people came to America after we ended the slave trade. Would they be exempt from having to pay reparations? Would they be able to request reparations?

– The Chinese, Irish, Hispanics, and other cultures were poorly treated after slavery ended here. Shouldn’t they be allowed to get a share of the reparations money? If not, wouldn’t that be racist?

– Would families with family members who fought and died for the Union in the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression be exempt from having to pay towards reparations? What about those families who had ancestors who just fought for the Union?

– Would families whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy and no longer believe as they did be exempt?

– Can blacks who don’t want or need reparations opt out?

– Would people who make false claims about their heritage (i.e. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King) be eligible for reparations or would they have to pay?

– Who would determine if someone requesting reparations is eligible? By what means would that lineage be proven?

– At what point would you consider the debt to be paid in full? Would such a point require the mistreatment of whites and/or other races to achieve the end?

– Why now?

Those last couple of questions are the real deal-breakers for me when it comes to reparations because there are no clear answers to be given to them. It’s a great soundbite, but soundbites don’t create sound policy. Then again, we’re dealing with Leftists here. They think sound policy involve the iTunes terms of service.

In any case, the lack of details should be a huge red flag to people paying attention. Just like with Green New Scam…I mean Deal, the lack of details means the Left has an open sandbox in which to devise the means to an end, and that spells trouble for people like me who kinda get stuck on those little details they want you to overlook.

I’m sure there will be more questions to come, but I have one more for the reparations crowd to chew on: Who thought it was a good idea to let Elizabeth Warren be the one to start this conversation now? Call me old-fashioned, but a woman so white she makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton shouldn’t be the one leading the charge.

Especially when she has 1/1024th% chance of winning.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

98 Views

From the geniuses who gave us the Green New Deal comes a new proposal that is promised to save our democracy. (Even though we’re a constitutional republic and we don’t need it saved by people who can’t even get that basic fact right, but let’s move on.) The For the People Act of 2019 recently passed the House of Representatives and seeks to tackle a number of important election-related issues, like partisan gerrymandering, big and dark money in politics, expanding voters’ rights, and so on. On the surface, it sounds innocuous enough. I mean, the fact it’s for the people is literally in the name of the bill! How could something like that be bad?

Yep. That’s right, kids. I’m going to be the Leftist Buzzkill yet again with some analysis, a few jokes peppered in, and some thought experiments along the way. So, buckle up, Buttercup. This roller coaster car is on its way!

For the People Act of 2019

What the Left thinks it means – a vital bill that addresses many of the issues people have had with voting over the past several years

What it really means – a laundry list of Leftist squawking points as to why they keep losing elections and how they can ensure never to lose elections ever again

I won’t get too far into the weeds by going over the entire bill, but there are a few highlights that Leftists think are winning points.

– expanding voting rights to allow felons to vote
– requiring Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates to provide their previous decade’s worth of tax returns (Gee, I wonder why this provision is in here…)
– creating a national voter registration program
– creating non-partisan commissions to handle redistricting, thus taking it out of the hands of the states
– making Election Day a national holiday to encourage more voter participation
– eliminating dark money from elections
– supporting a Constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United ruling by the US Supreme Court
– every day is Christmas, and every night is New Year’s Eve

Okay, so I made up that last one (with a little help from Sade), but you get the point. Although the ideas sound good, there is an alternate agenda at work here. Instead of making elections better for America, these ideas make elections better for Leftists.

Take the Citizens United piece of the bill, for example. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, dark money was flowing into Democrat coffers through various means, including labor unions, and Republicans didn’t have an answer (mainly because they were following the laws on the books). Citizens United leveled the playing field, so the Right’s counterparts to labor unions could act in the same way labor unions did for decades. Supporting a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United would return the playing field back to when Leftists had the upper hand. Not to mention, it might not even be Constitutional. Usually, if you want to unravel a Supreme Court decision, it requires…a Supreme Court decision. (See Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education for just such an example.) But, hey, if the Left wants to try to have Congress usurp the power of the judicial branch, I say go for it. Just be prepared to lose heavily in the branch you wish to usurp.

And it’s not just the Citizens United part that helps the Left. From what I’ve seen, each and every portion of the For the People Act can be used to make our elections as fair and honest as the elections in the former Soviet Union, where the only candidates allowed to run were from the same party. Expanding voter rights to felons would give Leftists access to people who may already be dispositioned to vote for Democrats and Leftists (considering the latter is particularly anti-police). A national voter registration push would create an environment where voter registration fraud could thrive. Of course, that never happens, especially not with…say…a Leftist organization busted several times for falsifying voter registrations in several states. ACORN’t imagine that happening again…

Even the concept of a non-partisan council to draw Congressional districts has the potential for abuse.

