We Free Men

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

When I was six, I found out that my parents could yell, they could threaten, but they couldn’t actually, physically, get in my brain and make my body do things.  This must have led to a fun and exciting time for my parents, in finishing raising me.

However, to this day, I remember that.  In the ultimate analysis I am free.  People can kill me, but they can’t MAKE me do stuff.  (absent neural programming, which Speaker assures me we don’t have yet.)

In the same way, in the course of almost as many years as Shakespeare’s total life, I’ve found Heinlein was right.

I don’t care how noble a side sounds, how profoundly urgent its benevolent message, if they say “this you cannot think.  This you cannot read.  This you cannot even consider” they are a tyranny in the making. If they get power over you and yours soon you’ll find that it’s “This air you cannot breathe.”

They are also unsure of their logical appeal and their ability to withstand the market place of ideas.  Otherwise, why ban certain thoughts and ideas and points of view?

This is why “political correctness” is a bad thing, because it takes away your tools to think of things properly.  If you can’t even express that men and women might be different, you surely can’t think about it.

It is also why progressivism with its ever growing list of “forbidden terms and words” because of racist sexist and imperialist bad thought (brown bag, really?) is a tyranny in the making.

I read an article this week, from Popehat about gamergate. I would like to say he made some good points, but he didn’t. Impossible to make good points when you mis-define the sides in the Gamergate and (by extension) the SFWA dispute and everywhere your favorite Social (in)Justice Whiners attack.  He seems to have bought into the definition of the sides brought by the SJWs and so views them as mostly urban, educated, often in tech professions, etc.  I.e. “Smart and cutting edge.”  He also seems to think they’re in search of true social justice.  (Le sigh.)  He says he is neither on “team blue” or “team red” (his terms) because while he’s fiscally conservative he’s for gay marriage and he prefers urban environments.  And he defines the opponents to SJWs as homophobes.  (I wonder if he defines them as racist and sexist too?  Including the women and the many gamergaters of interesting racial origin?)

Yeah, by that measurement, and actually including the “well educated” and “citizen of the world” measurements, I’d be in between too.

I’m not in between.  I’m staunchly in opposition to the SJWs.  Why?  Because the sides aren’t as pictured.

Are there some homophobes on the side of Gamergate?  I doubt it, particularly in the States.  Look, most of these people are younger than I, and gay relationships are just a thing that at worst we don’t care about one way or another.  Are there some homophobes on the right side of politics? Undoubtedly.  Probably not as many as there are on the left, though.  (No? Look to their favorite slurs and accusations to people they hate.)  More organized, maybe, though disapproval of homosexuality for religious reasons is not necessarily (or often) homophobia.  (Can be, but I’ve met very few.)

As for educated… pfui.  It’s possible that on the SJW side there are more graduates of “good universities” with impeccable credentials, but listen to them for ten minutes and you realize these credentials were acquired by regurgitating the indoctrination poured down their throats by their patchouli-infused professors.  In fact, if you try to discuss anything real with them, from the history of Western culture, to the real issues of some non-western civilizations, they gape at you like guppies in search of a crumb.  You’re talking of things they were told don’t exist and they can’t think about them, because thinking about them would make them automatically bad people.

So if your head hurts and you’re confused, this is because Popehat mis-defined the sides involved in this dispute.

The SJWs aren’t for equality or inclusion or any of that grand stuff.  They’re not even for upending the “scales of privilege” which at any rate haven’t been as described for at least fifty years.

They are for one thing only “Do as we say, and enshrine us as arbiters of all that’s right and just.”

Because their “system” of competing victimhoods is so confusing and irrational, they need someone to tell you when and how to discriminate, and whether a black handicapped straight woman has precedence over a Muslim, communist, gay guy.  These hierarchies change, too, depending on whim and whatever comes from the top.

So you need to constantly pay attention to the “voices from above” to know what to think and believe.  And even the wrong word you didn’t know was wrong — “lady” — can get you attacked by people who are keeping up with the SJW diktats.

Which means there must be SJWs in charge, and they must be listened to constantly.  IOW they get power to tell you what to do, what to think, what to read and what to believe.  Read or believe the wrong thing, and the pack descends on you like the red brigades on a deviationist.

In fact the whole thing smells of the power struggles in the Soviet Union.

This is not coincidental.

Both systems are tyrannical and aim at controlling your thought.

This you must not read, this you must not think, this you must not see even if it happens before your very eyes.

To be an SJW you must believe that, the long history of life on Earth notwithstanding, the attraction between male and female is arbitrary and part of “conditioning.”  That men and women are both exactly alike save for sex organs, and completely different in that women as historical victims have all the virtues of humanity, including compassion, peacefulness, healing, etc.  That if only we weren’t “oppressed” by a capitalist system, everyone would have enough of what they need/want and there would be no war or strife.  That saying that a 200lb man can carry a 90lb woman under one arm and laugh at her struggles is sexist.  That saying cultures are differently functional is somehow racist (even when the cultures belong to the exact same race, like say, Morocco and Italy.)

In other words, you have to be willing to believe things that just ain’t so and that simply won’t work in the real world.

In the article, Popehat makes reference to how they’re trying to get into gaming because it’s one of the sectors of the economy still doing well.  All the places that the SJWs have colonized before: books, news, industry, corporations are floundering.

It never occurs to him there is a cause and effect here.  As John C. Wright points out, everything they touch they destroy. EVERYTHING.  That is because what they want is power over the human mind, and because their set of beliefs is completely out of touch with reality.

You can’t, for instance, run a corporation as though men and women were exactly the same from the neck up.  As though they were both capable of leadership sure.  Identical, though?  Never.  Women have a completely different style in social relations.  To deny that is the true sexism.

The difference between the two sides is not red and blue, a scheme that changed in my lifetime anyway (Really, since when isn’t red communist?  Were they afraid of the linkage?)

The difference is between the bound and the free, the mentally enslaved and those who can read and think anything.

To compare us to the “party of the past” and the “party of the future” and to ascribe to the SJWs the future is to forget that America is not Europe.  Our past is not the staid past of aristocrats and serfs.  It is the past of revolution and freedom.  And none of us is advocating stasis.

We know technology changes, and its changes affect society.  It is the SJWs, the party of the past of Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and other blood stained, dead, and for the most part white males, who are afraid of the change. They own the imagined future of the past and they can’t face the real future with interpersonal communications they don’t control, news they don’t control, entertainment they don’t control.

It is they who want to shut down internet discourse, or at least control it.  It is they who hate the free and chaotic environment online.

It is they who run around telling everyone “this you must not do” and “this you must not think” and “this person you must not associate with” on pain of being ‘worse than Hitler’.

We?

Heck, I gave my sons The Communist Manifesto when they were 12.  I figured it was better they taste the poison from the source, and not from the various repackagers who made it more palatable.  Looked at, in its naked horror, the ideology can’t fail to repel.

I also let them read their fill of various of the diluted sources afterwards, because if you’re armed with logic, the dankiest corners of the SJW universe hold no terrors.  Mostly, they hold boredom, because without the ability to be challenged there can be no independent, individual or new thought.

The two sides are as follows:

They’re the would be slave masters; we’re the free men, holding two middle fingers aloft in their faces.

Yours is the choice.

251 thoughts on “We Free Men”

  1. I would say that “political correctness is a bad thing” is far too mild a statement, and gives its perpetrators far too much benefit of doubt. Given the record, I would instead say that political correctness is evil, and those who aim to inflict it on us are striving for dictatorship.

    1. Language shapes thought. The reds learned early on that if you make certain things unspeakable, soon they are literally unthinkable.

      2. This was shown by Orwell in 1984. He used memory holes and Newspeak, but this is what he was showing. In the book they were rewriting the dictionary so that certain ideas were no longer able to be thought, let alone spoken. One of the dictionary crew said that after the new dictionary was finished that the only meaning of the word “free” would be the dog is free of fleas.

        1. “But I still wonder how it was possible, in those graceless years of transition, long ago, that men did not see whither they were going, and went on, in blindness and cowardice, to their fate. I wonder, for it is hard for me to conceive how men who knew the word “I,” could give it up and not know what they had lost. But such has been the story, for I have lived in the City of the damned, and I know what horror men permitted to be brought upon them.

          Perhaps, in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender that word. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out in protest and in warning. But men paid no heed to their warning. And they, those few, fought a hopeless battle, and they perished with their banners smeared by their own blood. And they chose to perish, for they knew. To them, I send my salute across the centuries, and my pity.

          Theirs is the banner in my hand. And I wish I had the power to tell them that the despair of their hearts was not to be final, and their night was not without hope. For the battle they lost can never be lost. For that which they died to save can never perish. Through all the darkness, through all the shame of which men are capable, the spirit of man will remain alive on this earth. It may sleep, but it will awaken. It may wear chains, but it will break through. And man will go on. Man, not men.

          Here, on this mountain, I and my sons and my chosen friends shall build our new land and our fort. And it will become as the heart of the earth, lost and hidden at first, but beating, beating louder each day. And word of it will reach every corner of the earth. And the roads of the world will become as veins which will carry the best of the world’s blood to my threshold. And all my brothers, and the Councils of my brothers, will hear of it, but they will be impotent against me. And the day will come when I shall break the chains of the earth, and raze the cities of the enslaved, and my home will become the capital of a world where each man will be free to exist for his own sake.

          For the coming of that day I shall fight, I and my sons and my chosen friends. For the freedom of Man. For his rights. For his life. For his honor.”

          — Ayn Rand, Anthem

      3. Indeed, I was in college when they first launched their assault. At that time, they were so naively confident of their righteousness and power — stemming from their root assumption that only they are really human, the rest of us being chessmen they moved about — that they TOLD us that the purpose of it was to keep us from thoughtcrime.

