Do Not Engage – Jason Cordova

Do Not Engage – Jason Cordova


Sometimes people just need to come with a “Do Not Engage” tattoo plastered large upon their foreheads. People I once liked.

I, for one, dislike the trolls. I enjoy the people who can actually make an argument (coherently and without the use of the words “racist”, “cismale” and “Republitard” because I am only one of those) and form complete and understandable sentences. I cherish these people, for they are not the enemy, no. They are merely rivals, and rivals can be respected. Rivals can be friendly(ish). Hell, rivals can even be welcome (though they’re still not getting some of my Brownies of Doom. I’m not that nice).

But those people are too far and few in between these days. Divide and conquer was Napoleon’s turn of phrase, and politicians, ad writers, producers, network executives, idiots in general have all taken this phrase and used it against their rivals, who in turn use the same techniques back and turn rivals into enemies. Because it’s easier to shout at people than it is to discuss issues.

I watched the election results come in. I watched as the folks on MSNBC had a collective meltdown as the election results turned out far different than they had envisioned it. I watched as Rachel Maddow pretty much lost her sh*t on public television. And quite frankly, I felt bad for them, because somewhere along the line, they had transformed the opponent from “rival” to “enemy” in their minds, and the resulting emotional and psychological breakdown on TV became painful to watch. Okay, I gloated a bit. But still… their reactions were just mindboggling.

For example, let’s look at Mia Love, the newly-elected Representative from Utah. After she was declared the winner, a lot of racist comments were thrown out there. People attacked her because of who she is and her skin color, and pretty much showed just how ugly they really were. They called her things like “race traitor” and was subjected to personal attacks that left even me shaking my head in disgust (and everyone knows that I have a pretty high bar for things that are disgusting). The attacks came from members of the Democratic Party, the so-called party of equality, who continue to claim to be the party of minorities and the oppressed. These people, who were once merely rivals who we could have constructive conversations with, have changed.

These are people who should be reveling at the chance to have an opponent worthy of discussion and argument, and yet… the best they can do is race taunt, something that I thought was something that only “ignorant white people who vote Republican” did. Apparently, I was very wrong.

Somehow rivals turned to enemies, and have been branded (in my eyes) as individuals who shalt not be engaged. Not because I discourage discourse, far from it (oh… crap. I’m getting poetic. Sorry). No, it’s because a lot of people simply don’t want the psychological and emotional commitment to pounding on people who are the enemy because in the end, all you’re doing is feeding the trolls.

Even when you’re “winning” the argument, you’re losing, because the troll is like the pit of Sarlacc and will constantly feed upon every single argument you toss out there and come back for more. All the while, your former rival has turned into an enemy, and is a mere step away from becoming a troll.

That sucks, because they were once a regular human being. I miss that guy.


286 thoughts on “Do Not Engage – Jason Cordova

  1. There are 2 kinds of people that its just not worth it 1. a person who is deliberately trolling. There is no point because their goal is to make you angry. 2. People whos minds are made up and are not willing to hear an opposing view about something thats ingrained in them. This can be religion, politics, etc. If they are not open to a different way of thinking you are talking to the proverbial brick wall.

      1. You are not necessarily arguing to change their minds. Rather you are arguing to sway the minds of those yet undecideds who are listening in. If all someone ever hears is the belligerent statists, then that is all they will know, unless they invent it for themselves.

        1. I’ve made that point in discussions with 9/11 Conspiracy theorists. I’ve even said it directly to them: “I know I’m not going to change your mind. I’m passing this on so other people will be inoculated against your idiocy.”

  2. I read the title and was positive this was going to be about Empress Theresa. Imagine my surprise. 🙂

    Seriously though, I used to be a liberal. Back in those days, we looked at the Republicans as opposition, but they weren’t generally “evil”. Today, as a libertarian, I’m told I’m completely evil because I don’t think government should take care of everybody. Evil? What happened to just “wrong”? I could deal with being told I’m wrong. I’d disagree, obviously, but I don’t take it as a personal affront to be told I’m wrong.

    Being told I’m evil usually means that discussion is pointless.

    1. The funny thing is, the person usually saying it has a very strange definition of evil, disconnected with reality. They’re the kind who usually, have not seen it firsthand. If they had, they wouldn’t be throwing the term around like confetti. As a result, I tend not to take them seriously at all.

      1. I don’t either. Mostly, it just tickles me that someone like me how actually had an article written about him and my volunteerism when I was 13, is considered evil for such simple things.

        1. It’s because they have been taken over by those whose agenda requires that they must declare you evil and make you an enemy in order to justify the things they do

                  1. I was sitting here applauding your whack, so thanks. 🙂

                    I’m sure he came over from Larry Correia’s place, and figured he’d find easier game on my blog.

                    Moron. 😀

      2. My political philosophy prof at school told us once that if you’re a Republican before you’re thirty, you have no heart. If you’re still not a Republican after thirty, you have no sense.

        1. I have always had a brain that had reason, so I never had a non-conservative/libertarian phase. Guess I was heartless even while we were so poor we could barely pay attention..

          1. Yep, I have drifted a little more libertarian with age, but I have always been conservative/libertarian (even before I had never heard the term libertarian).

            1. I’ve always been a small “L” libertarian, also before I had heard the term, but with and eye towards reality that the full on ones far to often lack. I’d love to live in a true libertarian world, but can see that in reality, it would not work. I would like to get closer to that than we now are, and voting for the insane candidates the big “L” party keeps putting forth is certainly not the way to get there

              1. I’ve become more libertarian the older I’ve gotten, but I’ve reached a different conclusion: anarcho-capitalism has the potential to work, but we need to get there gradually…and most of those who propose anarcho-capitalism don’t seem to be doing all that much politically, to get us there…

                I’d even include myself in that, as someone who has done little to nothing politically to further the cause of libertarianism in a sensible way. I have yet to go to the Utah State Libertarian convention, and ask two questions that have been burning on my mind for several years: Why aren’t there county-level Libertarian conventions? (I’ve been to at least one Republican county convention.) And where are all the local libertarian candidates?

                Part of the issue is that I’ve always been involved with the Republican party; so far, that has seemed to be the most practical way to engage in politics.

                1. Alpheus,

                  First off, before we can get to Anarcho-Capitalistic system people would need to understand what it is and isn’t. Freedom isn’t something you can be give or you gain politically. It’s a state of mind. You are or you are not free.

                  We humans are just coming to this conclusion that we can be free. We are still working out how best to achieve this.

                  To live in a free society we will need to develop self-reliance/sufficiency skills along with the mental fortitude and temperament needed to live free.

                  Second, not all libertarians believe in Anarcho-Capitalism. Some see Anarchy just as a way to live without rules or responsibility. And the big (L)ibertarians believe in promoting as much individual freedom as possible from within the system. But in doing this it becomes more about winning elections, there by gaining legitimacy they think for their cause, instead of about promoting freedom.

                  Some small (l)ibertarians believe that it is best not give legitimacy to political force by participating in it, and any interaction with government is done out of self-defense. That the best way if promoting Liberty and Freedom is to promote and teach those ideas and skills that allow one to be free.

                  Some food for thought.

                  1. People given some freedom tend to want more; those denied freedom become prone to fearing it. Maximize the freedom under current conditions and folks are likely to learn to handle it and desire more; accustom people to a collar and they’re more accepting of a yoke.