The question this raises is why the Left is so concerned with our elections now. Two words: juggling monkeys. Actually, the two words are Donald Trump. He wasn’t supposed to win. Hillary Clinton and the Left had greased the skids so she could ascend to her final destination as President. However, they overlooked one pretty big thing: she sucked as a candidate. And since Leftists take defeat as well as a spoiled brat not getting the toy he or she wanted, they had to blame something and/or someone. And since collusion with Russia is turning out to be a Morgana the Kissing Bandit sized bust, they are blaming the American election system.

Which, by the way, includes those of us who vote. Way to piss off potential voters, Leftists.

Since they couldn’t win the White House through underhanded chicanery, the Left is going to try to do it through overt chicanery. Which is why I don’t give the For the People Act much credibility. It’s too convenient for Congressional Democrats to find so many problems with the American election system that need to be addressed immediately. But keep in mind, the same people pushing for this bill to become a law weren’t worried about the process when they won.

Here’s the thing, kids. The American election system still works for the most part, but it has been undermined repeatedly for decades, mostly by the politicians who support the For the People Act. These same people won’t even consider voter ID and curtailing the use of mail-in ballots, but will bend over backwards to ensure more people get registered, even if they shouldn’t legally vote in the first place. And they’re also the ones who deny voting fraud is occurring, even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

Until the Left shows they are serious about addressing the real issues surrounding our elections, we should take their suggestions with a salt lick of salt. Given the fact they think the For the People Act of 2019 is a serious solution, I’m not holding my breath.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

99 Views

In the aftermath of the Jussie Smollett fraud…I mean hoax…I mean story, there has been a renewed focus on hate crimes, especially by those who said Smollett was the victim of one. One of the more prominent voices during the time Smollett was believed was actor Ellen Page, who is a lesbian. During an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” she blamed Vice-President Mike Pence for the attack because…fee-fees. After the hate crime was exposed as a hoax, Page penned a piece for The Hollywood Reporter trying to gloss over her assumptions and continue the narrative that hate crimes are more frequent than the f-bomb in rap lyrics.

Page introduced me to a phrase I hadn’t heard before: hate violence. Although she kinda sorta maybe says Smollett was dishonest, the fact it started a conversation about hate violence towards minorities was important. Sounds more like setting a building on fire to raise awareness about arson to me, but I’m a different breed of cat.

With that being said, let’s delve into the latest entry to the Leftist Lexicon

hate violence

What the Left thinks it means – violence driven by hatred of minorities

What it really means – another meaningless term invented by Leftists

Being a word guy, the term “hate violence” is unusual, if not outright bizarre. Regular violence can be bad enough, but to add a qualifier to it means it’s worse? What about indifferent violence? Is that a thing? How about melancholy violence or happy violence or verklempt violence? Though, to be fair, I’ve always wanted to name a band Happy Violence…

If you’ve noticed a similar pattern forming with the use of “hate” before a particularly negative element, that’s by design. Leftists love to play with language to trigger certain emotions. If they want to portray something positively, it’s couched in terms like “pro” as in “pro choice” or by using variations of the word “positive” as in “body positivity” or “sex positive.” If they want to make something sound horrible, the descriptors are negative, like calling pro-lifers “anti-choice” or Republicans “anti-science.” By framing issues and people like that, Leftists manipulate our perceptions to suit their ends. Really, who would want to be against something so useful like science, right?

Once you strip away the emotional element, what you have are words that really don’t belong together in a phrase. Like “uproarious vasectomy.” (By the way, Uproarious Vasectomy is another band name I’ve been considering.) It leads to too many questions that we really can’t answer. What makes hate violence worse than general violence? And how do we know it’s one instead of the other. Could an act of violence be mistaken for hate violence under certain circumstances? And, here’s the big one: can white people, specifically white men, be the victims of hate violence?

Ahhhhh…now we’re getting to the juicy part! Invariably, the Leftist ideas come down to race and gender because they’ve cornered the market on appealing to people on those bases. Although I’ll admit I don’t know for certain, I get the feeling white men aren’t going to be allowed to be victims of hate violence anytime soon unless they happen to be gay. Straight white men like your humble correspondent are always the perpetrators and never the victims in the Left’s eyes. In fact, straight white men have been blamed for everything from war to starvation to the designated hitter rule, so there is no way we can be the target of hate violence.

Except when we are.