        1. Later, it became thoughtcrime to refer to their previous statements. Hence the people who will tell you that there is no such thing as “political correctness” or that all it means is “good manners.”

      4. And this is where I have a great cognitive dissonance with David Brin’s second Uplift Trilogy. He describes quite well how this works, and goes through how language was set up so that races modes of thought were very carefully controlled, and how Humans, who were accidentally left alone, so that they gained sapience without being uplifted by a patron race, didn’t grow up with these languages, had looser patterns of thought and could come up with new ideas more readily than others.

        He apparently doesn’t see that it’s the Left that he is allied with who would be more like that in their operations than those of us on the other side of the aisle.

      5. I wonder if part of the reason that I’m (1. repelled/bored by, 2. mostly immune) to the word games is because I *don’t* actually think in words. Not really, until I am trying to say something to someone else.

        Internally, I think a lot in terms of imagery and “processes”. (Maybe telling that when I’m blitting out code, and don’t particularly care to be neat about it, all my variable names have helpful titles like n,nn,nnn, s1, vvvvv etc) If there happens to be no words for what I’m trying to say, I still know what I’m referring to. Not having a word is an invitation to make one up, like “thingy” or “amplification-function”, etc.

        Language is an artifact, after all. It’s the referent thoughts and the ability to get them across that is the important thing.

        (PS – In some dystopian future where people like me are forced to reinvent language, you’re going to have a lot of “-thingies and -thingies”.)

      6. Yep– and now we’ve got innocent victims spreading it, believing it’s the True Deal.

        Probably a lot of “good intentions” types (ends justify the means), and some flatly calculating evil ones, but there’s some innocent dubes, too.

  2. I laugh when I hear Liberals talk about Christians “forcing our beliefs onto others” because that’s what the Left is attempting and the so-called Liberals don’t argue with them.

    1. Jews are aloof, Christians are annoying, and Muslims want to enslave the rest of the world. Gee, which of these are the left most similar to?

      1. Why are you insulting Muslims by comparing them to the SJWs? [Very Big Evil Grin]

          1. They tend to employ a lot of the same tactics at the base. Method of execution (-grin-) are different things, but the end goal for the Caliphate is no different really.

            The SJWs only WISH they had that much power and ability to kill their opponents.

              1. *dry* with all the projecting they do you’d think they’d pay less on electricity bills. Then again they’re dim bulbs so do not provide much in the way of illumination… probably even worse than the average blacklight bulb, with much less entertaining results.

            2. Imagine the reaction if a comparable video —

              — were deployed by conservatives … if you can imagine any comparable conservative video. Perhaps the proper comparison would be of the Left’s many depictions of attempts to assassinate George W Bush with their hysteria over any mild criticism of Obama.

              1. I remember that POS video. They really wish they had the ability to make us explode without weapons. (And that’s why they like jihadists!)

                Actually, I liked the ‘stay in school’ one better – the one where teenage kids get blown up because they break into a fenced off beach… that’s a mine field, because pff, who needs to read? The one that came out of Western Australia. Because that was one that poked on the ‘Oh, so many consequences…!’ button, as well as made fun of the free-spirit rebel crap so idealized of the Flower Power generation.

            3. Shadowdancer said:

              The SJWs only WISH they had that much power and ability to kill their opponents.

              Note their lack of outrage at the atrocities committed by actual totalitarian regimes. Though they will still (mostly) criticize the Nazis (while copying their anti-Semitism), or anyone actually allied to America.

              1. Gotta have priorities. Uncle Joe said you had to hate Hitler, so you did. all the more so in that Uncle Joe was actually the bigger killer.

                1. America, incidentally, has problems with the concept of “alliance of convenience.” Too many Americans tend to assume either that whoever we ally with must be The Good Guys (why must there be an actual Good Guy in every conflict?) or that this means we are the Bad Guys if they are not. One sees this with postwar analyses of World War II (why’d we ally with Stalin if he wasn’t the Good Guy? Answer, there were no Good Guys on the Eastern Front, save perhaps for the Poles and Finns) and of the Cold War (why’d we back Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan? Again, no Good Guys there, either).

                  Sometimes one simply has to choose to ally with the Bad Guy who is less immediately threatening than the other one. That’s an “alliance of convenience,” and it is the norm in diplomacy.

                  2. They were licking Uncle Joe’s boots before we allied with him. Indeed, they did a flip-flop on Hitler on command.

                    1. The key point being that they were not acting in America’s interests, but in Stalin’s.

                      Americans have practiced alliances of convenience since before the Revolution — just ask the Amerindians!

        2. Not my intention. Merely pointing out that both groups have much the same goal, though much variance in their methodology. Not that your free range SJW would not stoop to cutting off the occasional head (or various other body parts) if they thought they could get away with it. Look at their reaction to that whole Lorena Bobbitt episode back 20 years ago for example.

    2. It’s only wrong to “force your beliefs onto others” if you’re a hater.

      If your heart is pure and you’re trying to do good in the world and you’re promoting tolerance and love… then force away, it’s a moral necessity to advance your agenda of inclusivity and acceptance by any means necessary.

      But, you say, (and I know you do), what if I honestly believe that if you don’t live a Christian life that you’ll end up in eternal torment?

      Now, really, don’t you realize that this is entirely different? Because *your* beliefs are hateful and vile, and *my* beliefs are the Right Side of History. So when you try to spread your beliefs, even without force, you’re a hater. When I try to spread my beliefs, wreck people’s lives or get them fired, why that means I’m a Very Good Person.

        1. It’s just the constant exposure to academics. It leaves a bit of a stain but no permanent damage, kinda like a bit of protective tan. (Um, can I say tan? Or is that melaninist?)

          1. As someone who is melanin deficient I find it HIGHLY offensive that you say “tan”. Don’t you know there are people out here who will burst into flames if you show them a picture of the sun?

            1. Dude, I hold the All Midwest Zero-to-Lobster sunburn speed record. 😀 There’s a reason I’m nocturnal (besides . . . yeah, we just won’t mention that little quirk.)

              1. No-no, please do mention that quirk. *elbows on desk, hands parallel to desk, fingers interlaced, chin on hands, eyes wide in expectation*

      2. Synova wrote:
        Now, really, don’t you realize that this is entirely different? Because *your* beliefs are hateful and vile, and *my* beliefs are the Right Side of History. So when you try to spread your beliefs, even without force, you’re a hater. When I try to spread my beliefs, wreck people’s lives or get them fired, why that means I’m a Very Good Person.

        This is why I hate LibProgs. Not only are they TWANLOC but are also wannabe totalitarian tyrants. They want to control every aspect of your life “for your own good”. Only they know what is right and wrong, and they know better than anyone else how everyone should do. They not only know better than anyone else now living, but also better than the accumulated human experience of past millennia, known as tradition.

        1. Yeah, but somehow telling them that “you’re a wannabe totalitarian tyrant” just doesn’t seem to work.

          Go figure.

          1. I’ve gotten some amusimg reactions by asking “Can you explain, in small words, the precise moral difference between the 19th century Christian moralizers you mock and the 20th century Progressive moralizers you worship?”

  3. Great post, but I see you have bought into the SJW term “homophobe”. No one is afraid of gay men, so the word is a thought controlling misnomer. But since gay men are at least 20 times as likely to be pedophiles, you should be concerned about giving them unfettered access to children. I worked in child welfare for several years before I became an attorney…

    1. Um… I think pedophiles hide under “gay” because “gay” is acceptable.
      No. A) I used the term because it’s what popehat uses.
      B) THERE ARE Homophobes. I’ve met a few. It has nothing to do with political orientation thought. They’re mostly men, but also some women who are literally afraid it will rub off on them somehow.

      1. “Um… I think pedophiles hide under “gay” because “gay” is acceptable.”
        No. Indeed, the amount of gay pedophilia appears to be seriously underreported. There is some evidence that gay men are more likely to have been abused themselves as children.
        “B) THERE ARE Homophobes. I’ve met a few.” Exceptions don’t make the rule. I have gay friends, even once had a gay roommate in our group at college, but I am not a Homophile or a Homophobe.

        1. I wasn’t saying you were. I was saying they exist — they are just not on the right particularly.
          I was saying this because popehat defined the right (“red team”) as homophobes.

        2. The amount of pedophilia, period, is seriously under-reported. Nature of the abhorrent crime.

          If you have “some evidence” present it for consideration. Else, I’m inclined to derogatory terms for your attitude.

          Exceptions don’t make the rule? This is a rejoinder? You said:

          No one is afraid of gay men, so the word is a thought controlling misnomer.

          Our gracious host pointed to her knowledge of individuals who are, indeed, afraid of gay men. Thus negating your declarative. No mention of exceptions or rules has taken place. Makes “exceptions” sort of a null response, no?

          1. Simple logic alert. “Homophobe” as presently used implies that anyone who disagrees with any homosexual activity or political position is afraid of gays. It is a blanket term, so you, not I, have the burden that it applies generally–which it obviously does not. For the record, I know zero males who are afraid of gays, but a fair number who are afraid of rattlesnakes.

            1. Simple sarcasm alert. I don’t find your argument compelling.

              And it’s threatening to hijack the comments to no purpose. Certainly nothing related to the point of the post. So let’s set it aside, yeah?

            2. Simpleton Alert: the word “homophobe” as it is currently used implies opposition to homosexuals and/or their agenda(s). Is it technically in a cordage with the etymology? No, but that’s not an uncommon defect in the language, especially in topics surrounding gays (hint, the word didn’t come from the Sanskrit for “dude that’s really into throw pillows”)

              “English is the result of Norman knights attempting to bed Saxon barmaids, and is as legitimate as any other fruits of those unions.”