                    “Frog boiling” works both ways. Teach people to walk and they’ll be readier to run.

                  2. “To live in a free society we will need to develop self-reliance/sufficiency skills along with the mental fortitude and temperament needed to live free.”

                    and the ability to transmit this to children

          2. I used to be considerably more Liberal than I am now, though I was never what you would call “Left”.

        2. “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” Often attributed to Winston Churchill, but I can’t seem to find anything backing that attribution up.

            1. I’ve had a liberal heart for about as long as I can remember. It was a birthday gift, IIRC. I keep it in a snow globe on my mantle.

                1. What is your intended use of said brain? Waiting in the basement for a big lightening storm?

                    1. 😉

                      Question: It was time for me to start the musical number, right? I didn’t jump the gun did I?

                      *Life should be like a musical*

            1. There’s only one thing, it’s not actually true. There are people who understand from a pretty early age that mushy liberalism isn’t a proper expression of compassion. They get lumped right in with all those who are slower learners.

              1. Yeah, but they’re kinda “The exception that proves the rule*.”

                * I must admit, I’ve never really understood that phrase, even though I do understand what it is intended to convey.

                1. Off Topic. “The exception that proves the rule.” originally meant “The exception that TESTS the rule”. As in “proving a cannon” mean “firing it using greater and greater amounts of gunpowder” to see if the cannon broke.

                2. It has a lot of meanings. One is that the kids exists and are pointed out proves that the rule is otherwise. If you let your kids stay up until midnight on New Year’s Eve, and say so, the rest of us will take it that the rule is a rather earlier bedtime.

              2. Old Souls.

                Sadly, I keep getting lumped back into the same group as folks who just graduated and conflated with THOSE loudmouths, even though I’m getting along to where the “old soul” thing is just kinda pathetic. 😦 Gonna be solidly “old” before folks stop being startled that I’m not thinking like a 14 year old.

                1. Get used to it, I’m a noticeable amount older than you (I think close to ten years) and I’m still getting lumped in there.

          1. I think it is more a matter of the amount of time required to unlearn all the nonsense taught in schools.

          1. addendum: having actually LIVED in a socialist country as a kid ensures that one never gets the blinders about socialism and it’s shiny shiny glitterati promises put on.

            So, after having a sip of coffee, I don’t really know if I ever had an anti-American, West-hating, leftist phase.

            1. I’ll say I had a period of misplaced priorities. It was more important to help people, than to balance the budget, and similar nonsense. I got over that when I started having to support myself. Weird how that works.

          2. I would say that it’s more a measure of how quickly you mature and/or become cynical about people.

      3. I define “evil” as people who are obviously intellectually inferior to me (as demonstrated by their inability to recognize my intellectual superiority) refusing to take my instruction advice on how to best order their lives, even though I have invested a good thirty of my seconds observing them.

        Everybody who denies my definition of evil is extra evil, probably racist, sexist homophobic and breathes through their mouths. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them eating their entree with their salad fork.

        1. Hey, I only breathe through my mouth because my sinuses are clogged. Other than that, well…

        2. Everybody who denies my definition of evil is extra evil, probably racist, sexist homophobic and breathes through their mouths.

          And proud of it!

    2. Your “Libralism” is probably like mine. IOW, based on the root word in Latin. That root is “Liber” as in “to set free.” Something that so called “Liberals” pay lip service to, because it doesn’t fit their world view. After all, if “Blacks were truly free, they wouldn’t need them.” I was “introduced to “Libertarian” ideas, by RAH (Starship Troopers and Moon Is A Harsh Mistress). AS I got older, and thought about my Christianity, I realized that _only_ Libertarian politics, fit that mold.
      I also know what it’s like to be told that I’m a “racist, bigot.” Which would give a good laugh to the many Black people I’ve worked for/with; However, I do freely admit to being prejudiced against stupid people. I have been for a long time (since a young age).

          1. worked with a lesbian who was always harping on how people were not nice to her and whatnot … one day, after one of her whines I think might have been aimed at me, but was phrased as a general observation, I pointed out that maybe it was just because she was a totally unpleasant person and no one would like her no matter what her gender or orientation (of course in a highly expletive laced sentence … but that was about all she would have understood) and she got a stunned look.
            She was slightly less unpleasant twards me from then on and even asked me to check a used car she was considering. She was never someone friendly … but then again, as I pointed out to her, she was just that way naturally.

            1. Sometimes I think that people just can’t *hear* themselves. Actually, most people can’t hear themselves, so if no one says anything they’re just never going to figure it out.

              1. I never thought of it that way, but you could be right. It would certainly make more sense of the people who complain about people who are just like them.

        1. Recently someone accused me of being Privileged. My reply of “Yeah, not being a ^%(*ing idiot is pretty nice. You should try it some time.” was not well recieved.

          1. My variation was, “Yeah, I know, it really IS a privilege having a working brain. Shame you might never know what that’s like.” *buff nails on shirt, admire the sheen*
            That’s usually after I got annoyed enough to go ‘Oh, so you want to play wordgames with me huh?’ *crack knuckles, sweet smile*

            My tolerance for stupid has dropped a lot as I’ve grown older…

              1. …aaaaaaaand then I just remembered your drawings of your housemate’s experiences. Neeeeevermind. 😮

                1. Do they really teach you to tell the customer that the “any key” is another name for the “enter key”?

                  1. They didn’t at the helpdesk where I worked. I actually spent a little time and explained what “Press Any Key” meant. Well, the once or twice that someone asked about it. Fortunately, most of our clients were beyond that level of clueless. There were a few real headslappers, but mostly they were reasonably with it.

                    1. Didn’t see Jerry’s comment. We actually had it as a supplier request for any of the systems we shipped, and this was in the late 80s early 90s.

                  2. Not where I worked… I said “look at your keyboard and choose one of the keys there and push it.” I knew better than to say ‘hit’ or anything else.
                    At one point, I got a “Oooh, so that’s why they say ‘any’ key. I thought it was labeled ‘any’ and could never find it!”

                    More recently, I was related a little story about a person who called up to complain that he had lots of malware and viruses. He had a very decent antivirus suite installed, and was raging he got his computer infected. Turned out, he kept turning it off and whitelisting a huge list of , and was very unhappy to discover that turning off one’s security measures means you’re vulnerable to the crap that’s out on the ‘net. He was threatening to sue, saying that because he’d installed it and it was there, the program should work even when he has it turned off.

                    The story goes, the software engineering department’s response to that was ‘no.’

                1. Which is why urban legend stories like the WordPerfect helpdesk technician “Take it back to the company you bought it from and tell them you are too stupid to use a computer” persist to this day. Anyone who has worked in IT-related fields has experienced this personally or knows someone who has. And, as Wayne indicated…once you learn to fake sincerity – the rest is easy.

      1. Perhaps the word Christian Libertarians are looking for is Subsidiaritarian, from subsidiarity (yes, I know it’s awkward as all get out but does trip off the tongue). Basically, the idea that governance should be handled at the lowest possible level of organization for any given issue. For example, education ought to be administered at a very low level (neighborhood, maybe), while foreign policy or national defense are, of necessity, handled at the highest level.

        The EU trumpeted this principle when it was organizing itself as a way to placate countries that they wouldn’t lose any of their appropriate authorities. Turned out, appropriate was not defined the same way. It also backfired because certain regions latched on to it as a justification to call for independence/autonomy from the country that was governing them–Catalan, for one. Once the Eurocrats saw that happen, they backed away from subsidiarity as a guiding principle.