Ask anybody wearing a red MAGA hat how much they’ve been targeted for harassment and violence. Or just watch footage of Antifa rioting against police officers and others. Look for the video of the masked Antifa bozo who hit a white man with a bike lock. Wasn’t it Maxine Waters who said people need to get in the faces of people wearing MAGA hats and tell them they’re not welcome? And, last time I checked, that sort of behavior can lead to violence. But, please, let us non-Leftists how white men aren’t victims.

And while we’re here, is it just me, or does the fact the Left can’t see white men as potential victims of hate violence to be unfair treatment under the law? That’s the way hate crime laws have worked for a while now. Accuse someone of a hate crime and the penalties get more severe, as do the consequences of the accusations themselves even if there was no hate crime committed. Even if the accused is innocent of hate crimes, his or her reputation takes a hit because there will always be people who will believe the hype instead of the truth.

Like…oh, I don’t know…Vice President Pence?

Crime is bad enough as it is, but to add more punishment on the basis of hate doesn’t make the situation any better. If anything, the guilty wear it like a badge of honor for their peers to admire. The same goes with violence. Why cloud the issue further by tacking hate in front of it? The violence itself is a crime, but like it or not hate isn’t yet. Deal with the actual violence and punish it accordingly.

And while we’re here, Ms. Page, I believe you owe Vice President Pence an apology for blaming him for violence he didn’t inspire because it never happened. Wouldn’t want you to be seen as hateful, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

55 Views

When former Trump attorney and insider Michael Cohen appeared before the House Oversight Committee, people just knew sparks would fly. And fly they did, although not in some expected ways. One controversy that came from the circus…I mean hearing involved Lynne Patton, an official from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a friend of Cohen’s who appeared at the clown show…I mean hearing. Patton, who just happens to be black, caught the attention of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and used Patton’s appearance to accuse Congressman Mark Meadows of being racist by using Patton as a “prop.” This accusation has evolved into Patton being called a “token” by Leftists.

“Token” is a racially-charged adjective, to put it mildly, because of the implications around it. Yet, it seems to only be used in one direction. To better understand the controversy (and to complete my weekly obligation to you), let’s delve deeper into this word

token

What the Left thinks it means – a minority who is dragged out by the Right to distract people from their racism, a minority denied agency by the Right

What it really means – a minority who doesn’t subscribe to Leftist ideology

And you thought it was just a character from South Park!

The Left is obsessed with identity politics, or as I call it bean-counting for votes. By targeting certain groups of people, the Left can energize those people into potential voters, which in turn translates into money and power for the Left. These tactics usually work, too, as the election for Congresswoman Tlaib suggests. It usually works to keep people within these minorities allied with the Left.

The operative word, however, is “usually.” Sometimes, members of a minority group (or perceived minority group as is the case with women) will deviate from the Left’s agenda and find their own way. Once you break away from the Leftist hivemind, you become an “other” to the Left, and all the surface courtesy you get while dancing to the Left’s tune gets replaced by a deep scorn that rivals that of the closest betrayed lovers.

That’s where using “token” comes into play. By suggesting those minorities who break away from the Left are only being used by the Right and are too dumb to see it, the Left not only reinforces its message that they care about minorities, but also shows what will happen to them if they don’t follow along. After all, a little negative reinforcement never hurt anybody, right? Not so much, as we’ll see in a moment.

The funny thing is the Left doesn’t give minorities agency in the first place. If anything, it’s white Leftists who are the ones who take up “the struggle” on behalf of minorities, even when said minorities don’t want them involved. Take Black Lives Matter, for example. Once white Leftists got it off the ground and helped it to gain prominence, BLM decided they no longer needed or wanted white assistance, or at the very least they wanted whites to get behind the black leaders. (Ms. Parks, Ms. Rosa Parks, call for you on the Black Irony Phone.) As Leftist movements gain momentum, the members tend to purge their roles of white supporters, thus discovering their own agency in a way. The thing is they already had all the agency they needed to speak up without white support or assistance. They’ve always had it; they were just convinced by white Leftists to not use it.

On the other hand, any minority who uses their agency to speak out against what the Left is doing isn’t even considered to be human, let alone a “real” member of that minority.

And it’s the Right who are the racists?

The fact the Left resorts to calling blacks “tokens” when confronted with the inconvenient fact that they have the ability to speak without using a white Leftist mouthpiece speaks volumes as to how backwards the Left is on race relations. They will give Black Lives Matter a platform while denying people like Patton even exist. That’s where I differ with the Left. (Well, that, and I like to bathe more than once a Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign.) I want both Black Lives Matter and Ms. Patton to speak their minds, even if I don’t agree, because I respect their rights to speak. I want them to speak, if for no other reason than it potentially gives me more material for blog posts, but ultimately it’s because I don’t have the power nor the authority to deny them the agency they already have.