              1. Except in this case at least half the people (ab)using the term KNOW what it’s etymology is and intend that meaning too, and that the term hasn’t been used in that context for too long, those of us who still give a s*t about language can insist on proper usage.

                1. Only if you’ve got another term for those who discriminate based on sexual orientation. If you don’t homophobe is going to fill that gap, proper usage be damned.

                    3. Yes, the first term is particularly cumbersome. The latter doesn’t strike me as any more awkward than ‘homophobia’, but I don’t see any changes being likely to the public usages at this point.

                      Personally I just with people would stop saying ‘gender’ when they mean ‘sex’.

                    4. Sexual in the middle of a word will never roll trippingly. Best to stick with the current formulation of homo-suffix.

                      I propose homonausea (sick and tired of those who identify according to their lusts) or homomiasma (from homo — same sex attraction — and miasma — an oppressive or unpleasant atmosphere that surrounds or emanates from something.)

                      I also propose that the next time some drive-by twit tosses one of Eris’ apples into our midst we eschew the scramble to throw ourselves atop it.

                    6. But they don’t mean sex. They mean “gender” which is why they can go around claiming that transmen and transwomen are really men and women.

          2. What other group actually advocates sex with minors, and has filed lawsuits to that effect through the man-boy love association and the ACLU? As to the ratio of pedophilia committed by this 1.6% of the population, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3. What percentage of abuse by priests was against boys–many times more than 1.6%.

            1. Seriously, I know you’re probably catching up with the emails, but let’s put this one aside.

              I’m not interested in the where the discussion leads, and have no desire to see more blanket accusations.

            2. But then you get into what percentage of men with homosexual tendencies chose the priesthood to begin with. (And btw, the abuse of boys by priests was no higher than in the general population.) As for NAMBLA, no one would call them representative of much of anything.
              BEYOND THAT — this is not even a sane side-spur to the post. You picked a word and off you went on a tangent, despite the fact I said the word was only mentioned because of the use by Popehat.
              This has nothing to do with the post. Pedophilia was not even mentioned in the post (And I could tell you what people who work with the heterosexual community say about pedophilia too — it’s not much different.) I think it’s time to leave this subject alone.

              1. Actually, I think it is a germane side spur, because it is an example of how thoroughly the Left has won the culture wars.

                I would urge you to ask yourself how much of what you think you know about homosexuality is based on fact and how much of it is simply repeating what the culture tells you. And with that, I’ll let the subject drop.

                  1. Not going to comment on this because you said it should stop. Other than to state that without opening comments, my first thoughts on reading your post was to comment on the use of the word homophobe and its various connotations.

                    No I wasn’t going to bring up pedophilia, however.

        3. Sexual abuse of teen-age boys by adult gay men has been defacto declared a victim-less crime. It is beyond prevalent in the gay community, it’s considered normative.

          I would say that the majority of gay and bisexual men that I know (myself included) had at least one sexual encounter with an older man prior to adulthood. That’s why they push so hard on the “born gay” myth–they want to see themselves as mentors who help a boy discover his true identity rather than sexual predators.

          I really fear for boys who are placed with gay couples, because there is so much pressure to normalize homosexuality that when the reports start surfacing (and they will) of boys abused by their “fathers” the agencies that are supposed to help abused children will be forced to help the abusers hide their crimes.

          1. It’s not been considered normative among any of the folks I’ve known. I’m not sure how to evaluate the “gay community” as such, I’m not clear that it’d return any more meaningful results than the “straight community.”

            There’s some interesting anecdotes here, things I think it’d be useful to discuss at more length in the appropriate forum. There’s some signifiers of cultural problems vs psychological problems that I’d say must be resolved for the health of our society. There are similar anecdotes regarding young women and college age men. I suspect this has more to do with the clarity of the dividing line between child and adult, than tendencies toward pedophilia. But I have no way to support the suspicion.

            I do have a hard time drawing conclusions and casting aspersions on any group of individuals based on limited anecdotes. There are some awful things lying in wait down that path. I’m not sure the environment currently exists to initiate an objective sociological study, and in the absence of clear information there are real people who stand to suffer from aspersions arising from assumptions.

            Perhaps this is a tangent best tabled for now? There’s plenty of meat to today’s post without worrying at this particular bone.

            1. Doesn’t “tabled” mean “presented for discussion”? I understood “shelved” to be the proper term for “remove from current discussion”.

              Though, IIRC, the usage varies geographically…

              1. Urk. Yes. Geographic variability (sneaky one).

                Let’s clarify: tangent best truncated.

            2. Oh, there are objective facts aplenty. One need only compare the percentage of the population that self-identifies as gay or bisexual with the gender breakdown of sexually abused children. Given how many male victims of sexual abuse are not able to report the crime until adulthood the picture is probably worse than we know.

              The point that I was trying to make is that when certain subjects are declared forbidden, facts no longer matter. It is an article of faith that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Pointing out the actual statistics is “homophobic”. Parents’ legitimate concern over the safety of their sons is “homophobic”.

              There are plenty of objective sociological studies, but they are dismissed out of hand as “hate speech”.

              1. Yes.

                Note this is standard Leftist/Progressive tactics, not restricted to homosexuality/pedophilia but rather used for any agenda they want to push.

          2. Yes, Harvey Milk, now on a postage stamp, had numerous sexual relationships with underage boys, at least one of whom committed suicide. And everyone looked the other way…..

        4. It’s this whole “Ew, gay = pedophile” or whatever other bullshit some folk sprout that gives the SJW a goodly chunk of their ammunition. Not only that, it’s tyranny from a different direction: as soon as the “ew, gay = pedophile” shout goes up, whoever says it is denying the possibility that there could be something more complex going on there (and one thing that sensible people agree on is that human sexuality is complex) and that closes off large zones of thought and research.

          The fact – and it’s backed up by a crapload of data – is that there are, have always been, and probably will always be a number of people who are homosexual. The same applies to bisexuality, pedophilia, and every other sexual orientation or deviation imaginable (including quite a lot I’d rather not imagine, thank you very much). If this wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any homosexuals for places like Iran to execute. And it wouldn’t be acceptable (and even desirable) in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia for men to “play” with dancing boys and marry eight year old girls.

          These are things that happen. Turning up your nose and going “ew, gay = pedophile” does nothing to stop those who would be tyrants. It helps the SJW crowd by giving them a nice big hammer to beat you with. And it makes those of us who figure it doesn’t matter what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors distrust your motives.

          The only difference between a tyranny of SJW-approved and a tyranny of “morally correct”-approved is in which badthink they come after first. Eventually both will come after everyone who fails to be sufficiently vocal in their praise of the regime.

          Everyone.

          Kindly cease being a tool.

          1. *Sidespur alert*

            Seeing as I have been working on vehicles recently (currently in the process of rebuilding a 22RE) I have found tools to be the most useful of things. Much more useful than most people. I just don’t see it being the insult many people seem to think it is.

            1. The problem there is that people are not supposed to be tools. When people allow themselves to become tools, it’s never good.

        5. Okay, everyone, LISTEN UP!

          Sarah said this side spur thread was closed. When she says “ENOUGH!”, you’d be wise to listen. Some of you didn’t, even after Kate came in and said to drop it. Now I’m here and I am going to tell you the same thing. This gays are/are not pedophiles has derailed the discussion and needs to be dropped right now. Sarah is trying to finish a book and does not have time to play referee. If she has to come in with pointy boots on to deal with those who refuse to do as she has asked, it won’t be pretty. So drop it. Go read Dave Pascoe’s guest blog today instead.

    2. I’m not a fan of specious numbers tossed about to paint an entire group of individuals with such a noxious hue.

      I, too, have some experiences owing to very specific work environments, and I could certainly draw some (specious) conclusions based on those experiences. However, I have some notion of the impact of segregated sampling on analysis and result.

      This sort of unfounded numerology is frequently used to label, belittle and condemn individuals who have no relation to the crime being bandied about. It’s been done with abuse, rape, firearms, adoption, melanin…

      In every instance it seems to go hand in hand with political ambitions.

      So, what are your ambitions?

      1. Agree.

        Being a pedophile is a serious illness IMO (still should be stopped) but has little to nothing to do with homosexuality. Some pedophiles target children of the “opposite sex” of themselves.

    3. But since gay men are at least 20 times as likely to be pedophiles, you should be concerned about giving them unfettered access to children

      Which is why the Boy Scouts bans open gays from serving as leaders. When you answer critics with this fact, you are branded as a “homophobe.”

    4. I’m replying to this branch of the thread, not specifically to the original commentor, as untangling all the comments is problematic.

      Enough, everyone. Look, the problem with the SJW crowd that we object to most is their tendency to shove people into tiny, properly labeled boxes. We, the liberty crowd, would rather be free to judge people on their own merits (or lack thereof). Tarring and feathering people simply for their sexual orientation is not something we do around here. I sympathize with those of you who have undergone traumas; I understand that deeply. However, blanket condemnation of a minority based on anecdote and kneejerk reaction is inappropriate, and unacceptable.

      The owner of the blog has asked you to finish this conversation, and those of you Huns who are regular, please listen. If you feel strongly, take it to your own blogs. You’re on the verge of being offensive.

          1. Ah, yes. You’re right. Delicate shells.

            I’ll just have to be ready to count them as they crawl out…

              1. Yeah, don’t want to get covered in — feathers.

                Beach umbrella (for the feathers), comfy chair, cold beer. Hey, it’s important work.