              1. But the stench can be overwhelming for the highly sensitive. The key is to washing out the waste matter, preferably with a high pressure Congress. Regrettably. most Congresses are incapable of maintaining the required pressure more than in brief spurts.

      2. I was more or less leftist well into my mid-thirties. One with qualms, and on several levels uneasy with the ideas, but it was the default position, there were parts which kinda made sense – like that there needed to be safety nets by the government for people who didn’t have personal ones to take care of them and could not take care of themselves, or that the government should look after the interests of the workers so they could not be exploited by the rich (yep, what we were taught of the history was in several ways a very Dickensian view, and the most valued Finnish writers of the same era we read had those same ideas down pat) – and so I just went with that.

        I read Heinlein first in my late teens, when I had learned English well enough not to depend on translations, and he seemed to make sense. And I had always been fond of some of the older adventure writers, and some of their ideas also seemed to make sense, like self-reliance and so on. But hey, fiction writers… they did have full control over their story universes, so of course the end results for something would always be what they wanted them to be, right? (Except those old time Finnish masters, who had observed the plight of the underclass of their time personally, and faithfully recorded that in their novels… well, that was what the teachers had kept telling, anyway)

        Yes, mostly I just took what seemed the general consensus here on faith – there were some things with that which seemed to make sense, lots of other stuff which didn’t, and for me the biggest stumbling block was always self-defense rights, the idea that only the police were qualified to carry guns and that we should rely on them to protect us from the criminals, and that it was ‘wrong’ to hurt an attacker worse that he would have hurt you (how could you tell how far he might go? And with a big attacker and a small victim, how would the victim have any chance of even trying to fight for himself if the victim was supposed to be careful not to hurt the attacker badly the whole time, while the attacker might not have any such qualms? Does not compute…).

        But mostly I just assumed that it was all so complicated that I just didn’t understand, and the people who made the decisions presumably did, or at least understood better, hey, they were presumably thinking about this stuff the whole time, after all that was what they got paid for, so they would have much better chances to figure things out, and if there was something they personally could not understand then they’d go and ask the experts, those with a string of university degrees in the subject. And that pretty much was the idea promoted here too. Very complicated. You need to be educated in those questions before you’d have any chance of understanding them well enough to even think about them. Trust the experts, what they tell you may not always seem to make sense but that probably just means that you don’t understand the issues (and even if the person voted in is not an expert in the beginning, after poring over the questions for a year or few years certainly he’d be at least getting there then. And unlike you he could always ask those university types because some of those university types were hired to answer him… or something along those lines).

        Which started to feel more and more insulting as I got older.

        Oh hell. “Trust the experts” can be very good advice a lot of the time, but when it becomes the default position with everything – and “The Experts” become _only_ those people who have a degree or several in the subject, or have been hired, or voted, to deal with it – I think we have gone way too far with that idea.

        1. And yes, one of the reasons I started to drift away from that position as I got older was also this: I have mostly been in the lowest income levels, one of those people the leftists declare they want to take care of and help, but I kept noticing that on the practical level a lot of those of their programs and ideas which did get used in practice actually made my life worse, and left me with less money. Especially when it comes to their environmental concerns they seem to plan from the image of only the well-off, and completely forget things like that maybe some poor people actually also really, truly need something like a car in their daily lives…

        2. An expert is often merely somebody who has mastered the conventional wisdom and is thus invested in its perpetuation. Remember, experts thought Pasteur a crackpot.

          1. Remember, experts thought Pasteur a crackpot.

            While throwing out lovely bits of logic like “they said (list of now recognized and absolutely-unobjectionable-to-them people) were wrong, and you’re saying (theory) is wrong, so clearly you’re just like those who argued with them!”

            Never mind that conventional wisdom got to be conventional because it was more correct than what it replaced, or their worship of “experts” they agree with…..

            1. “More correct than what it replaced” is not the same as correct. The oft given reason for most scientific breakthroughs coming from graduate students is that they are at the cusp of comprehensive acquaintance with the field but not yet invested in any theory.

              Experts, having constructed the box, are ill-prepared to think outside of it. There surely is a happy medium between rejection as wed to the CW and acceptance as Masters of the CW?

              1. “More correct than what it replaced” is not the same as correct.

                Goodness, yes– and looking back, it’s frequently a very low bar, especially in things that are changed by other factors.
                (Example: the idea of marrying your rapist absolving him from consequences of the rape makes sense if one can rape the willing. “Stuff done to animals changes what their offspring looks like” works a lot better than “put stuff you want your animals to be like in the pen with them” does.)

                1. ““Stuff done to animals changes what their offspring looks like” works a lot better than “put stuff you want your animals to be like in the pen with them” does.)”

                  I always wondered about the “put stuff you want your animals to be like in the pen with them” theory. Wouldn’t you think after trying that for a couple generations you would get a clue putting chickens in the pigpen is not going to result in flying piglets?

                  1. But failure to properly calm whatever the Local Powers (or get your Bigger Power to thump them for you) would make it fail, too.

                    There’s a LOT of good reasons folks think some sort of rational monotheism (one god that isn’t crazy) is needed for scientific theory.

                    1. I have vague memories of having read an article on the debate within Islam on that subject, IIRC several centuries ago. I no longer recall the names of the philosophies or sects involved, just that the winners of the fight held that since Allah was omnipotent, there could be no restriction on his actions, and thus there were no empirical laws save holy writ. I’m explaining it badly, but I’ve wondered since then what history would look like if that had gone the other way. Rational thought and critical thinking form an awful lot of a functional and advancing culture, and I’m inclined to think that their lack is a significant factor in the failure of many cultures and states.

                    2. IIRC, some of the “friendly” Islamic groups are heritics for exactly that reason– they’re willing to say “Yeah, God acts rationally, even if we don’t understand.” (Basically, the Christian view. Alright, Catholic at least, I’m sure at least some of the homebrew churches my aunt has been in object to that…..)

                    3. Exactly. I’m trying (and largely failing) to imagine a world where those rationalists are the majority position. I’m not saying we’d have world peace, but things would certainly be different, and I think better by and large. Of course, that’s because I’m a pallid nerd with an outie, and rational thought is a tool of the Eurocentric patriarchy, so I just want to mentally oppress those poor foreign brown people. Or something.

                    4. “Insh’allah, it shall be as Allah wills.” Which from my outside observations induces a degree of fatalism that has to be seen to be believed.

                    5. “Yeah, God acts rationally, even if we don’t understand.”

                      We are willing to say that, and believe that if God does something that seems irrational, that it only seems that way because we don’t understand. We believe we should try to understand, but since God is all knowing and we are not, there will always be things that we don’t understand.

                      They on the other hand believe that calling God/Allah rational is heresy, and that even attempting to understand his reasoning is heresy.

                    6. The irony is that they express this as “God is not bound,” even though it clearly states that God IS bound, that he HAS TO act irrationally.

                      If they thought God is not bound, they would look about to see whether it pleased Him to act rationallly or irrationally.

                  2. Trying to be fair to our ancestors, my dad has been ranching for over half a century and is still learning new stuff.

                    For example, if you feed in the evening you get very few night births. The cows will give birth in the morning because they expect food in the evening.