As far as Ms. Patton is concerned, she is no more a token than I am eligible to be Pope. She is a human being with thoughts, feelings, and opinions, just like me. That to me makes her as much of a human being worth even basic respect as anyone. She was motivated to be at the Cohen hearing for reasons I will not begin to try to articulate, but the fact she was there presumably of her own free will (at least, that’s what she’s said after the Leftist smear job against her) means she is neither a token, nor a pawn. She is an American exercising her freedom of association, not some “other” who should be derided for no legitimate reason.

And that’s exactly what calling her a token is: deriding her for no legitimate reason.

But tell me again how you Leftists are more open to diversity…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

75 Views

If you look around hard enough, eventually you will find someone who is a victim of some horrible situation or malady. Cancer, racism, AIDS, and so on. And then there are people who will claim to be a victim of something they claim is a horrible situation or malady. Being misgendered, the Patriarchy, eating meat, and so on. And guess who is getting the lion’s share of attention in today’s society? That’s right, it’s the Kardashians. But a close second is the people who claim to be victims.

Last century, we had young men and women fighting wars, living through an economic depression, and fighting against diseases that are now all but obsolete. Today, young men and women have it pretty easy, but they still find ways to make it seem more complicated than a Starbucks menu written in Pig Latin. And those numbers keep growing.

What is it about being a victim that makes so many people want to identify as one? Let’s take a closer look into the Leftist Lexicon and try to puzzle it out together. And remember, do not try this at home. I am a trained professional. Granted, it’s in an entirely different field, but I’m a trained professional nonetheless.

victimhood

What the Left thinks it means – the status of someone who has endured personal trauma as a result of a hardship

What it really means – the actual status of someone who has actually endured actual personal trauma as a result of actual hardship

That’s a lot of “actual” derivations there, kids. I did it to underscore an important idea: a lot of what passes for victimhood today is bullshit. Even the concept of wanting to be a victim defies logic. So, why are so many people lining up to be a pretend victim? Are they giving away free iPhones or something to the one billionth victim?

It’s not quite that simple. I’ll try to keep this next part short and not so techy to make sure you don’t fall asleep on me here.

The ego is essential to our mental health and our lives in general. It reflects how we see and feel about ourselves, how confident we are to the rest of the world, whether we convey competence on a particular subject or profession, and so on. A healthy ego is kept in check through recognizing those areas where we aren’t the best. An unhealthy ego has no such failsafes and can lead to physical, emotional, and psychological harm when faced with the possibility of failure.

Now what does this have to do with victimhood in its current state? Sympathy. When we are the victim of a tragic event, there is an outpouring of emotion and attention directed at us, which feeds our egos. It also provides a level of protection against criticism if we happen to screw up during that time. Say you just lost your beloved three toed sloth, Zippy. And let’s say you decide to knock over a 7-11 in…oh, I don’t know…Fort Knox. Not only do you have a built-in excuse (the grief over Zippy’s death made you temporarily insane), but there will be people who will come to your aid and defend you. They will even argue for a lighter sentence due to the circumstances.

Granted, most people today wouldn’t try to knock over any 7-11, but the principle is the same. If you can convince people you are a victim of anything, you will get an ego boost and have expectations lowered for you so you can’t lose. Good thing we don’t have a generation full of young people with unhealthy egoooooh, wait, we do. Millennials. And before you start the #NotAllMillennials hashtag, let me point out it’s your peers saying they’re egotistical. Survey after survey shows millennials have big egos, so it’s not just the crochety old blogger saying it. Even if you don’t believe the surveys, think about it for a moment. How many hours do millennials spend…taking selfies?

Congratulations. You’re egotistical.

And more than a little delusional, to be blunt. When you have an unhealthy ego, as many millennials do, you’re more susceptible to self-delusion because you either never get challenged on what you say or do or you wave off any advise as misguided, the result of jealousy and/or hatred, or just plain wrong. Then, when you find out you’re not as totally-super-awesome as you think you are, you crash and burn like the Hindenburg. So, how do you avoid ever having to deal with anything negative in your life? Blame everybody else for your baggage! Perpetual victimhood has become the new American pastime, replacing baseball, frivolous lawsuits, and plastic surgery. And it’s getting easier and more popular.

But here’s the thing that should keep you up at night. What happens to the people who really are victims who need help? Spoiler Alert: it makes people less likely to help them because they will be seen as scammers or attention whores. And all so you can feel special.

Kinda make you look like an ass, doesn’t it?