                    4. Birds

                      Wild Birds: All wild birds that migrate through or are indigenous to Texas, along with their plumage or other parts, eggs, nests and young are protected from harming, killing and/or possession by state and federal law except that European starlings, English sparrows, and feral pigeons may be killed at any time and their nests and eggs may be destroyed. A permit is not required to control grackles; cowbirds; yellow-headed, red-winged, rusty or Brewer’s blackbirds; crows or magpies when these birds are considered a nuisance or causing a public health hazard. No birds may be controlled by any means considered illegal by local city or county ordinance.
                      Wild Game Birds: (as defined in §§64.001 and 64.021, Parks and Wildlife Code). License required to take, possess, propagate or sell the animal.

                      — Texas Parks and Wildlife

                      Part of a generic protective statute designed to prevent uncontrolled hunting/clearing.

                      Not necessarily logical.

                    5. Gulls are a slightly pale version of a Grackle, right… I wonder if that’s work … In Michigan is where I was bit, and where they are really a nuisance. Michigan doesn’t have Grackles though.
                      Lucky them.
                      I hates the grackles.
                      such a lovely call though …. sounds like … a car wreck.

                    6. They swarm around specific intersections around here. Settling in for the night you’ll see ’em all over the light poles, the buildings, covering the trees.

                      Has negative consequences for the good parking spots, too.

                    7. Burleson’s Walmart has some predator “scarecrows” and random predator calls coming from speakers on the roof to try and scare the things away. Mansfield has got a McDonalds with a big problem too.
                      One wants to take a punt gun to the flock.

  5. In essence what the SJW lack is the courage of their convictions.
    Otherwise why would they constantly seek to muzzle the opposition?
    Another favored tactic is to create a strawman superficially similar to their real opponents, but carefully crafted with vulnerabilities unfortunately absent in reality. Think you can’t win a real argument, well then just gin up some tempest that fits your bag of tools and argue that.
    Really, just how many rich white male homophobic rapists can there possibly be? The SJW crowd apparently think they’re a majority in this country, or at least the controlling minority.
    As we’ve seen in at least a couple political debates of recent memory, it’s much easier to win when you not only defend your side of the issues, but also define the questions. Oh, and having the moderator on your team helps a bit as well.

      2. Yes, her, the evil skank.
        And just this past week moderator James Pindell repeatedly corrected Scott Brown on a point of state geography during his debate with Jeanne Shaheen only to later be forced to apologize. Seems Brown was correct and Pindell was mistaken. Any guess as to the coverage of either the debate or the apology? Yep, Brown messes up covered in all the usual media, the apology not so much.

    2. Which is why any RNC executive who suggests holding primary debates on CNN, CBS, ABC, or any NBC channel* should be fired. Preferably out of a cannon.

      There are plenty of real conservatives capable of moderating a debate and plenty of media channels to broadcast them. Maybe work out a deal with Fox to simulcast the streaming content over the air.

      We may be out of luck – for now – when it comes to the general election, but there’s no excuse for the Republicans to give any Democrat such a powerful position in choosing their candidate.

      *One acceptable exception: Invite John Stewart to moderate, advertise the hell out of it among young voters, then have Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Paul Ryan team up to demolish the clown.

  6. You know, I’d be more willing to let them tell me what to think* if they ever demonstrated the ability to actually think themselves.

    *If you consider telling them to sod off being more willing than bashing their stupid, tyrannical faces in with a tire iron.

  7. Sarah,

    Thank You! This is what I was trying to say the other day, but didn’t have the words.

  8. Recently on Facebook, GG came up. Naturally, it was about how the Gamers were mistreating women. I being naturally caustic (My reputation on that person’s page by her Liberals has earned me the title of ‘that guy’) made the statement, “No, that’s not what the conversation is about, it’s about ethics. I got the whole thing about ‘woman hate’ from one of the SJW. So I mentioned that I as a small L libertarian loved the fight because most of the gamers involved usually were part of the SJWs on other things. So when they were called names, they knew they were innocent. You can’t shame an innocent person (I advised) they knew it was a tactic and were not intimidated. But, having the tactics used against them would make them think the next time the SJWs started a campaign. So they were making more Libertarians every time they called them names. She didn’t post anymore comments and we let it die.

    It’s sort of like watching a shark frenzy, how many sharks get ate or come away with missing pieces after one of those things?

  9. “Heck, I gave my sons The Communist Manifesto when they were 12.” Isn’t that child abuse? 🙂

      1. Mainly just a comment for comments. The lame attempt to wind up our blogmisstress was just a bonus (if you’d call it that).

        I’ve never read The Communist Manifesto. Is it a difficult read?

          1. In the “My goodness, someone get this man a decent editor!” sense. Or the “I don’t suppose you know how to make a point in fewer words” sense.

        2. I did a book study on it with my then-10th-grader. He was able to see that one of the underpinning tactics is to destroy the traditional family. So, not so difficult to comprehend. It’s not very long, either. It’s a hard slog though, being so … ugh ….

        3. Not really. Looking at it as a philosophical text, it’s super accessible and pretty easy to rush through due to its relative lack of depth. It’s sitting and thinking about people who believe that the ideas in it can still be put into practice that causes pain.

          1. Remember Karl is the least funny Marx brother and millions have died because noone got the joke

            1. Heh, back in high school I had to take a class called ‘Economics and Government’ and if I recall correctly I started the first paragraph of my final essay with a similar joke. I was very much a trouble maker in that class.

        4. It’s not especially difficult, and if nothing else it points to the current ideological purity wars going on within the current left–half of the edition I read was Marx bashing other leftists for not being leftist enough.

        5. It was originally written in German, and it’s written by someone who’s grasp on reality is tenuous.

          It is, in my opinion not to be recommended.

          I also tried to read Das Kapital. This was an early 1900s translation. I made it three pages in before I decided that Dood Was Nuts and I was wasting my time.

  10. The only thing I would dispute with you is that there are male and female forms of leadership. I’m going to oversimplify this because I’m at work and don’t have access to any of my old copies of FM 22-100 Military Leadership (they’ve changed the numbers in the last couple years but the general contents are roughly the same). There are four factors of leadership: The leader, those they lead, communication, and the situation. The later three factors being the same, the two different but effective leaders actions will also look much the same though there may be some minor, largely cosmetic, differences. There is no “one true” style of leadership which is why some leaders are more effective than others. But the more the other three factors coincide, the more the leadership’s actions will coincide as well.

  11. I’ve been thinking lately (I have an in-law that has decided that it’s funny to post “this is really about ethics in journalism” to random things all over the internet which then get linked to facebook and show up as updates on my stream) that the “ethics in journalism” is the truth… what popehat says was part 1 of the thing, that someone cheated on someone with journalists who gave her good reviews on profoundly mediocre games… this misses something. Yes, it was the inciting moment, but that moment had a context. Not that this person was “struggling to enter game development” but that it revealed the extent to which she had already set herself up as arbiter and gate-keeper. (Just as Sarah talked about.) Because *when* this happened, it was accompanied by “and check out what she did to the Young Capitalists.” This isn’t brought up that much now because I think that GamerGate people take an understanding of the context for granted. “What she did to the Young Capitalists” is (roughly) this:

    A group called the Young Capitalists based in Canada (and forgive me if I mangle this, feel free to correct me) wanted to host a contest to encourage women to enter into game development. They figured out the particulars and started shopping for publicity by contacting various game journalism sorts. They were told that their project sounded very interesting and did an interview and had some other interviews scheduled (IIRC). Everything was going great. And then the interview didn’t get published and other interviews got delayed or cancelled and they’re all… what happened? It turns out that Zoe Quinn was telling people that the Young Capitalists were *bad*. So they thought they’d try to get her on board, get her endorsement. That didn’t work. They tried to find out what the problem was. Turns out it was their official transgender policy. They were thinking, what the heck, we explicitly allow transgender participants. We hit *all* the correct inclusive points. What’s wrong? Turns out they asked that trans-women be *living as women* instead of just “I feel sort of feminine today because I want to enter this contest”, which seems reasonable when you’re having a contest for “women only” and not a contest for “men too.

    So ask yourself… if someone has the personal power to torpedo someone else’s promotional contest for under-represented identities in gaming… is that person really *struggling* to enter the field? That sounds like someone who *rules* the field. Someone had set up as the *personal* arbiter of what was acceptable and what was not.

    And into this dropped the personal lying and cheating, the revelations about personal relationships and probably buying previously inexplicable good reviews with sex. So yeah… the SJW part… the really hating on those setting themselves up to be the *rulers* over gaming and hating on their *agenda*, is inextricably paired with “ethics in journalism.”

    Note how exactly this all tracks with what Sarah said.

    1. Yeah, accusations of trans-phobia were leveled at The Fine Young Capitalists as well as accusations of it being exploitative of women, because helping real women make real games is apparently not going to help women break into the gaming industry.

        1. More problematic for them, it’s not SJWs taking steps to right wrongs, it’s random Canadians stepping out on their own initiative! Think of the wasted opportunity for squalling!

        2. Or, you know, making games about nothing at all like the acclaimed ‘Gone Home’, because that’s what women need in videogames: first-person, dysfunctional, lesbian simulators, and not in the fun way might I add.

          1. I watched a play-through of that (Yogscast Sjin, if you’re interested), and it was the most boring thing I’ve ever seen. There was nothing there, no plot, no puzzles, no challenge.

            1. Yeah, and lack of games like that are supposedly what’s keeping women out of the videogame industry. Apparently we just need more boring non-games to get them interested. Or we gamers need to start liking games like that, I’m not actually sure which.