                    This doesn’t work as well if they are having their first calf, the food is delivered too irregularly, or they are fed too much or two little. Only tested on beef cattle suitable for breeding to certified black angus bulls that are being fed in a field, not a lot.

                    Probably other reasons would make it not work, too, but that’s just the ones my parents have noticed; they went from having half the herd born at night to having less than a tenth, with corresponding reductions in frostbite.

                  3. There are calves (or any other babies) born in the daylight? I thought all babies that were attended by humans were born between 11 PM and 3 AM.

                  4. … Am I the only one who thinks that flying pigs are actually rather nightmarish in concept? Ridiculous looking, sure, but…

                    (sorry for the tangent. Had a recent conversation with hubby about his brother wanting to take up feral animal hunting, and their mother being rather unhappy if brother-in-law ended up eaten by a wild pig. Hubby is part of a group that does feral hunting for wildlife preservation.)

                    1. Feral hunting? Is that where you strip down to just a loincloth (bandeau for the ladies optional), smear yourself with mud and hunt animals with an obsidian knife, the way the Good Lord intended?

                      Not for me — I get bad reactions to bug bites on my privates, much less on my corporals.

                    2. Wellllllllllll … leave out the bug bite if seeking commercial use. Go more Matthew McConaughey, less Michael Moore and you likely have a winning desktop wallpaper.

                      Tarzan of the Hawgs?

                    3. Heh.

                      Your comment reminds of a Halloween costume concept I had t’other day: Mother/Daughter as matched character/chibi costumes. Or perhaps chibi/character, whichever is cuter. Nothing wrong with father/son pair, but for some reason it seems more problematic … maybe because of doubts little boys would care to be chibied?

                    4. I don’t know. Little boys, especially cute little cherubic toddlers, are adorable chibis. Usually of their older male relatives. The miniaturization is especially apparent if they’re being carried by the father/grandfather/uncle/greatgrandfather they strongly resemble. =3

                    5. Oh yeah — or big/little brother set. Older brother gets to chose a favourite character and little one gets to chibi big brother! Killer kombo.

                  5. @ Free-Range Oyster

                    *snort* My friend, the ‘poor foreign brown people’ do a much, much better job of oppressing each other than the white man could ever imagine, because there are some things the ‘white man’ would not ever be able to stomach doing. Example: the Islamic State.

                  6. None ever tried the flying piglets bit.

                    But if you put spotted stuff in the pen,
                    1. You might really get spotted pigs.
                    2. you might figure you did it wrong, since your neighbor did get ’em.

                    Science is hard. Most folk cures work, if you take into consideration three points:
                    1. They might have actual medicinal value, like willow bark
                    2. They might have placebo effect.
                    3. Most diseases are self-limiting, so the time you spend waiting for them to take effect is what actually cures the patient.

      3. “AS I got older, and thought about my Christianity, I realized that _only_ Libertarian politics, fit that mold.”

        Same here in ’93 (IIRC), after meeting some Libertarians during the great RTD (Denver) takeover attempt. I decided that libertarianism was the only moral choice. Yes, small-L, since I prefer to have an effect on real world politics, and Robert Heinlein’s “Take Back Your Government” persuaded me to join the major party closest to my beliefs.

        1. It’s annoying when someone tries to pull the “you’re not a good Christian” card because you don’t support leftist policies. I don’t necessarily insist that socialism is against Christianity, but I do think that it results in a whole lot of very un-Christian detachment from whatever personal obligation you’ve got for charity and engagement with other people who may be needy. Everything becomes impersonal and, even more than that, I’ve not noticed any sort of implication, much less command, that we’re supposed to gain our own virtue by forcing other people to be “generous.”

          It’s like… taking moral credit for not being a glutton when you can’t *get* enough food, compared to walking past a table full of cakes and *choosing* to have only a small bit. Taking moral credit for what you’re forced to do by others, what the government makes a law, gives you no credit and, more importantly, does not give you *practice* at self-discipline or in any way strengthen your own character.

          And it doesn’t seem to help the people that are supposed to be helped nearly as much to depersonalize charity as when the “help” is given between people who know each other within a community… and often with *conditions*… because it’s necessary to know people to know what they actually need.

          1. Before you tell me I am not a good Christian you will need to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the actual theology.It might also be necessary to explain how being a “good” Christian entails using the coercive power of the state to impose my faith. Expect it to take a while, since in my experience one of the hallmarks of Christian understanding is reluctance to judge others’ faith (that, my dear, is left to a higher authority.)

            1. Before you tell me I am not a good Christian you will need to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the actual theology

              Judge not!

              The only part of any bible verse you need to actually know!

          2. “Taking moral credit for what you’re forced to do by others, what the government makes a law, ”

            How true.
            “Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

            “Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

            “And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

            “They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”

            “The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

            “Both very busy, sir.”

            “Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

            “Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

            “Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

            “You wish to be anonymous?”

            “I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

            1. Scrooge had a good point. Why bother being personally charitable when a chunk of your money is already being taken to provide support for the people who would otherwise either get jobs or actually *need* charity?

              1. Yes, I can point to a dozen examples of Christ saying that only individual charity from the desire to help is actual charity.

                I’ve been challenging SJWs for 20 years to point out the passage where He commands charity at the point of Caesar’s spear to allow politicians to pat themselves on the back… None have ever shown one.

  3. This past US election is encouraging because I think that it shows that even many liberals are rejecting the polarizing “Those who are not of our tribe are monsters” mindset that has become all that the Democratic party has left to sell.

    I personally am finding fewer kneejerk ad hominan assaults being launched by people I follow on social media. It begins with a growing unease that maybe the Democrat Hero-Martyrs are not so saintly as they wish to be seen and often this will lead to honestly questioning whether the Republicans are actually as evil as they are painted.

    The actions of the last administration have left many social liberals feeling disenfranchised. They had their golden boys controlling all three branches of the US government, as well as the traditional media, and the result was not the Eden that they were promised.

    The wealthy, who are sufficiently insulated from the realities of life to believe that there has been an economic recover, still are true believers. The liberal middle class, however, who were the bulwark of the Democratic victories of the last decade are waking up more and more.

    I find myself able to engage many liberals in an honest conversation about what happened and why.

    1. You can tell a working stiff you are on his/her side all you want … but if everything you do makes their life far more difficult, and kills their job, they will eventually decide you are full of it. We see this is the waning popularity of Unions, and the turning of many deep Dem places to Republican (West Virginia had 82 or so years of Dem control of both houses, and most of the Governorships and flipped to Republican this election … GWB predicted this, actually). Workers see the Dues forcibly removed from their pay, and more and more the Union Bosses live high on the hog in houses the workers will never afford, yet back politicians who make it harder and harder for the worker to live and work and try to take away the workers rights.

      1. The aristocracy honestly believes that things have been getting better during the last six years or so, because for them, it has been. The shock on the faces of the six-figure news personalities is real. They have been selling the myth that crony capitalism is good for the working man for so long that they believe it.

        If they left Martha’s Vineyard from time to time to visit with the simple peasant folk that they think they are helping maybe they’d realize that most Americans are much less worried about Global Climate Change and Marriage Equality and much more worried about feeding their families.

    2. That is nice. I have at least one social media contact who is about to get herself on ignore because the stuff she is posting is so out there that even I am having a hard time with it. Usually I just roll with whatever anybody posts and don’t care how crazy it gets, but she’s putting up image after image about how America has rejected all the wonderful progress that’s been made in the past 6 years, the great recovery and all. It’s bizarre. Most of my leftie acquaintances are mad about the election, so I’m glad to hear that others are more reasoned.