Fortunately for you, I can’t lay the blame for your pretend victimhood solely at your feet. Your parents/guardians/caretakers set you up to fail by protecting you from criticism, loss, want, and any number of other negative experiences that you need to survive in today’s world. Sure, you may have gotten a trophy at the end of the year, but was it because you earned it or because the adults in your life didn’t want you to feel bad? If it’s the former, you have something to be proud of, but not hang your fedora on later in life. If it’s the latter, you are a victim of bad parenting, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to continue to be a victim and milk it for all it’s worth.

That’s right, kids. You have to grow up and be an adult.

And you’ll suck at it at first. Everybody does. But you’ll figure it out through trial and error and learn how strong and capable you really are. Once you find that out, you’ll never want to be a victim ever again under any circumstances.

If you still want to be a victim afterwards, go nuts. Just be prepared to be mocked mercilessly by those who think you’re overreacting to minor stuff. You know, like me.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

38 Views

In a world of information, we seem to have access to all sorts of facts. Or at least, information we’re told are facts. Global climate change is a fact, according to some. The reporting on MAGA hat wearing teenagers in Washington, DC, was factual…kinda. Even CNN, the self-professed leader in cable news, tells us they’re committed to facts, even when they get facts horribly wrong. Many times, they’re too busy confusing their apples with bananas.

For centuries, philosophers have tried to determine what truth is, and Man has continued to question it in today’s landscape of 24 news programs, reporters as Leftist stenographers, and Internet and real life hoaxes becoming major stories. Do we even know what facts are anymore?

No, but at least there’s a topic for a Leftist Lexicon!

facts

What the Left thinks it means – information that supports the truth

What it really means – information that the Left thinks supports their truth, but doesn’t always

When it comes to facts, the Left isn’t always on speaking terms with them. Sure, they say they’re the “Party of Science” and “truth has a liberal bias,” but when science and truth clash with their ideology, more often than not they either pretend it doesn’t exist or find ways to talk around it.

Take abortion, for example. The Left denies a fetus is a human being, even though medical science confirms it. Instead, the Left calls the fetus a “clump of cells.” The funny thing is that description applies to pretty much every human being on the planet. And if the fetus isn’t human, what is it? A dog? A 1971 Dodge Charger in pristine condition? (Actually, if it were a 71 Charger, I’d be ecstatic.) In spite of the science, the Left wants to treat the fetus differently than, say, an endangered animal. Remember, some of these same Leftists who treat fetuses as clumps of cells got their collectivist panties in a wad over Donald Trump’s sons killing animals on safari.

Anybody want to try to square that circle?

The bedrock principle of a fact is that it’s based on what is, not what we want it to be. No matter how many flat earthers say the planet is as flat as a crepe sat on by Rosie O’Donnell, the planet is still roundish. A problem arises when dealing with humans, though. See, humans are about as logical as letting Ted Kennedy be the designated driver. (Because, well, he’s dead.) We bring our own baggage, blind spots, and ideological bents to any observable event, and that can make facts a little murkier than they should be.

I mentioned the Covington Catholic school kids in passing earlier, and this single event became the epicenter of a battle for truth. Even with a full video showing what happened, people took sides on what the facts of the case were to the point of inventing new narratives not based on the facts in play. Without even saying a word, one of the students was branded a racist, merely for wearing a red MAGA hat, which the Left says other racists have worn in support of Trump (who also happens to be a racist to the Left because he makes overt racism okay again, or something). Not only that, but a case of mistaken identity lead to death threats against the family of a student who wasn’t even there. Slight bit of an oops there, kids.

But these types of things are to be expected when we let emotions dictate what the facts are. Unfortunately, we’re in an age where emotions and perceptions create the factual baseline for our opinions, where “hot takes” that prove to be wrong are commonplace, and we emote first and ask questions never. It’s almost as if we feel we have to rush to tweet something without checking it out first because we get a thrill out of it or it gives us attention, which feeds our egos. Meanwhile, facts seem to be getting mugged in dark alleyways while pseudo-facts have become the gospel of the land.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The first key to dealing in facts is to patiently gather information from multiple sources. Over time, you’ll figure out which sources can be trusted and which are the factual equivalent of junk food. Looking right at you, BuzzFeed. By the way, Gawker called and they don’t want their business model back, so it’s yours to keep…at least until you get sued into oblivion.

Once you have determined what sources to trust, keep checking them. Just because you trust them doesn’t make them infallible. And check everything you see, read, and hear against a little thing the kids call Occam’s Razor. Simply put, Occam’s Razor states the simplest answer is usually the right one. Throw in a bit of Sherlock Holmes-style deduction (which is pretty much Occam’s Razor with a twist of acknowledging the possibility of an improbable answer being correct), and you have your network of facts.

