Fear – by Amanda S. Green – a Blast From The Past from September 2017

*Amanda had a bad week after a bad week, so she’s not able to write a post today. She promises one next week. Yes, I probably should write one, but I DO have a book to write. – SAH*


Fear – by Amanda S. Green – a Blast From The Past from September 2017


It is alive and well and living in the United States. No, I’m not talking about fear of walking down the street at night because something bad might happen. I’m not even talking about a parent’s fear of letting her child play outside or walk home from school by himself because someone might report the child as being neglected. There is another type of fear rearing its ugly head right now. It’s not new but, thanks to the media and social media, it is more pervasive.

The fear I’m talking about is the fear of speaking your mind. No, I’m not talking about those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Yes, both sides have their extremists, whether they want to admit it or not. Those folks don’t seem to have any fear of letting their voices be heard long and hard. The ones I’m talking about are those who tend to fall in the middle of the political spectrum. It doesn’t matter if they identify themselves as liberal or conservative, libertarian or something else. These are the folks who don’t buy into either side lock and smoking barrel.

These are the people who would, in many cases, be the voices of reason. We might not agree with them, but we could discuss our differences without the conversation turning into a shouting match. Unfortunately, they are being silenced. No, not by the government but by those zealots on either side of the argument – and it doesn’t matter which argument.

At first, it was simply easier to walk away from the so-called discussions because it quickly became clear that those who said they wanted to discuss an issue didn’t. What they wanted was an echo chamber. There comes a point when you have to realize that no matter how well thought out your points might be, no matter how many facts you have to back your stance, there are people who aren’t interested.

But there are some issues where we can’t just step back. We remember Martin Niemöller and his words about the Nazis:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Right now, if you take to social media, you will most often see the above verse cited in response to what happened in Charlottesville. Those condemning the Neo-Nazis who marched that day, especially the ass who drove his car into the crowd, recite it in support of their cries to take away the right of those same Nazis to march or wear the swastika or, in some instances, to even speak their beliefs.

These same people have taken to social media to crow about how they have identified and “outed” those they identify as being “Nazis” in the march. In some instances, they have cost people their jobs. In another, Professor Kyle Quinn of the University of Arkansas was wrongly identified as one of the “torch bearers” in Charlottesville. He was attacked in social media, especially Twitter. His life was threatened. Fortunately for Quinn, not only was he NOT at the protest, those he worked with knew it. Even when it was shown he wasn’t there, the accusations that he is a racist continued, as did calls for him to be fired from his post with the university. Facts, you see, didn’t matter to those attacking him. Someone on their side said he was guilty so, by God, he was guilty and he needed to pay.

But it gets worse. We are told over and over again not to judge someone by their appearance. How many times have we heard this? So where is the condemnation from the Left for what to happened Joshua Witt from Colorado? Mr. Witt was stabbed because of his haircut. [This seems to have been a smolleting, but the idea there’s a “White supremacist haircut” is out there, and it’s bizarre. – SAH 2019] Yes, you read that right. His haircut. Witt had the misfortune of styling his hair in a way some of the Neo-Nazis do. His crime, other than having the offending hair cut? None. He was, according to his version of events, getting out of his car when someone came up, asked if he was a Nazi. Then the guy stabbed him.

Witt isn’t the only one to be called out – or worse – for that particular hairstyle since Charlottesville. Singer Macklemore found himself being called out on social media for the same hairstyle. The kicker here? He’d changed his style months ago. But those attacking him couldn’t be bothered to check before striking out.

Am I saying I support the Neo-Nazis or any other white supremacy group? Not on your life. However, much as I hate it, they do have the right to assemble – as long as they follow the law. They have the right to say what they want, within some very limited legal definitions. We have the right to point and laugh.

Where myself, and so many others, get uncomfortable is when we see people advocating taking those rights away. It is a very slippery slope they are proposing we get on. If the government decides today to silence the Nazis, they have started on the road to silencing others. That is not what this country is about. If we silence the Nazis, the skinheads, the KKK or similar groups, who next?