                1. I did not mean any insult there, it’s just that the joke of the moment is that anyone who disagrees with SJWs on the gaming situation is clearly a male sockpuppet because they cannot understand that women are capable of disagreeing with them. By their logic everyone involved in this discussion is clearly male.

                    5. The kicking is usually worse while they’ve got enough room to get a running start at it. Later on it will just be impossible to breathe most of the time. I used to have to sleep with both my arms over my head. 🙂

                    6. I used to sleep — with Robert’s pregnancy — sitting up. With Marsh, I had trouble walking or even waddling. I carried that one so low the only way he could have gone lower would be a hammock strung between my knees.

                    8. Please, no. I’ve seen a picture (I won’t search for it) of a woman who looked like she was carrying her pregnancy between her knees. There’s not enough brain-bleach…

                    11. @ Synova: Sleep? What sleep? I’ve already hit that stage. I can’t lie down because I can’t breathe, but I can’t stay upright because it’s hell on my back. I got all the pillows I could find, piled them into a mound then aimed an electric fan at my face so I could sort of doze.

                      And I suspect this one will be so cute and adorable and intelligent that I’ll forget all about this suffering once he’s born. I have Rhys to remind me to nibble his toes though.

                    13. I knooooooow. Youngest is 7 years old, so I make do with his nose. It makes him giggle.

                      I have been told, with a definite air of authority, watching me try to get comfortable in a sitting position is like watching a hen settle on her nest. Unfortunately, to me, it feels like it’s closer to watching a bantam trying to accommodate an ostrich egg.

              2. Well that, and apparently our lack of care – since I am a gamer myself – is WROOOOONG because we ‘SHOULD’ care about the things they consider important to them! And we should throw our money at their causes, and kickstarters and if we DON’T THEN WE WILL DOX YOU AND DESTROY YOU AND COST YOU YOUR LIVELIHOOD.

                And these SJWs demand that we start liking the games they make – even if they’re utterly shit and boring. I’d rather play a game about farming – as in, actually farming: preparing the fields, sowing wheat, harvesting – than Depression Quest.

                My direct response to their idiocy has been to buy unrealistic looking figures from Japan. Including pre-ordering one that will cost me over two hundred dollars, which I am saving up for. Because they’re not getting MY money, no matter how much they bitch, guilt trip, scream and whine, or call me names. NONE of that behavior is going to work in persuading me that I should part with my carefully saved up indulgence spending for them.

                1. And looking over some of the other unrealistic figures available from the site you linked there, all I can say is wow the next Freddy versus Jason movie sure will be a lot more fun than the last, heh.

      2. Yes, thank you, The Fine Young Capitalists.

        Any sensible person realizes that anything can be “spun”. Nothing is perfect nor can anything *be* perfect.

        But people become insensible when someone starts to point out how *this* thing or *that* thing is unfair or not right, because it’s all about drilling down to this or that tidbit of injustice and blocking out the larger picture. And… it’s about power.

        “Because their “system” of competing victimhoods is so confusing and irrational, they need someone to tell you when and how to discriminate, and whether a black handicapped straight woman has precedence over a Muslim, communist, gay guy. These hierarchies change, too, depending on whim and whatever comes from the top.
        (…)
        Which means there must be SJWs in charge, and they must be listened to constantly.”

        Because who can know if you’re going to be attacked for running a contest for women that make it inclusive to those with ideas but can not do *any* of the development because they don’t know how… or because you limited it to women who can also do (and get paid for) production? Who can know if you’re going to be attacked for running a contest for women and allow men, who live as men, and who then presumably face no industry discrimination, to compete… or if you’re going to be attacked for not simply taking anyone’s word for “I’m a woman”?

        You can’t. Because there is no way to know unless you appeal first to the SJW in charge, who lets you know and puts out word… so long as you suck up in the proper way… that you’re approved.

        (And anyone who doesn’t think that men will lie and enter a “woman only” contest isn’t old enough to remember the East German Women’s Olympic Swim Team.)

            1. Heh.

              It’s just something that I noticed when the SJWs were trying to keep Drop Box from having Condi Rice on their board and (relatives, in this case) said… but it’s okay to do that because she is *bad*.

              It feels good to be a crusader.

              What people miss is that every tyrant in all of History justified their assault on liberty and freedom on the basis of “It’s the right thing to do” and if only people would cooperate everything would have been lovely.

        2. (And anyone who doesn’t think that men will lie and enter a “woman only” contest isn’t old enough to remember the East German Women’s Olympic Swim Team.)

          *cough*fallonfox*cough*.

    2. What she did to the Fine Young Capitalists is exactly why she’s a raging hypocrite and a user in more than one way. She’s NOT interested in helping women – after she killed the contest she set up her OWN kickstarter. She’s out to destroy the competition that might edge her talentless self out of the field. She’s riding the ‘isms’ to get more ‘popular’ or ‘known’ – and notably what she did to the Fine Young Capitalists the anti-gamergaters are WORKING VERY HARD TO BURY AND MEMORY HOLE. Because it doesn’t fit her victim narrative.

      I hope the Fine Young Capitalists try again. From what it sounds like, they had potential Good Games.

      1. No worries there, 4chan came to the rescue and helped fund their indigogo campaign. They got the money they needed and they’re starting work on the chosen game.

      2. I thought they were continuing since they had funding by then. They just have to do it without any real publicity push.

    3. I’d spotted a convo some time back about a porn/ero/nude photographer describing that within an hour of meeting Zoe was talking about having been either raped, or assaulted.

      Ran across something that says this was the photographer.

      http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/10/04/zoe-quinns-lying-cheating-claim-stabbing-killing-man-alleged-former-photographer/

      False accusations and claims seem to be the crazy critter’s stock in trade. Yikes.

      1. Zoe Quinn sounds seriously insane and evil. In particular, she seems to have no ethics or morals of which to speak, and be a compulsive liar to the point where I wonder if she believes her own fantasies.

        1. Speaking about evil and insane:

          http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/lena-dunhams-sister-grace-talks-about-molestation-incident/story-fnixwvgh-1227111714956

          In a series of messages on Twitter, she writes, “heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others “normal”; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that.

          “As a queer person: I’m committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful.

          “2day, like every other day, is a good day to think about how we police the sexualities of young women, queer, and trans people”.

          ——

          *facepalming so hard* So, parsing that, if ‘heteronormative’ sees what her sister did to her as sexual abuse, then going by what the flip side is left unsaid ‘homonormative’ doesn’t think it’s abuse.

          She is stupid stupid stupid, because she’s essentially affirming that ‘sexual abuse of children is homonormative’ through that intensely DUMB statement. She isn’t helping the case where a lot of people describe their ‘journey’ to homosexual lifestyle having started in what was essentially child sexual abuse. (and before people jump on me, no I don’t think that ‘all gays’ start out as abused, the fact is there are people who describe their own personal experiences as that, it occurred when they were young, and cite it as ‘their awakening’ to their homosexuality.)

          -For the record, I don’t think ‘gay = pedophile’. Child sexual predators are child sexual predators regardless of ‘sexual orientation.’ I flat out do NOT think that Grace Dunham is helping either the LGBT groups or is succeeding in clearing her sister of the impression that she’s a sexual abuser with her statements.

          1. The critical reason that pedophilia is wrong is that a child lacks capacity for consent. This should not be a debatable issue.

            Lack of consent is Lack_Of_Consent. After the fact consent cannot be granted, only forgiveness. A society which throws hissies over drunken college students coupling yet shrugs off carnal knowledge of a minor is not civilized.

            Further, a “young woman” is not what Dunham’s sister was at the time of the molestation. She Was A Child. If she cannot grasp the distinction it can only mean she is Still A Child, whatever her chronological age.

            1. A society which throws hissies over drunken college students coupling yet shrugs off carnal knowledge of a minor is not civilized.

              THAT is why I plunked this right into the ‘evil and insane’ category.

              I am INTENSELY creeped out by the rationalizations these two are giving out. I’m frankly horrified by what they’re trying to downplay and imply is ‘normal’ and ‘not heteronormative sexual experimentation’.

            2. Further, a “young woman” is not what Dunham’s sister was at the time of the molestation. She Was A Child. If she cannot grasp the distinction it can only mean she is Still A Child, whatever her chronological age.

              And not just a “child” in the sense of “a bit under the age of consent.” She was a toddler, not a 16 or 17 year old.

    4. This is no more about “ethics in journalism” than it is about unicorns, manticores and gryphons — all are nonexistant beasts.

  12. I must admit, I am impressed by the number of people who justify their homophobia by making the word, “homosexual,” a synonym for “pedophile.”

    2. Someone is playing by the “Skim for something that looks offensive” playbook. That or someone didn’t actually read what was written.

      1. ‘Skim until offended’ is rule one in the internet arguing checklist, isn’t it?

        Such a shame that it seems to be a drive by, otherwise we could watch them make it to the last item on the list ‘when all else fails, Racism!’.

        1. I guess we were supposed to cave and whimper about how sorry we were. Ain’t happening.

    3. I am only a homophobe if there is a higher correlation between pedophiles and homosexuals than I think there is.

      I have yet to see someone suggest that I am a homophobe, and then successfully make the necessary supporting case.

        1. For the one, I have an inside knowledge of the difference between phobias and regular fears. Conveniently for this argument, my residual fears of pedophiles are as close to phobia as my reactions get to sets of people sorted by sexual preference. The rest is set theory.

          As for the other, as Misha says, look at the victims. If the attacks have approximately an even split between opposite sex and same sex, this might be explained by the defining deviancy being going after kids, with gender preferences in victims being essentially random. (Gender differences in reporting should be less significant for a certain category.)