And on a side note, don’t trust any fact checking websites without visiting them. Most of them are partisan garbage and will insult your intelligence. If they have to tell you they’re fact checkers, they’re peddling themselves, not the truth. (Insert obligatory Bill Clinton/Anthony Weiner/Pee Wee Herman joke here.)

The most important thing to remember when fact checking on your own is to be patient. Very rarely will the truth appear to you with flashing neon lights with arrows pointing towards it. That’s only happened to me once or twice in my life and I think it was the NyQuil more than anything else that made it happen. Anyway, don’t jump on a bandwagon of information because someone else is doing it. The truth takes time to uncover, and a delayed factual response is better than a quick flawed one.

Just ask Gawker. Oh, wait…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

40 Views

Within the past week, a new war has flared up. No, not in a foreign country against an evil dictator, but in this country against…billionaires.

Although the Left has always had misgivings about the rich (except, of course, towards those who donate heavily to Leftist causes), with the advent of Bernie Sanders and our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, they’re getting more free with their disdain for people who make lots of money. They’re even trying to spin it into a moral argument, stating it’s an immoral system that allows people to make billions of dollars without sharing because sharing is caring, y’all.

This seems like as good a time as any to delve into the Leftist Lexicon and figure out what we can about billionaires.

billionaire

What the Left thinks it means – someone who makes money and hoards it so others can’t have it, greedy people who exploit workers to make money

What it really means – someone who makes more money than the Left thinks he or she should

That’s right, kids. The Left’s entire argument against the wealthy is based on perception, and more than a little economic illiteracy, which we’ll get into later. The problem with basing an argument on perception is that it may not be reality. (I know this runs counter to customer service training, but hear me out.) Without understanding context or seeking out the facts behind a situation, our perceptions are skewed, and far too often we let out preconceived notions fill in the blanks as a short cut.

Take the Trayvon Martin shooting, for example. There are more than a few stories out there about what happened, and most if not all of them are based on perception. Only two people know for sure what happened, and one is dead and the other is a lying scumbag. Everyone else’s hot takes, including mine, are speculation at best. And when there’s speculation, there is bound to be error.

When it comes to billionaires, the Left has a glaring error in that they assume the only way the wealthy get wealthy is through dishonest means or government loopholes. In fact, an argument I’ve seen more than once lately with regards to billionaires in general is “they didn’t earn all that money.” Again, this is speculation. In some cases, the wealth comes from hard work paying off. In other cases, money getting reinvested and creating more wealth (and, surprise surprise, jobs). In still other cases, people are born into wealth and stay there unless they make incredibly bad decision.

Like, say, voting for Leftists.

In any case, at some point down the line, someone worked for that money the Left covets so much. Now, if the billionaire in question made money through fraud or questionable means (like, say, oh I don’t know…Uncle George Soros?), then the Left has a point. But to paint all billionaires as thieves and grifters isn’t right. Of course, if you Leftists have proof of such, I’m willing to hear it, but I get the feeling your charges are more wind than anything.

The reason the Left is so quick to attack billionaires relies on an economic fallacy called zero-sum. Basically, zero-sum alleges there is a finite amount of money in an economy, so whenever someone has more of it, it’s at the expense of someone else. Let’s use the ever-ubiquitous example of pie. In a zero-sum mindset, there is one pie and only one pie, so whomever has the largest piece is stealing from those who don’t have any pie yet. The problem with this is an economy is not a single pie. It is a number of pies in all different sizes and flavors. All you have to do is look for the table they’re on, say “Hey, there are some more pies over here,” and chow down to your heart’s content. And because of capitalism, as long as there is a demand for pie and the ability to make it, there will be pie.

But the prospect of a potentially infinite number of pies doesn’t stoke enough class envy to suit the Left, so they pretend zero-sum is the only way to go. Ah, I think we’ve hit upon the real reason the Left hates the wealthy: they can’t keep up with the Joneses. Leftist economic theory sounds good to the ear and looks good on paper where you can manipulate the outcomes, but in practice it creates an environment where success is frowned upon and making everyone equally miserable seems to be Utopia. Sounds like paradise, amiright? Where do I sign up?

Actually, I don’t want to sign up because Leftist economics is a bad solution in search of enough suckers to believe it’s a good solution to what amounts to a non-problem. Bill Gates makes more than I do? Good for him! I don’t agree with him politically, but I will never begrudge his success and wealth as a result of it. His operating system, on the other hand…let’s just say Sybil is more stable than the Windows OS, but that’s neither here nor there. We have three choices when it comes to wealthy people: be jealous of them, be inspired by them, or ignore them and choose our own path. The Left thinks option 1 is the only option because they need victims to sustain their ideology. If you choose door number 2 or number 3, you can’t be a victim, so you’re of no use to them.