This is where the fear comes in. It is much more than the fear of the slippery slope should the government decide it needs to start shutting down free speech, no matter how heinous the group might be. It is the fear of what our neighbors might do, be it through ignorance or misunderstanding or something much worse. We have a group of people who seem to think it is their duty – their right, if you will – to “out” those they don’t agree with. They don’t consider the consequences of their actions. All that matters to them is that they are on the “right” side.

They don’t consider what happens when they publicly proclaim someone is a Nazi and then that person loses their job. What if that person has a family and is the only one employed? What if that person, or someone in their family, has a serious illness and the insurance he had through that employer was what was helping keep them alive until they could receive the surgery or other treatment necessary to cure them?

Or, as in the case of Professor Quinn, what if they were innocent?

In so many ways, the actions of these anti-white supremacists remind me of what happened in Nazi Germany – and in the Soviet Union. Neighbors reported their neighbors for not being good little Nazis or Communists. An air of suspicion and paranoia ruled both Germany and the Soviet Union because you had to watch what you said and did, no matter where you were.

I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have free speech and allow those I don’t agree with the right to spout their hate and stupidity than to face the possibility of the government going the way of Germany and Italy in the 1930’s and 1940’s or the Soviet Union. For those who have so gleefully been pointing fingers and calling names – and I don’t care what side of the argument you’re on – consider this. What are you going to do when those fingers are pointed at you? Because, the time will come if you keep this up. Just as that snowball grows as it rolls down the side of the mountain and shit flows downhill, as one group is silenced, fingers will point to another and then another and then another until you find yourself the target.

131 thoughts on “Fear – by Amanda S. Green – a Blast From The Past from September 2017

    1. }}} What they wanted was an echo chamber. There comes a point when you have to realize that no matter how well thought out your points might be, no matter how many facts you have to back your stance, there are people who aren’t interested.

      You still have to argue. Not to convince THEM, that is a waste of time. But to make sure they don’t have the soapbox to themselves, to make all of those lurkers sitting around thinking that no one is arguing with them, so they must be correct.

      Sure, some of THEM already have THEIR minds made up as well. But if you’re the clearly rational, reasonable one, then you have a chance to sway a lot more people than just that idiot you’re debating.

      Do public debate takes place in a closet. There are always more sitting around listening than there are speaking.

      NEVER let a libtard shut you down until they’ve silenced you by force (blocking, deleting, etc.) or gotten repetitive in their arguments (which you point out, THEN quit)

  1. IMO the number of real neo-Nazis/White Supremacists are vastly out-numbered by the number of people that the “Liberals” call neo-Nazi/White Supremacist. 😡

      1. Reportedly, Antifa has gotten to the point where its members believe that if you simply ask them to define what a fascist is, then you must be a fascist.

    1. Relevant and worth reading:

      The dangerous drive to correlate Islamophobia with anti-Semitism
      Islamophobia, like much Muslim discourse, is based on an appropriation and inversion of Jewish experience and precepts
      By Melanie Phillips
      The Somali-born congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who has made a number of anti-Semitic remarks, is currently embroiled in controversy over her marriage history. When claims against her of bigamy and immigration fraud first emerged in 2016, Omar accused the journalists involved of “Islamophobia.”

      Omar has also made a claim being heard more and more: that Muslims are called anti-Semites only because they are Muslim. In other words, anyone who calls out Muslim anti-Semitism is Islamophobic.

      This twisted claim is a way of making Muslim anti-Semitism unsayable.

      The claim is being heard alongside the message that Islamophobia is the equivalent of anti-Semitism—an equation made by the leadership of Britain’s Jewish community as well. This is dismaying because it’s a morally bankrupt and dangerous equivalence.

      While some people are truly prejudiced against Muslims—just as some hate or fear anyone not like themselves—Islamophobia was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of silencing legitimate discussion of any fault in the Islamic world. …

      1. At least a decade ago I remember boggling as a Muslim woman academic in the West explained on TV that she couldn’t be anti-Semitic because Arabs are Semites. She hated Israel and some Jews, but she was not anti-Semitic.