      1. I have hope for the people who say, “OK, although we think we’re doing a good job, a lot of people don’t, so what are they seeing that we aren’t and how can we fix things.” The “I understand the 2/3 who didn’t vote, I hear them, because they’re so disgusted with [not-my-party]” and the “People are just not hearing us so we need to yell louder and double-down on [policy/practice]” folks are lost causes, IMHO. Especially the ones shrieking, “You ingrateful wretches, how dare you not love what we did for you!!!!”

  4. If you want a really depressing example of this, go to the Washington Post, and find the latest Jennifer Rubin opinion piece. I consider her a moderate. The hate and bile is astonishing. These people think they are her moral and intellectual superiors.
    Funny thing, I have lived my life believing that there is something I can learn from every person I meet. Everyone has some skill or knowledge that when they share it, I become a richer more complete person. There is a trick to it though. You have to listen. You have to treat their statements with respect. You may disagree, and that is OK too, but even in that disagreement, you can search for insights.
    This doesn’t work if all they are unwilling to engage in free thought and exchange of ideas. Then, you simply have to let them crawl back under their bridge and seek enlightenment from an open mind.

  5. There are also those with whom trying to engage, without pushing their “launch MOAB” button, gets too tiring. OK, let’s say their all-or-nothing topic is religion (or fighting -ism, or animal rights, or why .45 is G-d’s own caliber). So you avoid overt discussions of things religious. But religion begins creeping into more and more of their conversation, until you finally say to yourself “Aw, forget it. It’s easier just to part ways than to decide if I can say ‘Good Morning’ without getting yelled at.” At which point they may or may not decide that you are evil. Or they’ll act all hurt and offended and can’t figure out why you are getting large crates from Innishmouth Biological Supply and dumping the contents into your moat.

      1. That’s a new rule? Have you tried the Cthulhumari rings? The hydra steaks are always fresh, since you get two new heads whenever you cut one off…

    1. But, but, .45 IS God’s caliber of choice. And since he provided me with one, and didn’t provide that coyote with one, obviously I have more God-given rights than a coyote.

        1. “Hey Boo Boo, if Mr. Ranger stops me from swiping a pickinick basket I’m gonna bust a cap in his ass!”

          -Yogi after someone exercises the right to arm bears

      1. But why would God limit himself to a .45. He is all powerful, he could carry and fire a 155mm howitser offhand. (perhaps with tactical nuke rounds).

          1. While the 45 long Colt is obviously his baby; he would probably allow any .45 caliber through the gates.

    2. Per Churchill: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”

      I resemble that comment at times.

  6. The worst part of all is that that you can’t hurl the racism charge back at them and have it stick unless you spend way too long on the explanation for why.
    Here’s why: it’s the result of an several premises carried to their logical conclusion, combined with re-fighting battles fought decades ago.
    (Note: for the purposes of this logical progression, the left’s definition of “rights” and “minorities” will be used.)
    Premise One: Liberals are the only people who care about minorities’ rights. This might have been true 60 years ago, though it probably wasn’t even then–it’s definitely not true now.
    Premise Two: Related to Premise One, a strong centralized national government is the only means by which to protect minority rights. This one was probably true 60 years ago, but it’s not nearly as true now, if it is at all. Also overlooks how the centralized government used its power to accidentally cripple minority capability.
    Premise Three: Democrats are liberals, and for a strong, centralized government. The former is a half-truth, while that latter bit is now certainly true.
    Premise Four: Your own kind is defined by your blood, but only if you are a racial minority, because the dominant power structure treats you that way. (That this is accepting the definitions of the power structure and thereby, by leftist standards, giving in to it is elided over.)
    Logical step one: From premises one, two, and three, Democrats are the only people who can, and will, see to it that minority rights are protected
    Logical Step Two: From step one, anyone who opposes them, for whatever reason, can’t, and won’t, see to it that minority rights are protected
    Logical Step Three: From step two and premise four, a member of a minority who supports those opposed to Democrats is therefore a traitor to their kind.

    1. Lurking behind all this rhetoric of compassion and equality is the unspoken assumption that certain classes of people just can’t compete on an even footing. Correcting historic discrimination just doesn’t hold water anymore, not when we have had a defacto quota system in place for half a century.

      Suggesting that these racial quotas might be relaxed so that employers can simply hire the most qualified person without respect to race is only racism if you assume–as liberals do–that without a quota in place protected classes couldn’t get hired because they are inherently less qualified.

      I don’t believe that race determines competence. I do believe that race-based quotas does encourage less of an effort on the part of the protected groups–if you know that you don’t have to work as hard as the next guy to keep your job and get promoted, why would you give it your best effort?

      1. I may need to borrow this last paragraph to explain why Liberia’s policy of reserving certain sectors of their economy for Liberians is misguided. Especially since those sectors are things like sand mining (yes, digging sand from beaches to make concrete) and used clothing vendors. We can’t have the Chinese or Lebanese in those areas, because otherwise the Liberians wouldn’t have any way to make money. Never mind that having these really low-paying sectors set aside mean that Liberians have no incentive to get into other sectors of the economy, like manufacturing or the service sector. A few do, but not many, and the Lebanese and Chinese do it better, because they don’t have a guaranteed fall back option.

        1. one of the things Nagin did when elected was change how MSY N.O Int/ Louis Armstrong Airport did business. The leftoids had passed a law stating only “Disadvantaged Businesses” would get contracts. They defined “Disadvantaged” as “female or minority owned” (and that tended to mean Black only owned though a few were female owned) and other than grandfathered in contracts (Hertz rentals etc, the F.O.B.s and fueling, the Ground handling etc) all new work was to be only those contractors. Nagin himself used it to try a car rental that went belly up, so he was very familiar with it. The Cooling system was always in need of repair … it never got fixed and SWA even brought in huge all-in-one units to cool their section of the terminal, because there were NO “disadvantaged” businesses that were able to repair the old Chillwater system. So, after cleaning out a ton of corruption in City Hall (this was before he himself succumbed to corruption) he changed it to favoring those businesses but allowed “non-disadvantaged” companies to do work.
          This was something like your Liberian situation

          1. Yeah, when DoD started that 8a setaside crap in the 90s, it was amazing how many companies ended up with a Govt Victim Group member as “CEO” and those doing the actual work people of pallor.

            1. there was much of that there as well. Or “Franchisees” with a tan and the ear (read hand in pockets) of City Hall.

              There were complaints one company working on the Casino (both the boat and the land casino had the same rules) was not “disadvantaged” yet it was owned by, among others, “A Fat Chinaman” … Harry Lee, the sheriff of Jefferson Parish, but he was always antagonistic towards N.O. City Hall owned in part a fabricators company .. so his replay was “I guess a fat Chinaman doesn’t count as a minority in New Orleans even though there are less of us than any other race”

    2. “The worst part of all is that that you can’t hurl the racism charge back at them and have it stick unless you spend way too long on the explanation for why.” No, you don’t. I’ve taken to quoting the _dictionary_ definition of “Racism.” Then I point out that they match that definition.

    3. Every election year I am tempted to whom up a poster I think is guaranteed to cause Liberal aneurisms;

      Two photographs; a (preferably post Civil War era) Klansman side by side with Al “racism has been good to me” Sharpton. Caption “The Democrats; defining people by the color of their skin for over a hundred years.”