As far as the morality of being a billionaire is concerned, the only morality in play is how that person made his or her fortune. Ill-gotten gains are certainly nothing to be celebrated, nor are gains made from dumb luck or a lack of talent. Wealth earned through sweat and innovation, on the other hand, should be celebrated, not demonized. That’s one reason I admire Elon Musk. He’s making money the old fashioned way: by looking into our future. (Wait…but that’s…nevermind.)

So, if you’re a Leftist billionaire, be careful who you root for because the next one they attack may be you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

38 Views

The American Psychological Association recently issued direction on how to conduct their practice with regards to males. Normally, this would be as exciting as an Al Gore burlesque show, but a line in their report caught my eye. The APA stated “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage.” To be fair, I agree with the latter part of their statement, but the whole “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful” bit reminds me of a current Leftist buzz-phrase that often is used interchangeably with “traditional masculinity”: toxic masculinity.

Whether it’s catcalling in the streets or eating meat, Leftists (and especially third wave feminists) have decided being a guy is harmful, and with the APA’s guidelines, they have some scientific heft instead of their usual “men are icky” justifications. How did we get to the point that anyone more masculine than Pee Wee Herman was dangerous to society as a whole? That’s a long and strange story…

toxic masculinity

What the Left thinks it means – the state where men dominate everything and infect society with outdated and cruel notions designed to keep women down

What it really means – men acting like men

In the late 60s and throughout the 70s, women started to come into their own as people. Society started seeing them as smart, capable, and just as competent as men, and thanks in part to first wave feminism, men changed their perspective and some of them…tried to become more like women. This worked for a while until men realized they were missing something (rhymes with “halls”) and started looking for ways to reconnect with their masculinity. Before you know it, men started acting, dressing, and looking like men again, which didn’t sit well with those who wanted us to believe acting, dressing, and looking like men was bad. To combat this, they created a new concept: masculinity wasn’t just bad, it was deadly!

If you’re reaching for the brown Challenge Bullshit flag, you’re not alone. Men have acted far less civilized than we do today for millennia and we survived, mainly because men…acted like men. They didn’t have GrubHub or Starbucks back in the early days of Mankind, so it fell to the men most of the time to find food and shelter while protecting their clans against others who meant to do them harm. In other words, masculinity in its more primitive form proved to be good for society because, without it, there wouldn’t be much of a society.

“But, surely you can’t think today’s society is as primitive as that of our ancestors,” the Leftists who think toxic masculinity is a thing might retort. Of course not. Society today is quite different, but that doesn’t negate the need for a masculine perspective in it. And as society evolved, so has masculinity. Today’s men range from guys who make Ron Swanson look like Pajama Boy to guys who make Pajama Boy look like Ron Swanson. Is it fair to say all of these variations on a masculine theme are toxic?

Seems the feminists don’t have an answer for that, but they do have a response based around the concept of whether men are “allies” to feminist causes. In other words, if feminists can use these men for their own purposes, as tools or just hunks of meat. You know, how they objected to being treated in the 60s and 70s?

Pro Tip for you male feminists out there: you’re not going to get any, no matter what you say or do, because third wave feminists hate men. They may not come out and say it, but they do. As long as they can lead you around by the nose, they will, and you will ultimately get nothing out of it.

Here’s the funny part. A recent survey showed women find manly men more attractive than the Pajama Boy types. That’s going to sting a bit for the “toxic masculinity” crowd because it shows something their ideology can’t overcome: genetics. Locked within the male and female DNA are instincts that may be suppressed, but never completely, that make both sexes want to act a certain way. It’s primal, but it’s part of us. Yet, feminists and Leftists only want to focus on the negative aspects of the primal male because it furthers the “toxic masculinity” narrative. Here’s a radical idea. Maybe if most women don’t find masculinity toxic…it may not be toxic at all. Unless you assume women who don’t agree with you aren’t capable of making their own decisions, which would make you…sexist.

Really, that’s what third wave feminism is. Sexism disguised as an equality movement. And the concept of toxic masculinity is equally as deceptive. Sure, men do suck sometimes…okay, a lot of the time, but even so we have redeeming qualities that more than make up for the crappy things members of our gender do. To ignore the good men do in an attempt to make them appear to be monsters is the truly toxic part, but it has nothing to do with masculinity. It has everything to do with Leftists and feminists wanting to make it bad to be a man.