          The third possibility is easy. People who use homophobe as an insult, or whom react to it as one, are very unlikely to explicitly argue that homosexuals are all pedophiles, which is necessary for the word homophobe to describe me. If I had noticed such making that argument in a convincing fashion, it would have been unusual enough for me to remember.

          1. “As for the other, as Misha says, look at the victims. If the attacks have approximately an even split between opposite sex and same sex, this might be explained by the defining deviancy being going after kids, with gender preferences in victims being essentially random. (Gender differences in reporting should be less significant for a certain category.)”

            HUGE LOGIC FAIL! If homosexuals are 1.6% of the population and the victims of pedophilia are approximately evenly split between same sex and opposite sex victims, then gender preference of the pedophile is most definitely NOT at random. As the facts would have it (and I have to leave for work, so no links, but you can google it easy enough) homosexuals are about five times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals; which due to the disparity in homo/hetero ratios still means the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. But, and this is a big but, homosexual pedophiles on average molest twenty times the number of victims as heterosexual pedophiles do. Heterosexual pedophiles tend to concentrate and one or a small number of victims, molesting them repeatedly, while homosexual pedophiles are much more likely to choose multiple random victims.

              1. Thank you Josh.
                Part of the issue with throwing these numbers around, and the reason I wanted that side issue closed, is that people know a lot of things that ain’t so.
                For instance more homosexual (meaning male on male, not necessarily by homosexual males) abuse gets reported. Well, DUH. Most boys abused by women don’t tell anyone. Which is why for the longest time we thought women didn’t abuse. In the same way most girls abused by men might not talk and might even be flattered or think of the man as her “boyfriend.” (See the cases in england.) Or hetero abuse mostly happens within step families. (By this I mean abuse by nominally hetero males.)
                The whole point is THERE IS NOTHING SURE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA because it’s a point of hysteria, so it’s unde reported, over reported AND faked.
                It’s very easy for people who are “normal” to think “them there deviants must be up to all sorts of things” but I can tell you in the village (yes, we had gay men, DUH) no one ever thought of being gay as being a danger to children, EVER (yes, we had child abuse, DUH) so I HAVE to assume that this is a cultural linkage in the US, just like apparently in the Philippines, from what Shadowdancer told us, there’s an assumed linkage between homosexuality and theft.
                Pedophilia seems to be its own perversion and affect however many numbers of people (we don’t actually know.) I know that where Ephebophilia was tolerated, the males practicing it were assumed to be otherwise heterosexual, but considering those were ancient cultures, how does it translate? NO IDEA.
                And this is why I objected to the first commented to go this route obsessing on this linkage or lack thereof, when a) there is nothing in the text I WROTE about child abuse. b) We are not going to solve this on the data we have, all of which lacks a comprehensive quality. c)I have reasons to suspect (not just from the village. Remember I read in seven languages and though i haven’t recently, read tons of history/thought/fiction from other countries) it’s a cultural linkage and either a phantom or existing in the US because people (even perpetrators) are raised expecting it to exist.
                NOW can we stop discussing homosexuality and the link or lack thereof to pedophilia? It has nothing to do with the article. There are a ton of other things the SJWs say we support/feel that we don’t. And also TONS of us (dare I say a majority?) in the non SJW camp neither have a problem with gays nor are obsessed by them.
                ENOUGH.

  13. Re: Red vs. Blue.

    For a long time, the tradition in network news was to assign the two major parties colors from the flag in their election maps. One was red, and the other was blue (white was never used); and then they would swap in the next election. It was a polite way to let both sides lay claim to patriotic colors, while not showing ant favoritism.

    Then after the 2000 election (in which the Republicans happened to be red), some news analyst broke the votes down not by state, but by county (or parish, for those in Louisiana). And suddenly a map that had been roughly evenly split between red states and blue states became almost overwhelmingly red. The counties containing major cities were blue, but virtually all of the rest were red.

    This map spurred a much more involved discussion on an urban vs. rural split in the vote. The blue counties had enough population to dominate the vote in some states, but those states weren’t really blue. They were red, with populous blue islands.

    And so this red vs. blue metaphor solidified. What had been a mere graphic arts choices became a shorthand to describe the two major blocs of the electorate.

  14. I am a big fan of Terry Pratchett’s Wee Free Men, who are interestingly enough blue. A matriarchal society, the Kelda, never less stays at home, barefoot, pregnant and at least near the kitchen. Very good reading for 12 year olds, although I doubt they will learn anything Politically Correct from it.

  15. In high school (graduated 1973) I read Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Bluebook of the John Birch Society, and numerous others of that ilk. Nothing like reading them all to realize just how brilliant the men were who authored the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

    One of the best ways to innoculate people against crazy ideas is to let them read and study them and realize just how crazy they are. Though I suspect in todays HS environment a student carrying aroung all those books along with a copy of our founding documents would probably end up in a shrink’s office.

    1. A lot of US kids today (especially the ones going to Good Schools which will lead them to the Ivy League) never get taught the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. This is one of the problems with our “elite;” they don’t understand basic US civics.

    2. One morning in grad school, when the “adults” were elsewhere, a bunch of us grad students started joshing one of the guys because he had VHS tapes of “Triumph of the Will” and “Birth of a Nation” in his briefcase (was using them for two history classes). We tried to figure just how much trouble we’d get into if we screened “Birth of a Nation” for our history and film series and served friend chicken and watermelon. I suspect that if we got caught doing that today (the joking around bit), we’d all be expelled from Flat State U.

  16. Conversation with a fan neighbor went something like this—
    She: I want to call myself a feminist, but not that kind of feminist.
    Me: I understand what you mean; GamerGaters have the same problem.
    She: 😐
    Me: 😈

      1. While I can’t help but appreciate the irony, I nonetheless think it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that, because these young women are getting paid far less than their American (or British) counterparts, that it’s something horrible…when we’re forgetting that such a thing is a net improvement over other opportunities that they might have.

        Incidentally, this is one reason why I oppose minimum wage in general. If someone is willing to work $0.99/hour, chances are, there are good reasons for it!

        (Incidentally, there was a hint of “But the workers need to be able to afford to buy what they make” argument, which was one I always found farcical on its face. I’ve looked into how much work it took to make a tube computer, for example; if I recall correctly, even the owners of the companies designing and making those things couldn’t afford one of those beasts! That is, if workers are really supposed to afford the things that they make, then nothing BIG would ever get built.)

        1. The irony is not negated by our understanding of reality. The irony is that she would tell you that it was made by exploited workers and still wears the shirt.

          1. Josh is quite right — the humour resides in the fact that these are the very people likely to be quickest to denounce sweat shops, exploitation of Third World workers women and inequality, as well as call us hypocrites.

            Drill down into the source article (UK Daily Mail) and you find this line:
            The women machinists on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius sleep 16 to a room – and earn much less than the average wage on the island.

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817191/62p-HOUR-s-women-sleeping-16-room-paid-make-Ed-Harriet-s-45-Feminist-Looks-Like-T-shirts.html#ixzz3IJUArFTK

            Emph added

            1. Does that include room and board?

              I still remember the study that calculated hunger as people who could get food stamps and didn’t, which means that the hungriest region in America was a county where people had large truck gardens or worked as ranch hands, getting room and board.

    1. I have read Popehat for a while, but I’m not a regular. It’s one of those, hit once or twice a year, sometimes hit the tip jar.
      This one just bothered me, because I could tell he was reasonable, he was just confused about what the sides were.

  18. About your point regarding what could be called the Leftist Index…
    The reading list for my Modern Western Political Thought class at the Baptist we-take-it-seriously university I went to included The Communist Manifesto and Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, as well as Locke and Hobbes, while the Intro to Political Science class read Niebuhr.

  19. Sarah,

    Just now listening to this Baen Podcast. You mean it wasn’t inspired by Magcargo from Pokemon? 🙂

      1. The one that came out this week, where you talk about the Baen Big Book of Monsters, and your story in it.

  21. “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

    ― Theodore Dalrymple

  23. “Are there some homophobes on the side of Gamergate?”

    So what if there are? Do not homophobes have rights? Does being homophobic automatically mean whatever they say is invalid? Even Hitler was right about a few things, such as the desirability of economic growth.

    Still, so what if they are? At this point, what difference does it make?

    “As for educated… pfui.”

    Educational attainment is not a valid standard for evaluating an argument. Employ that standard for claims of attempted rape, for example …

    In other words, the standards used are irrelevant to the argument at hand, no more meaningful than “the sky is blue therefore 2 + 2 = 7.”

    1. Much like racists, being a homophobe is not yet against the law… no matter how much some people might wish it were.

  24. A wise man once pointed out “Suppressing discussion is always more dangerous to the suppressor”.
    Eventually, you will have problems in way your ideology will not allow you to acknowledge. Thus, either you ignore the problems, and it eats you, or you ignore the ideological contradiction, and undermine your ideology.

  26. And even the wrong word you didn’t know was wrong — “lady” — can get you attacked by people who are keeping up with the SJW diktats.

    Back in the mid 70’s my wife organized a women’s conference of empowerment to women. At the after the conference party, I called the women who were the instigators of the conference “ladies.” When we got home my wife informed me that those women told my wife how nice I was to think of them as “Ladies.”

    Interesting how time change, eh?

    1. I’m going to have to watch that; on the other hand, I’ve heard the case be made before that we need to emphasise that free-market capitalism is the most moral of all the systems we’ve tried so far.