    4. Premise one has always been absolute garbage. The Republicans and Northern Democrats had been trying to get a civil rights bill passed since Eisenhower, but kept getting blocked by Southern Democrats. It wasn’t until LBJ realized that Jim Crow was unsustainable and the only way to keep control of blacks was to put them on the welfare plantation that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

      1. And it was still passed by Republicans, after enough democrats were won or bribed over to override Bobby Byrd’s filibuster the final vote fell out like this:
        The Senate
        Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
        Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

        the House:
        Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
        Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

    5. Relevant:
      Academics and media tell minorities: You’ll never succeed because of racism
      By Naomi Schaefer Riley

      The school tracked grades and retention rates, and found a clear correlation between higher locus of control attitudes and successful academic performance, Jim Goecker, vice president for enrollment management and strategic communications, told the website Inside Higher Ed.

      Which makes you wonder — what messages make young people feel as if they are in control of their future?

      Well here’s what doesn’t: The constant chatter about institutional racism and sexism that pervade our educational institutions and media outlets.

      If you want to give a kid the sense that he has some modicum of control over his destiny, that his efforts will be rewarded with success, it’s probably best not to tell him the decks are stacked against him.

      But that’s exactly what we do.

      N.B. — Mrs Riley’s husband, Jason, is author of the recent book: Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

      1. My second son and his friends were told by a teacher they were graduating from a small rural school, and would therefore never get anywhere in life. We (the parents) laughed with him as he told us this, as we were teaching him something entirely different. And sure enough- he and his friends are successes. Making a lot more then the average public school teacher.

        I think parents can overcome bad lessons from schools better then schools can overcome bad lessons from parents. Our next three kids didn’t hear statemetns like this from teachers. Not from us, but some other parents apparently contacted the school board… and teachers have been much more positive in the following years.

  7. Well, as the International Lord of Hate says, arguing with a moron online is a spectator sport – not for their benefit, but for the edification of the audience that can be reached by entertainingly exposing the clueless PEBCAK for the unthinking lightweight that they truly are.

    1. This is precisely what I was going to say, but I scrolled down first to make sure nobody else had said it. You don’t have to engage for long, but you should engage long enough to let the troll reveal their nature. Any lurkers reading (and I’m starting to learn just how many people are lurking-but-not-posting on any given blog — a lot more than you’d think) will pretty soon see which person is posting rational, evidence-based arguments, and which one is ranting, posting nothing but ad hominems or emotion-based “arguments”, and generally acting irrational.

      Next comes the tricky part: once the troll has revealed their trollish nature, stop engaging them. This will be hard, because your emotions will be high. But just tell yourself “I’ve given the lurkers a peek behind the curtain. My work here is done.”

      Oh, and if someone else is already engaging the troll effectively, and making the troll reveal their intellectual lightweightness (totally a word) to the world? Then resist the temptation to pile on. If everyone piles on, it’ll likely be counterproductive: suddenly the troll will look like the poor, downtrodden underdog, and Americans have a soft spot for underdogs. Troll-baiting is a solitary sport, with maybe a partner or two waiting in the wings. But no more than two or three, else the troll starts to morph into a boojum. And you don’t want to meet a boojum. You really, really don’t want to mee—

      ^*@#*$*% CONNECTION LOST %*$*#@*^

      1. about the engagement issue, (no, not the leading to marriage one … sheesh) Trolls here, and at MHN don’t last long like other places. they tend to get chewed upon then spit out so forcefully they disappear rather quickly of their own accord (or Prius as the case may be) unless they get particularly stupid, then an announcement is made and they get dumped

      2. (and I’m starting to learn just how many people are lurking-but-not-posting on any given blog — a lot more than you’d think)

        Yeah, it’s mostly we who can’t keep our traps shut when there’s something interesting to talk about that use up out time commenting on blogs and such.

        What? I included myself…

        1. If I remember right, — which is a paid site, rather than free– has about 20% response rate.

          Presumably, free sites have an even higher rate of friendlies that don’t talk. (As well as a much, much higher rate of silent not-sures or againsts.)

          1. Anecdotally, I know I will randomly drive-by/follow links to a site and read a post that if posted here or somewhere I frequent often, I would comment on; but I’m not going through the hassle to sign up at the site just so I can make a comment or two and probably never come back to see if anyone answered them.

            I’m sure I’m not the only one who does that.

                1. Yeah, I don’t really let that stop me either.

                  BTW Wayne, our little SJW friend showed back up overnight. He’s upped the SJW rhetoric.

                  In fact, I invite everyone to come on over and take a whack. 😀

    2. It is also necessary so that they can’t claim “silence implies assent” to whatever fallacy they are pushing.

        1. I point out that it might be because they were so mind numbingly stupid no one could come up with the words for just how stupid they might be.

  8. Also, side note, apparently there’s an article out claiming that what Lena Dunham got up to with her younger sister was perfectly normal and not psycho at all.

    1. Oh course. Sexual abuse is something only is committed by males, and only done to females. Everything else is a healthy lifestyle choice and you’re a prude if you object to it. .

  9. The attacks came from members of the Democratic Party, the so-called party of equality, who continue to claim to be the party of minorities and the oppressed.

    The problem is the Liberals won’t let someone unlink the term “minority” and “oppressed”. If you are a “minority” and don’t want to be considered “oppressed” you are out of luck. If necessary they will do the oppressing (e.g. Mia Love) just to make sure the terms stay together.

    1. The Democratic Party has never, ever been that party. It has been the party of factionalization, polarization and demonization since it was formed, from the aggressive and expansionist days of the wars agains the Indians and Mexicans, through the days when they turned the Irish Famine refugees against the freed blacks on the wharves of New Orleans, to secession and Klan and Jim Crow, right up to the days Clinton, Obama and Occupy, Silly to expect better behavior from them under any circumstances.

      1. Yes but Jews are Evil, and their evilness counters their minority status. And they certainly aren’t oppressed, the Holocaust was a long time ago, and they got given their own country out of that deal without having to buy or conquer it themselves; they certainly didn’t earn it. (and yes I have actually heard that second argument made)

          1. Agreed — the Democrat Party has made it clear that so long as they know their place (no new settlements) and pay their jizyah (in the form of contributions to the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and affiliated recipients) they will be tolerated as silent partners in the American experiment. This would not be the first experiment to use Jews.

  10. I’m not sure I particularly agree with this article. I think what happened at Gettysburg fits within the term “engagement”. These people will undermine your business, try to get you fired, attempt to ruin your social standing, and all too often go after your children.

    Non-engagement, for me, is not an option in those circumstances. I would completely agree with the idea that the style of engagement should change.

    Maybe this is just a language disagreement?

    1. More a disagreement on “type of engagement”.

      When they take actions against you, then “non-engagement” isn’t the answer.

      IMO Jason is talking about “engagement in discussions/arguments”.

      There are people who are so “set in their positions” that they can’t accept the “agree to disagree” response.

      If you disagree with them, then you’re an enemy to be fought.

      IMO as long as the person “restricts” himself to name-calling, then “just ignoring him” is the proper response.

      Otherwise (as I said above), other actions are the proper response.

      1. Just by name calling, you can cost someone a contract, or a job, cost their spouse and children a good night’s sleep, and most of all, you can cost someone their audience because even listening to that socially unacceptable person puts them audience in the outer darkness.