        1. Which honestly, as a fan of words keeping their original meanings, I would have to agree. My response would be, “Yes, you’re right. You’re not anti-Semetic. You’re just a Jew-hating bigot.”
          I see no problem with stripping away the euphemism to reveal the truth.

          1. But anti-Semitic was originally explicitly coined specifically to replace a word meaning hatred of Jews.

            1. True, it was meant to be a polite way of saying, “Jew hater.” But if Jew-haters don’t like the term, I’m more than willing to dispense with the politeness.

            2. And Phoenicians. Don’t forget those dirty Phoenicians.

              And “homophobia” was originally explicitly coined as a way for the LGBTQ2ISRC4 community to slander their political opponents as crazy. I prefer to go with the actual technical meanings of words, as opposed to the excuses for using them or the street meanings. Perhaps that’s just because my career requires precision in communication. I still bristle every time I hear a newsreader misuse “decimated” even though I know the 2nd meaning is very old.

              1. Well, originally “homophobia” was coined to refer to the fear of being considered homosexual.

                IE “Pretty Guys” who were heterosexual but others called them homosexual.

                Still, the modern term just means “I hate you”.

        2. I suppose (presuming the Muslim woman was of Arabic NOT Persian descent) she is legalistically right. Abraham is descended from Noah through Shem . Genesis 21:9-12 has G-D tell Abraham that Ishmael his son from Hagar shall also form a nation. Islam views the Arab peoples as descended from Ishmael from Abraham though the story varies in many particulars (Specifically Ishmael is offered for sacrifice NOT Isaac). All of Israel is descended from Isaac so they are also ultimately descended from Shem and thus Semites (where the H the H went I don’t know). But of course this is NOT common English usage nor has it been since it was used that way in academia talking about various races in the 19th century (and perhaps earlier).

      2. Islamophobia is a very real and natural fear of the gibbering maniacs and their delight of posting the beheading of Daniel Pearl by Al Qaida. Other than the possiblity of my teenage Jewish Doctor giving me a shot, there is nothing comparable for Jewish people. [Honesty, it was immuzations for a trip to Europe, and since he had just given his daughter, my classmate, the same shots, I was confident they weren’t lethal.]
        Sadly, I understand Omar’s attitude, she learned it from the American Left and uses it for her Islamic agenda.
        But ask the little old ladies in France who they “fear”, ask the blond teenagers of Rotherham U.K. the same. They fear, and that fear has a name.

        1. No, Omar absorbed her attitude from her parents, her community, and the American Left. It’s one reason why I support dispersing legal immigrants as much as possible throughout the entire country to promote assimilation rather than dumping them into large ghetto enclaves to stew in their own toxic juices.

      3. Omar has also made a claim being heard more and more: that Muslims are called anti-Semites only because they are Muslim.

        I suppose this does kind of make sense– if you assume that the extremely common hatred of the Jews as thieves of that which is owed either the Arabs or the Muslims is intrinsic to the state of being Muslim (sort of like “believes Jesus is God incarnated” is for Christians) then it would kind of be unfair to point it out, you’re hammering on a point– kind of like pointing to everybody who isn’t a Muslim and declaring them “infidel” because they are, duh, not holding the teachings of Islam.

      4. The claim is being heard alongside the message that Islamophobia is the equivalent of anti-Semitism—an equation made by the leadership of Britain’s Jewish community as well. This is dismaying because it’s a morally bankrupt and dangerous equivalence.

        Geeky comparison came to mind– remember how the X-Men were supposedly a race parable?

        Well… “Mutants are just like Blacks” is a rather broken fable, because African Americans aren’t going to melt your skin off with a touch, or put you in a coma on accident, or blow your head off by LOOKING AT YOU without sunglasses, or…..

            1. I really hate the “Prof X is MLK and Magneto is Malcolm X” garbage.

              When Magneto was introduced, he was a would-be Hitler. IE He was all “Mutants are the Master Race And I’m Master of All Mutants”. 😡

              1. One can argue about whether his characterizations before and after were good, and which was better — but what you can’t really argue is that the switch was justified in the comic. It wasn’t.