      Over the past several months, I’ve been noticing that (1) the stated goals of Communism have never been achieved in communist or socialist societies, and (2) that those very goals *have* been achieved, to one degree or another, in capitalist ones. Thus, I fancy myself now as a “Free market communist”, and I’ve even gone so far as to draw up a hammer-and sickle with a rattlesnake wrapped around it. The hammer is inscribed “Viveri liberi aut mori” (Live free or die), the sickle “Molon Labe” (Come and take it), and the snake “Noli me calcane” (Don’t tread on me).

      I’m not quite sure what to do with that, except to picture it next to a the quote from Solzhenitzyn, “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

      1. Alpheus,

        I’m going to come back. Going to catch up on e-mail.

        There is a lot in this that needs to be addressed.

        Note: my name is in jest.

        🙂

    2. Alpheus,

      “I’m going to have to watch that; on the other hand, I’ve heard the case be made before that we need to emphasise that free-market capitalism is the most moral of all the systems we’ve tried so far.

      First, we need to define what morality is and is not, and the first thing it is subjective. What is good for you might not be good for all.

      Second is that it is situational. The best outcome is determined by the variables of the unique situations we find ourselves in.

      Third you have to have a definition what is good and what is right.

      What Nihilist and Moral Absolutist do is try to determine what is “Good” and apply that standard to all situations.

      Forgetting these to points has lead to some IMO horrific events in history.

      Too often we just use moral to mean good without first defining or having a clear understanding of what good is.

      One definition of Good is that for something to be good it must benefit you and those around you. And Evil is anything that harms you or others, but…

      What is good for me might not be good for you, and vice versa.

      So we as thinking human beings have come up with multiple different ways of answering this.

      We have two codes *basically* one that says it’s ok to pursue ones own happiness and the other that says we must sacrifice for others to be a good person. This sets up a dissonance in our thinking.

      One of the hardest parts if being an adult is answering the question ‘what is good and evil’ for ourselves. This I believe is so many just rely on others to just tell them. But this leaves you open to being controlled.

      “Boldly Question…”

      “Over the past several months, I’ve been noticing that (1) the stated goals of Communism have never been achieved in communist or socialist societies, and (2) that those very goals *have* been achieved, to one degree or another, in capitalist ones. Thus, I fancy myself now as a “Free market communist”, and I’ve even gone so far as to draw up a hammer-and sickle with a rattlesnake wrapped around it. The hammer is inscribed “Viveri liberi aut mori” (Live free or die), the sickle “Molon Labe” (Come and take it), and the snake “Noli me calcane” (Don’t tread on me).”

      “Free market communist” this is a null statement as each part is the antithesis of the other. Who owns your body? You can not be free if the collective can make claim to your life.

      Free-Market is an economic principle relying on the respect for individual property rights free of the coercive influence of government, communism is a political system were no one has any personal property rights the State government owns all properly. You can not have the first within the framework of the later.

      And if you mean the state controls the economy but you still technically own the property that already has a terminology and name it called Fascism.

      “I’m not quite sure what to do with that, except to picture it next to a the quote from Solzhenitzyn, “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

      I would not go with Solzhenitzyn as the standard or to find the meaning of spirt of resistance or “Civil Disobedience; as, he and the others chose to go to the gulags rather than resist. They choose to live as slaves rather than die as freemen.

      No one wants to be the first. His thesis boils down to if everyone else had resisted we wouldn’t be in this mess.
      Quite f’n whining. “What a whiner.”
      Nothing was stopping them or him. They are the ones that chose not too. Look to those that did make a stand knowing that they would have to pay a price. “Molon Labe” and “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

      We, as individuals, are morally, how ever you define it, responsible for every action we take or do not take. No one else! And the same goes for the other guy.

      If your freedom and happiness is dependent on others than you are doing it wrong.

      I believe you are on the right track keep on testing and questioning.

      Take care.

      1. What Nihilist and Moral Absolutist do is try to determine what is “Good” and apply that standard to all situations.

        Forgetting these to points has lead to some IMO horrific events in history.

        ROFLOL.

        That is just YOUR opinion. Why on earth should your opinion rule?

        Especially since you are prepared to apply YOUR standard to all situations:
        We, as individuals, are morally, how ever you define it, responsible for every action we take or do not take.

        1. Mary,

          “ROFLOL.

          That is just YOUR opinion. Why on earth should your opinion rule?”

          Rule? Rule who… Me? What? Reality just is, and morality is just our attempts to quantify it by applying reason to it as away to predict the out comes of our actions.

          “Especially since you are prepared to apply YOUR standard to all situations:
          We, as individuals, are morally, how ever you define it, responsible for every action we take or do not take.”

          Yes! I live by my morality as do you. What I don’t do is assume that they both are the same.

          Are your actions good, Mary, because you think they are or because some higher power tells you they are? Or, do you choose to be good because you believe to know what good is?

          You are morally responsible not because I say so, but because actions have consequences; negative & positive. And consequences will reveal the rightness or wrongness of our action. How well and how close our perceptions match reality will determine the course of our lives.

          I do those things that I perceive to be good because I have determined and believe that they will leaded good and positive outcomes for me and those around me. This is true irrespective of if you or I believe it. I determined what I believe to be good based on my own experiences, not because someone else told me what they think good is.

          This is Personal Responsibility

          How is stating my belief imposing my will on anyone. You are still free to live your life how you see fit as long as you are not trying to break my leg or pick my pocket. If you do try then I will act as my morality dictates I should and we will come into conflict.

          This is called freewill. We all have the power to effect the world. The question is, “Can you live with the consequences?”

          1. “You are morally responsible not because I say so, but because actions have consequences; negative & positive. ”

            Says the one who called morality subjective.

            No, you don’t get to cite objective reality as the grounds of anything moral after that.

            1. Mary.
              Subjective morality leads to objective reality.

              That is, if one does something based on their moral belief (i.e., subjective morality), then one can judge the result based on objective reality. whether it be positive or negative.

              An illustrative example: I do not favor killing animals (subjective morality), so the result of an animal dying can be positive (eating my brother-in-laws venison jerky), or negative (running over someones pet cat). Thus, the result can be judged objectively irrespective of the subjective morality of the action.

              Further, an individual is fully responsible for their actions whether those actions are in accord with their or anyone else’s morality. The same example from above illustrates this. I am responsible for eating my brother-in-laws jerky although it violates my morals, but does not violate his.

              1. Mary,

                “That is, if one does something based on their moral belief (i.e., subjective morality), then one can judge the result based on objective reality. whether it be positive or negative.”

                Objective reality, I just call it the reality, will impose a consequence.

                Now I believe we are in agreement just arguing over word choice now.

                2. No, we are not. You don’t get to call upon objective reality and yet say it was subjective.

                  As for its imposing a consequence, all available evidence is that no, it probably won’t.

              2. No, one can’t. Why do you say that running over someone’s pet cat is negative? Because that depends on objective morality. There are many people who would judge it to be positive, and you would have to say they were wrong.

                As for “fully responsible” that’s vacuous. You are trying to re-import objective morality through the back door. Responsibility requires objective morality.

                1. My dad once told me, “Josh, for every decision and action you make there are consequences: some will be good and some will be bad. So every time you make a decision or take action, you need to ask yourself, ‘what will the consequences be and can I live with them?’ If the answer is no then don’t do it. If you decide to do it anyway and the consequences comes to pass don’t whine about it, don’t make excuses and accept it like a man. You will have no one to blame but yourself.”

                  1. So what? Are you positing some sort of objective duty to consider consequences and not whine about it afterward, or blame someone else?

                2. Why do you say that running over someone’s pet cat is negative?

                  Because an animal is dead. That’s an objective reality. As you imply (but state the converse), whether that’s positive or negative depends of subjective morality. I think you’re confusing reality with morality and equating them. They’re different.

                  As for my judging them to be wrong. Nope, that’s their decision, and has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do with their version of morality. If they were to ask my opinion of the action, then I could inform them of my belief as to whether it’s right or wrong. But that’s only a subjective view (mine) of the morality of the action.

                  There is no such thing as objective morality. It’s always subjective. For example: The IS folks believe what they’re doing is moral. I don’t.

                  Any action taken as a result of a moral decision is the responsibility of the actor.

                  I grant there are a number of principles which the majority of folks agree are moral. Among them refraining from killing another human, etc. See Sarah’s list for other examples.

            2. Mary,

              Reality is objective our perceptions of it are not.

              Unless you are saying your perception and understanding of the word is perfect?

      2. First, we need to define what morality is and is not, and the first thing it is subjective. What is good for you might not be good for all.

        It’s not entirely clear if you’re advocating this as a position, or if you’re presenting it as a premise to be questioned or accepted.

        That statement taken by itself comes from a misunderstanding or an incorrect definition of morality. Morality as “what’s good for me” is subjective, and it’s also useless as a measuring stick for behavior. A consensus on what is moral and what is not is better, but still subject to problems. Which is one reason that I like the Declaration of Independence’s reference to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” I believe that there are objective measures of morality, but we’re not used to referring to them, and, granted, not everyone accepts them. Now, if there are, in fact, objective measures of morality, then whether we accept them or not is irrelevant – they don’t depend on our perception and interpretation. (Alas, we are all only human, and our ability to perceive and interpret clearly is potentially flawed at best, but I believe it can get better as we use that ability.)

        We have two codes *basically* one that says it’s ok to pursue one’s own happiness and the other that says we must sacrifice for others to be a good person. This sets up a dissonance in our thinking.

        Not necessarily. Sacrifice for others, done the right way, and for the right reasons doesn’t just make us good people, but it also makes us happy.

        But you’re right that we should boldly question everything, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, even the very existence of God, for if God does exist, he must surely prefer honest questions to blindfolded fear.

        We, as individuals, are morally, how ever you define it, responsible for every action we take or do not take. No one else! And the same goes for the other guy.

