Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

140 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?

I’d Like an Apology…

157 Views

Leftists, we need to have a talk, and I think you know why.

When Jussie Smollett came out and said he was attacked by two white men in red Make America Great Again hats, you believed him. You went to Twitter to call it a hate crime, racist, homophobic, and what not. Now that his story has fallen apart like a leper in a tug of war, your words are coming back to bite you.

So far, few of you have come clean. Some have taken the coward’s way out and deleted the tweets in the hopes no one remembers what you said with such conviction. (Spoiler Alert: The Internet never forgets.) Some have acknowledged the situation, but then tried to excuse it by adding additional context designed to lessen the impact. Few of you have even stood firm with your sentiments, ignoring the additional information or the calls for you to reconsider your position.

Few, if any, of you have apologized to the people you turned into victims because of what you said: Donald Trump supporters.

Now, you may not think of Trump supporters as victims in this case, but your rush to judgment and your desire to make Smollett’s story truth turned them into villains based on a lie, a lie you have helped to perpetuate. Remember when Alyssa Milano said MAGA hats were “the new white hoods”? How many times have you said Trump supporters were racist and homophobic without looking deeper into the matter? How many lives have you endangered with your inflammatory rhetoric, the same type of rhetoric you chastise President Donald Trump for using?

Regardless of whether you mea culpa or memory hole what you said, one thing is crystal clear to me: you owe Trump supporters an apology. Regardless of how you feel about them, you allowed yourselves to be lied to because you wanted to believe the lie was the truth. After all, it confirmed what you already believed, so it had to be true, right? Wrong. You have succumb to a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias, and it blinded you to all the red flags around the Smollett story. But that’s not the worst of it.

The worst of it is you have let that bias cloud your judgment and prevent you from seeing that those with different opinions than you aren’t monsters. The vast majority of Trump supporters would never consider attacking anyone else unless they were attacked first. They aren’t all racist, sexist, homophobic monsters, and to treat them all as such is wrong. I’m going to engage in a bit of whataboutism here, but I do it to make a point. Would you like to be branded as dishonest because of Smollett’s actions? I sincerely doubt it, but that’s exactly what you did to Trump supporters here.

And it’s not something that can be forgotten or glossed over.

So, I’m asking you to apologize to Trump supporters for calling them racist and homophobic and for not taking the time to find out the facts before coming out with a statement. No backhanded apologies or attempts to reframe the situation to make Smollett look sympathetic instead of just pathetic. Own what you said and did, and apologize.

Of course, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. You’ve shown me what kind of people you are, but surprise me for once.

Implausible Deniability

153 Views

This past Sunday, Liz Plank of Vox (America’s #1 online fake news source) was on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” (America’s #1 cable fake news source) discussing the latest developments in the Jussie Smollett case. If you haven’t heard or were smart enough not to pay attention, Smollett is now being suspected of fabricating the alleged hate crime he said happened, using two of his “Empire” co-stars as fall guys. Defending her fellow journalists, Plank said she felt the accusations of the “crime” being committed by two guys wearing MAGA hats was the result of celebrity Tweets and not true journalists.

With all the introspection of a, well, Vox employee, Plank didn’t bother to look at what other media outlets, including CNN, had said about the alleged hate crime. Had she done so, she might have noticed the screamingly obvious: the media ran with the hate crime narrative without checking the facts because the story fit their preconceived biases. And now they’re pretending they had no part in pushing a narrative that fix these biases by saying “We were just reporting the facts.”

Wrong.

The “we were just reporting the facts” is a variation of the “we’re objective journalists” line the media use to shield themselves from criticism when they fail to act like they claim they do. The problem is they don’t always act like they say they do. Most of the time, they’re Leftist stenographers who rarely, if ever, give credence to any other point of view. Take their more recent attempts to discuss global climate change. Leftists have pressured media providers into denying the so-called “climate deniers” on shows to debate the issue and the science behind global climate change. I’m not sure how much pressure they needed to put on their media cohorts, but the point remains. Those in charge of the media are controlling what you see, hear, and believe, either through overt promotion of an ideology or covert censorship of any opposing views.

And when the media make a mistake, they either don’t apologize, post an apology on Twitter well after their initial report, change the subject, or stick any corrections so far back you’re lucky to find them. In this case, Leftist Twitter has done its job and tried to change the subject from Smollett’s possible/probable deception to what impact it will have on real victims of hate crimes.

Like, say, MAGA hat wearers? Naaaaaaah!

The Left doesn’t consider Donald Trump supporters to be victims in the Smollett case because the Left hates them. In their minds, Trump supporter (real, imaginary, or supposed) are subhuman, which makes mocking and slandering them okay. But when those same people call the media “fake news,” Leftists battle to be the first to call out such “vile behavior.” And don’t you dare question the integrity of the press. These brave men and women put their lives on the line to get us the stories that no one else is talking about (except for everyone else in their circles)!

Thin-skinned egotistical hypocrites say what?

If the Smollett case were the first time the press had jumped to a conclusion, I might cut them from slack here. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t, thus no slack and no quarter will be given. And if the press wants to know why, it started with their coverage of Saint Trayvon of Martin. Although neither party involved was an angel, the media portrayed (and continue to portray) Martin as a poor victim instead of a possible criminal who got shot in the process of committing a violent crime. From there we had Michael Brown, “Mattress Girl,” the Covington Catholic school boys, and many other stories that had more sizzle than steak (mmmmm…steak). As of yet, we are still waiting on apologies from the media outlets who pushed these and other ideologically driven stories for not getting the facts right. Want proof? We still have people thinking “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” is a thing!