        Just name calling at the level the progressives do it is battlespace prep for much more serious measures. I don’t demand that everybody be as proactive to that battlespace prep as I am. I would appreciate understanding when I’m proactive.

        1. What you’re talking about here goes beyond what I consider “name calling”.

          IMO you’re talking about “defamation of character” which is, as you said, very serious business.

          If some idiot starts calling me a bigot on a discussion board (like this), it can just be name-calling and I can afford to ignore the idiot.

          If on the other hand (as you said), the idiot starts doing so in places where my hypothetical bosses and/or co-workers (hypothetical because I’m retired), then it is something to be fought.

          To repeat, IMO Jason is talking about the common troll who intrudes into discussion boards and engages in spewing garbage but doesn’t engage in “defamation of character” where it can harm people.

          Note, for what it is worth I don’t like even simple “name calling” but it isn’t necessary for me to “whack” the name caller on places like this.

          1. The thing that’s now called “doxxing”—where you publish a person’s real name, job, and address, in the hopes of in-person harassment—is not defamation according to the legal definition (unless you’re talking about the same name.) It is incitement, I think.

            I was exposed to the concept way back when I was a child. There was a friend of the family who used to get death threats and the like on a semi-regular basis because he was outspoken and didn’t mince words. Mind you, the topics he usually got threats about were thing like SF shows and books… some people *really* don’t like their ideas challenged. These were the days when almost everyone was pseudonymous, so when he was doxxed it was more of a shocking thing. Some of those folk tried to get him fired, because he was posting on company time… but he was in computer services, and would go on Usenet while waiting for things to compile. He stayed employed until he died (and the trolls were out in force at his online wake… oh, how I loved block user.)

            I saw how nasty it could get when I was young, and that was someone without small children to worry about, and who was extensively trained in self-defense (by which I mean both physical and Second Amendment.) I… tend to be temperate online, because I have too many hostages to fortune.

            1. IIRC “incitement” and “defamation” are both real crimes (even if proving them can be difficult). IMO “incitement” is an attack on the person of yourself and your loved ones while “defamation” is an attack on your reputation. Either is a very evil thing to do.

            2. There’s another side to “doxxing” – I think it would be nice to have the names and addresses of ALL government employees readily available. You can be sure they can get your information – the process should be reversible.

              1. Unfortunately, at the moment, the incitement has to be to commit a crime with a close connection.


                Some civil rights activist didn’t want to take his medicine after his declaration that blacks who ignored a boycott might get beaten up, and the actual battery of such blacks. NAACP helped him, and idiot judges agreed.

          2. I think we are mostly disagreeing on how often people do due diligence with google searches.

  11. There’s a type of person who while not “trollish”, I’ve decided to “not engage in debates with”.

    This is a person who believes that “no thinking person will believe that” so he persists in “asking questions” that he believes that will “make the other person think” and thus will reject the “false positions” that the first person dislikes.

    Sometimes the “question” is so narrow that the other person can’t answer it “satisfactory” so the first person can claim that the other person didn’t answer the question even when the other person believes the answer supports his position.

    Oh, this type of person is prone to take the position that the “other side” doesn’t really think about their beliefs.

    Of course, the “other side” very likely (and IMO reasonably) believe that this type of person really doesn’t think about their beliefs. [Sad Smile]

    1. This. People who ask, “How can you believe in a big man with a beard in the sky?” and then when I reply that neither I nor any theist of my acquaintance actually believes in a “big bearded man in the sky” they claim that I am refusing to answer their question. There is nothing to be gained by trying to explain things to these people, because they think they know what I believe better than I do.

      1. This. I categorically refuse to permit anybody to tell me my own beliefs when they actually not my beliefs.

      2. Unfortunately both sides do it. One of the reasons I stopped watching Hannity was that he’d always lay out these stupidly-obvious rhetorical traps and then start badgering his liberal guests to stick their foot in it.

    2. I most recently encountered this when trying to explain my religious POV to someone with a strict interpretation of “being saved.” He was upset because I wouldn’t just say the words (some variant of “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior”) and I couldn’t convince him that “lip service” applies to religion, too. I had to stop following that thread because he was concerned for my state of salvation and I couldn’t convince him that my relationship with God was fine and not his business.

    3. One response is, “no, you don’t care what my opinion is. You just want me to tell you that you are right.”

      The follow up if you want to risk it is, “Fine, you are right. Are you happy now?”
      Ending this with, “Does this mean you are going away quietly now,” may lead to a fight.

  12. Good article, Jason. I was a liberal for years, back when the term did indeed mean freedom and giving someone a break. I was even a liberal when I was in the Army, as were many of those around me. I’ve always been for helping people. Hell, I even worked the trenches of social services and saw some true inequities, like the guy who was poisoned by cyanide on the job, while the employer tied him up in court waiting for him to die. Or the crack mom who had passed eight hyperactive kids off to disabled grandmom, while she was busy working on putting out the next crack baby. I thought at the time we should have some way to keep such a creature from putting out more future welfare recipients. Well, back to when I was a liberal. We used to sit around with the other side and talk philosophy over beer, and rarely did anyone call someone from the other side evil or stupid. Many of the true conservatives were well respected soldiers who had proven their courage in the jungles of Southeast Asia, so we wouldn’t think of insulting them. Over the years my views have changed. I have voted for Presidents on both sides, depending on my thoughts at the time and where I thought our country was going. I’ll admit I often voted for the guy I thought would do the least harm to the country. I still don’t believe in the conservative camp totally, but I’m definitely not in the Progressive Camp. My views are all over the place, and I believe that there are some destructive conservative policies as well. I guess Moderate Libertarian would best fit me. Oh, and you can call me Islamophobe all you want, it’s a term I wear proudly. To me, whoever opposes the machinations of Radical Islam is my good friend, no matter their religion or class. People forcing others to pray to their version of God or they’ll cut off their heads. That’s true evil. As one gentlemen said on here already, I don’t pray to any Deity, and I will certainly not bow down to that one.
    I have found more welcoming of opposing viewpoints among the conservatives than the progressives. Not all the time. I have been called some names on conservative posts, even when I didn’t see myself as their enemy. But I have seen myself disparaged much more often on radical progressive sites, even if they weren’t talking to me directly.

    1. See, here’s the thing: Progressives are NOT Liberals. They claim to be, but not all who are covered in fleece and say “Baaaaa” are sheep.

    2. “Or the crack mom who had passed eight hyperactive kids off to disabled grandmom, while she was busy working on putting out the next crack baby. I thought at the time we should have some way to keep such a creature from putting out more future welfare recipients.”

      Notice that she does not seem able to control her acts, notice they pose a risk to herself or others, notice that actually, we have laws to cover that situation already. . . .

    1. As with so many other questions, yours can be answered by Google. 14,000 results, in this case. Teatard returns 22,600. It’s _one_ of the reasons I refer to the other side as the Demagogue party.

    2. Bad Think folks are acceptable targets– you can do anything to them, including accusing women of being whores, random accusations of homosexuality– anything that from a Bad Thinker would be evidence of Bad Think is OK when it’s for the right cause.


        1. That reminds me: what is the main course for the Hun Thanksgiving feast? I ask in case we need to see about getting the cooler-trailer hooked up to the time machine.