        As Mary points out, that’s a bit of a contradiction from the way you opened this up. If morality is subjective, nothing we do is wrong. If it’s not, that’s a contradiction of the way you started the post.

        I’m not knocking that. There’s plenty of times when I didn’t really know what I thought about something until I’d written about it. A couple years ago, I participated in a challenge to blog every day for 30 days on Thoreau’s “Self Reliance”. That was morally clarifying, and led to some fairly big changes in my personal life over the last couple years – difficult changes, and things that I didn’t want to accept, but during the course of writing about principles, I came to an understanding that there were some things I needed to change. So I’m grateful for the experience, even though it was hard, personally embarrassing as I was cleaning some things up, and I’ve never done that writing exercise again.

        I imagine all of us are trying to figure things out, and eventually we’ll get there.

        2. Zachary,

          “As Mary points out, that’s a bit of a contradiction from the way you opened this up. If morality is subjective, nothing we do is wrong. If it’s not, that’s a contradiction of the way you started the post.”

          At no point did I say there is no right or wrong.

          What you perceived to be good might to someone else be perceived to be bad if not evil.

          You have your morality or point of view and I have mine. A third party outside observe is going to have a third.

          Zachary is your view of morality the right one? I’m going to submit that it’s the right one for you because you believe in it.

          If good and evil is not subjective/ contextual found within the situation, then what is good? I do think for the good reasons does that make what I’m doing good? Does any one care to share their non-subjective definition of good? That works in all situation all the time.

          1. Josh,
            I think the problem with your explanations is that I too was under the impression you said there was no right or wrong.
            Sorry, I don’t believe in situational morality. I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For me and for others. From this derives things like don’t diddle children (not that I’m tempted, but that’s besides the point) because that impairs their pursuit of happiness and also “if someone attacks me, I should fight back” and also, “I can attack to protect the innocent.”
            This is not situational morality, it’s anchored to rock solid principles.
            I suggest you let this subject die and think about what exactly you’re trying to express, because I think you’re back to front, unless you’ve joined the SJWs.

            1. Sarah,

              Sorry, One final thought

              Join SJW ;)… Trying to point out the trap of morality that SJW’s and others fall into all the time. This what happens when you elevate morality over Consequence/Reality. We are always complaining about how the left lives in their own little world, and this is why. I could be wrong though.

              This is why I pointed out that SJW are some of the

              The ends justifying the means. Morality becomes the ends and justifying any means. ISIL believes their morality trumps all and justifies any means.

              “This is for your own good!”

              Don’t let some code of morality be your only guide. Check what you are doing, against what you think is going to be the outcome and then check what actually happened to see if it is still to your liking. As no to points in time or situations are the same their could be things that you do not perceive that could lead to unintended consequences in that you are responsible for in that you caused them.

              The things that I do that are good are good because the outcomes are good, not because my morality tells me that they are good. My morality is how I choose to do the things that I think will lead to the most good; while, doing the least harm.

              1. Correction and finish a thought:

                This why I pointed out, in another post thread, how SJW’s are some if the mist moral people I know.

                    1. Zachary,

                      I have a morals that I live buy. Do you, I assume so. My morals and your morals are different. Similar but different, but it only matters if our beliefs systems come into conflict.

                    3. Josh,

                      This is my final comment on this subject.

                      Saying that “making others live up to their ethical standards while not having ethical standards of one’s own is an Alisnkyite tactic” shouldn’t prompt a pointed response from anyone who isn’t an Alinskyite. Not saying you are, not saying you’re not. What I will say is that it seems that we’ve been talking past each other. We’re both using the word “morality”, but we mean very different things by it.

                      When I talk about “morality”, I talk about a universal, objective standard, a yardstick against which people should be able to judge their behavior. Whatever the source of the guidelines are, my general impression is that most people’s guidelines include things like “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.” I think this applies to everyone because it’s an objective standard.

                      You’ve argued that there’s no such thing as an objective moral standard. That all morality is subjective. What you are calling “morality”, I would call “intentions”.

                      Whether you realize it or not, the way you’ve defined “morality” leaves you arguing for moral relativism, which is the same as arguing for no moral standards at all. Because if I can justify my actions from my point of view, then *poof!* it’s moral!

                      When you say things like:

                      The ends justifying the means. Morality becomes the ends and justifying any means. ISIL believes their morality trumps all and justifies any means.

                      … while at the same time saying that

                      First, we need to define what morality is and is not, and the first thing it is subjective. What is good for you might not be good for all. Second is that it is situational. The best outcome is determined by the variables of the unique situations we find ourselves in. Third you have to have a definition what is good and what is right. What Nihilist and Moral Absolutist do is try to determine what is “Good” and apply that standard to all situations.

                      … well, it looks like you’re confused. By your own argument, using your definitions, and your approach, YOUR morality from YOUR viewpoint justifies that you do THESE things. Well, ISIL believes that THEIR morality from THEIR viewpoint justifies that they do THOSE things. And so… if as you claim, there’s no objective standard of morality, you’re both equally moral!

                      WOW! How’d that happen?

                      Now, I’m not trying to compare you to ISIL. I am pointing out the flaw in the argument you have brought.

                      The issue is that you seem to be arguing that having a universal moral standard is what makes people like ISIL, and anyone who claims that such exists is on the road to jihad. What I would respond is, it’s not the fact that they believe in a universal moral standard that leads them to jihad. It’s the fact that they believe in the WRONG moral standard.

                      Now, as to my own morality, yes. I do have a moral structure I use. I happen to use a theological approach, one I’ve thought about a lot, studied out, and attempt to live by. That works for me, and gives me things like “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” which I have heard people say is pretty darn close to an acceptable universal moral standard. In my specific faith, I also get to use things like “wickedness never was happiness,” and “…that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before [G-d].”

                      I will freely admit that my understanding of what I believe G-d expects me to do is imperfect. And I allowed for that in my earlier comments. Even the Bible says “For now we see through a glass, darkly”, and all that, but as I implied earlier, I get a better understanding of the standards as I live up to the standards. So what if my understanding of that perfect objective standard isn’t perfect, and I can’t articulate it today? The standard exists. And I believe I have a promise that as I continue to strive to live up to that standard, I will get better at understanding it, which will help my efforts to live up to it, which helps my understanding, which helps my efforts more, and so on and so forth until, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, I get the full, clear understanding. I’m not there yet. But (and here’s the key), my admittedly imperfect understanding of the standards does NOT mean that the standards do not exist. It just means that my understanding of them is imperfect. As is our understanding of a lot of things like, say, gravity. Sub-atomic particles. The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. The standard is objective. And it is the nature of an objective standard to exist independent of my perception of it whether I can articulate it or not.

                      And with that, I will close.

                      Thanks for the discussion, it’s been a good exercise for me, and I appreciate it.

                    5. PS.

                      Zachary, I just realized where the disconnect might be. The first quote is not my position, but is the trap that SJW’s, ISIL, the Phelps or some Atheist fall into. This belief that their understanding of “Morality”is perfect leads them to believe they have the right to force everyone to live under it.

                      And then you brought up this:

                      “And so… if as you claim, there’s no objective standard of morality, you’re both equally moral!

                      WOW! How’d that happen?”

                      Yes, As I stated we use moral to mean good, and not just a moral code or system of determining right and wrong.

                      Not all Moral Systems or codes are equal, but if people are living by there code, what ever and how ever sucky it might be, they are moral. Not by your understanding of morality but by theirs they are.

                      As I was talking about Morality as system or code for determining good and evil, right and wrong I thought it was clear I wasn’t using moral to mean good but that they were acting within their moral beliefs.

                      Sorry for the confusion. I’ll in my usage and context.

                2. Maybe, I could be wrong.

                  But that’s the thing about morality, beliefs, perception we can do all the things for the right reasons believing that we are doing good but still cause harm.

                  I believe that I am correct in my beliefs and view, perception of reality, and I do not have the words, if there are ant, to communicate how I see the world.

                  Me & you have a difference of perception and this is really only a problem in two instances, that I can think of, communication and when we try to force others to live by or morality, beliefs, perceptions.

            2. [Edited for clarity.]

              Sarah,

              Sorry, One final thought

              Join SJW ;)… Trying to point out the trap of morality that SJW’s and others fall into all the time. This what happens when you elevate morality over Consequence/Reality. We are always complaining about how the left lives in their own little world, and this is why. I could be wrong though.

              This why I pointed out, in another post thread, how SJW’s are some if the most moral people I know.

              The ends justifying the means. Morality becomes the ends and justifying any means. ISIL believes their morality trumps all and justifies any means.

              “This is for your own good!”

              Don’t let some code of morality be your only guide. Check what you are doing, against what you think is going to be the outcome and then check what actually happened to see if it is still to your liking. As no two points in time or situations are the same, their could be things that you do not perceive that could lead to unintended consequences that you are responsible for in that you caused them.

              The things that I do that are good are good because the outcomes are good, not because my morality tells me that they are good. My morality is how I choose to do the things that I think will lead to the most good; while, doing the least harm.

          2. “What you perceived to be good might to someone else be perceived to be bad if not evil.”

            so what? If Jane Doe sees a witch flying through the air and Sally Roe sees a windblown black cloth, they have different perceptions. Jane Doe’s, however, would be wrong.

  29. @Sarah Hoyt– Thank you. I thought Mr. Popehat needed to be smacked on the nose with a newspaper. Admittedly, he will fight for the right for ANYONE to say ANYTHING in the court of law, and do a damn good job of it. But, he also tries to take everybody halfway. And in this case, the second path is so distorted that it means that even half way, it is wholly wrong.

Comments are closed.