And media types of Brian Stelter of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” wonder why the public doesn’t trust them anymore.

Then again, he’s the guy who thought someone from Vox would be reliable and/or a source, so there’s that.

Regardless, the media are part of the problem, but they can be part of the solution if they can learn something I learned as a boy: admit when you screwed up, and learn from it so you don’t screw up the next time. Given how long they’ve made the same mistake over and over, I’m guessing it’s above the media’s paygrade.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

92 Views

There are some stories that grab our attention because they have a compelling human interest element to them. There are others that grab our attention because of the circumstances behind them. Then, there are others that appear to be complete dumpster fires.

Recently, I’ve been following a story about Jussie Smollett, an actor on the television show “Empire.” Smollett also happens to be black and gay. Smollett alleges he was attacked physically and verbally early one morning in Chicago for being black and gay. The reason I’m interested in this story is because it keeps changing as new details emerge. Some accounts say he was attacked by two white men wearing Make America Great Again hats who screamed “This is MAGA Country.” Other accounts included a noose and a bottle of bleach. Other accounts have removed the MAGA hats and included ski masks and hoods. I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an account that it was a pissed off leprechaun riding on a drunk unicorn farting rainbows who attacked Smollett.

As we are sifting through the uncertain facts of this case, one fact has emerged among Leftists: this was a hate crime. The Left’s definition of a hate crime is slipperier than Jello wrestling in oil with a greased pig. (Hey, I only did it the one time and it was because I was drunk, single, and lonely, okay?) Yet, it’s in this imprecise definition that we can find a definition of our own.

hate crime

What the Left thinks it means – a crime against a marginalized group/groups motivated by hatred of said group/groups

What it really means – an area of criminal activity that isn’t enforced equally and is based on speculation of motive

Remember the movie “Minority Report”? If you do, great. If you don’t, consider yourself lucky. Anyway, the movie’s premise revolves around a concept called pre-crime, which can only be uncovered using psychics/oracles who can see into the future. However, someone figures out how to game the system to hide his pre-crime. Hate crimes revolve around a similar concept, only instead of having psychics look into the future to see a crime, people without psychic powers are adding additional punishment for crimes based on…well, gut instinct, really.

Granted, some hate crimes are easy to figure out. A burning cross in a black family’s front yard is pretty obvious, but others aren’t. A black child getting beaten up by a gang of white thugs yelling racial epithets is a hate crime, but a white child getting beaten up by a gang of black thugs yelling racial epithets isn’t. The crime (assault) is the same. The hate (racism) is the same. But the punishment isn’t. The former is treated like a hate crime, which is should be, but the latter isn’t.

And that’s where things get interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid.

The Left believes only whites, and white men in particular, can never be victims of hate crimes because they have all the power and privilege. And guess who has been writing and promoting hate crime laws? You guessed it. Leftists. For the record, I would have also accepted monkeys flinging poo because when it comes to hate crime laws, the two aren’t that far apart.

This is my major problem with hate crimes in general. We are supposed to have equal protection under the law regardless of our race and/or gender. To increase the legal penalties for a crime based on a lopsided interpretation of society runs counter to that notion. And it’s not like drunk driving punishments because we can measure a person’s blood alcohol level at the time of an accident. We can’t delve into a person’s heart and mind at the point of a crime with any degree of accuracy.

Granted, there are white males who are hateful scumbags, like Tom Arnold. But that fact shouldn’t overshadow the rule of law just because of the race of the perpetrator or the victim, especially when the crimes are handled and punished differently on those same bases. If that isn’t a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, I’m not sure what is.

The problem is hate crimes laws are hard to fight because of the emotional element of the crimes themselves. We hate to see people hurt for something they cannot control, and we don’t want to be seen as bigots by voicing legitimate concerns, so most people either stay quiet or support hate crime laws. This gives the Left all the power they need to continue pushing these types of laws.

That’s why it’s important to fight back. The only way the Left gets away with passing these types of laws for certain types of crimes is by relying on people to be silenced by the prospect of being seen as a bigot. That requires you to be afraid. If you don’t give in to that fear, the power goes away. Apathy is the greatest weapon against the Left you can muster.

There’s another problem the Left hasn’t figured out how to combat: fake hate crimes. I know it may shock you, but there are some dishonest people who lie about being victims of hate crimes for various reasons. And just like with false claims of sexual assault, false claims of hate crimes damage the real claims because it makes them easier to dismiss. And guess what’s been occurring more and more in recent years? That’s right: Tyler Perry movies. Oh, and fake hate crimes. And just like with false allegations of sexual assault, Leftists want us to ignore the bad actors and believe everyone, while excusing those who are guilty. Remember Mattress Girl? Leftists still defend her in spite of the lies she spewed.

Is Jussie Smollett guilty of fabricating his attack? I don’t know, but I do know there are a few facts that make me question what happened, and the facts that have changed since the news of the attack first hit lead me to believe it’s a false hate crime. Until there is a definite resolution, though, I will withhold judgment. If he did make it up, anyone who suggests it was a hate crime had better be ready to not just apologize and eat a murder of crow, but demand Smollett pay the price for his deeds.

Who am I kidding? They’ll excuse him like they excused Mattress Girl.