Screw the APA’s analysis of masculinity. It’s okay to be a man, and you shouldn’t feel ashamed of being one. Just be the best one you can. Whether you’re a lumberjack type who spends hours carving a piece of wood into a perfect toothpick or a guy wearing skinny jeans who can’t get through the day without a soy milk chai tea latte, take pride in your manliness.

Of course if you’re that last guy, we might need to have a talk. And by talk, I mean intervention.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

42 Views

Can you believe it’s been a year since the first Women’s March? I can’t! Why, it seemed like it was only yesterday when women wore knitted pink hats representing a part of the female anatomy and took part in a march partially organized by a known anti-Semite and attended by a former pop star who thought it was a good idea to publicly admit she wanted to blow up the White House. Ah, memories.

A year later and the Women’s March is experiencing a little trouble. Attendance is projected to be down because of lack of interest and complaints by women of color that there are, get this, too many white women involved. This march went from excluding pro-life women from marching with them because they were pro-life to excluding people based on race? And we haven’t even gotten to the anti-Semitic statements made by two of the prominent leaders of the march yet!

Let’s take another look at the Women’s March and see if we can puzzle out where they went wrong.

Women’s March

What the Left thinks it means – a march for women to be heard and respected for taking a stance against the Trump Administration and sexism everywhere

What it really means – a group trying to be all things to a few people

Feminists have a concept called intersectionality that permeates their ideology. Basically, intersectionality posits oppression overlaps. A woman of color might experience sexism and racism simultaneously while a white lesbian might experience sexism and homophobia while a black lesbian lumberjack might experience sexism, racism, and homophobia. On the plus side, she’s a lumberjack and she’s okay. The intersectionality creates a Venn Diagram of oppression in theory, but in practice it creates a hierarchy of oppression. White women can’t be as oppressed as the aforementioned lumberjack, so the latter’s oppression is taken more seriously.

And remember, kids, we’re not dealing with actual oppression in most cases. It’s perceived oppression. I’m not saying women aren’t the victims of oppression because they are. Most of the time, though, it’s not here. Think the women in countries run by radical Muslims give two craps about the wage gap? Nope! They’re too busy living in fear for their lives. Their intersectionality oppression Venn Diagram is a freaking CIRCLE.

And who do we have leading the charge in the Women’s March? One woman, Linda Sarsour, wants us to believe Islam is progressive when it comes to women, even after she wanted women who disagree with her to undergo female genital mutilation. (Pro Tip for you, Linda. Forced FGM isn’t politically or socially progressive.) Then, there’s Tamika Mallory, who not only has said some anti-Semitic things, but also is a fan of and met with Louis Farrakhan. Hmmm…I’m sensing a pattern here…Nah. Nobody with any sense would lead a national organization and have clear and provable ties to a raging anti-Semite like Farrakhan.

Wait. These are two of the organizers of the Women’s March we’re dealing with here. Nevermind!

With this year’s edition of the Women’s March including racism, anti-Semitism, lack of participation in some cities, and a general lack of leadership, we could be seeing the end of the Women’s March as a social construct. That is, assuming it actually was a social construct in the first place. It’s not, of course. The same issues the Women’s March claim to want addressed existed before Donald Trump was elected President (except for the wage gap, which is bullcrap to begin with), but it only became a thing after Trump was elected. Why, it’s almost as if…these women didn’t care about these issues until a Republican became President!

Ah, we’ve hit upon the real motivation behind the Women’s March. It’s not about women’s issues; it’s about women’s votes, especially if those votes swing Left. Looking at the list of sponsors for the Women’s March, down to a one you find Leftists. Even if women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, to wrap yourselves in the cloak of speaking up for women while only listening to one side of the ideological argument is dishonest. Believe it or not, there are conservative women who care about women’s issues, too. But since that doesn’t align with your ideological bent, these women get ignored. Now, white women may be getting the boot, too. What’s next? Only bisexual albino midgets with limps can march? Keep this up and the Women’s March will be a Woman’s March and it will be less crowded than an elevator after someone farts up a triple bean burrito from Chipotle. Or any dish from Chipotle, for that matter.

If you’re a supporter of the Women’s March reading this, do some serious soul-searching and determine if the movement is what you were lead to believe it was. If you still agree with the movement, then be part of it. If you don’t, you don’t need them as much as they need you. Numbers give the Women’s March the perception of power and majority. If enough of you tell the leadership to shove it where the sun don’t shine, maybe they’ll get the hint. Then, either start your own movement or work individually on the issues you find important. Activism only works through honesty and transparency, and the only thing transparent about the Women’s March is the lies needed to keep it going.

Besides, who wants to be associated with Louis Farrakhan?