        1. They all do that, you just have to turn loose the parking brake so it doesn’t make the cool noise.

  13. The funniest and most startling moment of post election coverage was MSNBCs reaction to Allison L. Grimes nasty non-concession speech. Matthews and Al Sharpton were visibly shocked at her bitter gracelessness. Matthews said, in a concession speech, you need to congratulate the winner, you need to be gracious, you need to move on. You first need to concede, Sharpton said. You need to admit the other side won, she did not do that. Man, when you need to have Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton lecture you on manners and tell you you have no class…

    1. Al “racism done been good to me” Sharpton has actually gottten less shrill in recent years. At least a little. I Put it down to a creeping awareness that if he whips up a mob into a total riot, he is no longer young and spry enough to scramble out of the way.

      He’s always reminded me of Don King, without Mr. King’s solid ethics.

      1. And, in theory at least, he is supposed to answer to a higher power a bit more directly than most. He’s getting closer to that eventuality.

          1. The Right Reverend Sharpton, like the Right Reverend Wright, are holdovers from a period when “educated negroes” were allowed to pursue one of two professions: teacher of preacher. A preacher is even less accountable for producing actual results than are teachers and gains all sorts of tax benefits besides.

            For example, a preacher can be paid a token salary while the ministry provides a housing allowance (tax free), clothing allowance (tax-free) travel expenses (tax free), meals and entertainment expenses (you know what free) and a pension (call it a stipend and you won’t have to pay taxes.) And when successfully sued for, say, slander and libel, a preacher can declare himself without forfeitable assets and refuse to pay any penalty.

  14. Mia Love has proven her worth far above those who mock and curse her.
    She is a real human; her detractors can no longer even claim a common humanity. They have divorced themselves from all common ties. As far as I’m concerned, they are rabid skunks, worth only the bullet that protects real humans from their poison.

  15. I am convinced that watching MSNBC is very likely brain damaging. Stop watching it, Sarah, for the sake of your writing.

    1. I believe that was Jason Cordova guest-blogging that he was watching MSNBC, not Sarah.

  16. Worth noting, albeit in a slightly different context: calling your opponents “racists,” “bigots,” “sexists,” “too extreme” and just generally indistinguishable from Satan is not conducive to working together in bipartisan comity to develop programs that are good for Americans. Hard to build bridges when you’ve set the rivers afire.

    1. Since Democrats seem to believe “bipartisan compromise” means give us most of what we want now, and we’ll promise to discuss what you want later; I’m not all that interested in crossing that river, anyways.

  17. I give up (posting in Truth vs Pravda on the Bar).

    One asshole there is pro-SSM and has made it clear that he believes that I would want to legally kill gays.

    What really pisses me off are the other pro-SSM individuals who don’t think that nonsense is worth commenting on.

    Sorry to interrupt the conversation but while I involved the Bar Moderators of my decision, I had to get this off my chest.

    1. Sorry, haven’t hit that forum in months (possibly years) should I go over there and point out that you are Christian, not Islamic?

      1. The idiot doesn’t think there’s a difference between Conservative Christians and Islamics.

        1. Because the hats Protestant Reformed woman wear are exactly the same as the burkah, and not working on Sunday unless it’s an emergency is the same as killing a woman for fending off a rapist.
          /heavy sarc with double eye roll

          Hey, cat, bring those eyes back, I need them!

          1. I’ve taken to keeping a spare set around in a place where I can reach them by feel. It makes it much easier to find the set that rolled away somewhere.

  18. Strangely coincidentally relevant:
    The Poverty of Obama’s Pragmatism
    Peter Berkowitz

    Rather than dissolving metaphysical questions, [American philosophical] pragmatism encourages the delusion that they have been dissolved. When pressed, philosophical pragmatism becomes a series of rhetorical ruses designed to impel those who wish to explore the deep conflicts between moral, political, and religious views to shut up and go away.

    Obama’s political pragmatism operates in similar fashion. It preaches that disputes between left and right that appear unresolvable are illusory, while systematically resolving them in the left’s favor.

    HT: Paul Mirengoff @ Powerline, who adds:

    Claims that Obama is a pragmatist in the ordinary, non-philosophical sense are based on confusion between substantive pragmatism and political pragmatism. Obama is a politician and thus has often felt compelled to act in politically pragmatic way.


    It turns out, however, that even Obama’s political pragmatism is impoverished. Its political consequence is incoherent policies that have undermined both the president and his party.

    1. Pragmatism is incoherence in action. You can’t be pragmatic except in means, not ends, and that leaves the ends up in the air. If a ruler orders the tide to go back out, it really matters whether it’s Caligula declaring war on Neptune, or Canute rebuking the impious flattery of his courtiers.

  19. Those of us of a certain age remember when Lenny Bruce was a martyr to Free Speech, hailed in a Broadway play about his persecution and the subject of a 1974 film by Bob Fosse, starring Dustin Hoffman, nominated for five Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Director, Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material, Best Cinematography) as well as a slew of others (Golden Globes, BAFTA, Cannes Film Festival and others.)

    Its description at IMDB reads:

    The story of acerbic 1960s comic Lenny Bruce, whose groundbreaking, no-holds-barred style and social commentary was often deemed by the Establishment as too obscene for the public.

    Emphasis added.

    Bruce’s comments on race in America were acerbic

    NSFW. Here is the expurgated text:

    Are there any n*****s here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? “Are there any n*****s here tonight?” I know there’s one n*****, because I see him back there working. Let’s see, there’s two n*****s. And between those two n*****s sits a kyke. And there’s another kyke— that’s two kykes and three n*****s. And there’s a spic. Right? Hmm? There’s another spic. Ooh, there’s a wop; there’s a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there’s three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there’s one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kykes here, do I hear five kykes? I got five kykes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven n*****s? I got seven n*****s. Sold American. I pass with seven n*****s, six spics, five micks, four kykes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, “I would like to introduce you to all the n*****s in my cabinet,” and if he’d just say “n***** n***** n***** n***** n*****” to every n***** he saw, “boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie,” “n***** n***** n***** n***** n*****” ’til n***** didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a n***** at school.
    courtesy Wikipedia (which will probably soon have to edit the quote.)

    Blazing Saddles, also from 1974, is another film (this one written by Richard Pryor) known for its frequent use of the N-Word.

    What has happened to Liberals in this country? It is almost as if they want to make the word hurt more. There are a half dozen additional epithets scarcely less offensive. Used to be it was conservatives believed to be empowering the thought police.

    I saw Lenny on Broadway in 1972 and the film when it was in first release. It is strange to know “Liberals” would denounce now what they praised then.

    I apologise for any troll-bait this constitutes — the need to append that is further evidence of the fascistic quality of Progressive thought.

    1. Progressive thought has progressed beyond the need for logical and internal consistency, indeed, beyond the need to be actual thoughts. They now work on pure emotion. One emotion in fact: Hate.

      1. And one must remember that the left party, (liberals, progressives, whatever they want to call themselves) the Democrats has always been the party of slavery and segregation. I maintain they still are but have become sophisticated – read sneaky – in their approach,having learned from the likes of Margaret Sanger and Lyndon Johnson. Even half-black Obama hasn’t exactly helped blacks and other minorities.

        So, being basically dishonest they’ll use whatever means to achieve their goals which like slavery means power over people.

        1. Heaven help you if you point out that the welfare state fits the Supreme Court’s definition of slavery: that you should labor against your will for the good of another.

Comments are closed.