                One can cook up some fanon that says, o, that he suffered brain damage in Auschwitz and the regression to infancy and back accidentally cured it (or some of it), but that would just be a fan explanation — there is ZERO evidence in the comic.

              2. Magneto is a wonderful example of someone becoming that which he hates.

                Mary: I have to disagree with you. The comics do support his change of view. I’ve got that issue somewhere up in the attic; but it would take me hours to find it (One, I don’t know which box it’s in, and Two, I’d end up reading them for several hours.) It was one of the issues where he blasts down Kitty Pride (Shadowcat), and realizing he stuck down a young Jewish girl just like the Nazi’s stuck down the Jews when he was a child, that he begins turning his world view around.

                1. As I remember that issue, it was striking down a child more than a Jewish child.

                  But even there, the comics had already started down the road of “Magneto is a Protector of Mutant Kind” rather than “Magneto is the Rightful Master of the Mutant Master Race”.

                  Of course, the very idea that Magneto was a victim of the Nazis was IMO was the start of the Whitewashing of him.

              3. To be fair, when he was introduced he was a Kirby/Lee super villain, one each. The subtleties of his character as it now stands were introduced a LOT later.

                Which sends a rather mixed message, but the X-men comics from beginning to present are full of suck, along with shallow profundity. They are friggin COMIC BOOKS.

                It’s possible for comics to deal with serious subjects without trivializing them, but it doesn’t happen often in a superhero setting, no matter how much the industry pats itself on the back for trying.

                MAUS had no supers.

                1. I think it’s more the “cheap entertainment” than the format. Or, for that matter, the superpowers. I found in Through A Mirror Darkly that it lent itself very well to philosophical themes. Tends to the abstract questions, though.

              1. I quit when they decided Kurt had been mind-raped into setting up a fake rapture for Catholics.

                Doyle had an excuse for gross ignorance of Mormonism; no modern author has a similar excuse for Catholicism.

                  1. I got out of boot in late ’01…. I was in A-school, could afford it all, BOUGHT it all… was summer when they did that junk, so you’re at least two years ahead of me.

                    1. I’m a collector in remission. Collected assiduously in the ‘70’s, then dropped it as I became aware of the problems of serial narratives, and observed that character development cannot really happen to a character you expect to be telling stories about once a month (or more) for decades.

                      The last bound collection I bought was DAMAGE CONTROL, Bout a company in New York City that deals with superbattle damage.

                      And the (to quote Lord Vetinari) “inconvenient occult rubbish” and superscience that such conflicts leave behind.

                    2. character development cannot really happen to a character you expect to be telling stories about once a month (or more) for decades.

                      Steve Ditko disagreed with that opinion.

                      Which is why Steve Ditko only did thirty-nine* issues (plus annuals) of Spiderman’s adventures.

                      *Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #1-38

              2. They were actually making the Inhumans a stand-in for active homosexuals and similar lifestyles?!?!

                Dang, I almost wanna see that, teh brain breaking would be epic.

                  1. Which makes no ever lovin’ sense….

                    One is involuntary.

                    One you JUMP INTO A FREAKING MUTANT-MACHINE.

                    “Like, toats the same!”

                    1. LOL 😆

                      Well, Agents Of Shield had a “different” type of Inhumans,

                      The Basic Group was as you said, but there were humans who were descended from the Basic Group who only had “potential powers”.

                      In the series, one of the Basic Group unleashed a “special chemical” into the atmosphere that would awaken the “potential powers” of the people descended from the Basic Group.

                    2. naah, they had a segment of the pupulation secretly being ‘Inhumans’ and getting randomly exposed to terragen mists by actions Maximus was taking, if i understand right

                      keep in mind that most of that plot was dropped when the Inhumans series bombed.

                1. they were making the inhumans stand-ins for mutants, and thus everything that was their standard mutant plots.

                  1. *holds head in hands*

                    Oh for heaven’s sake.
                    Or for “did not flunk basic math” sake.

                    This doesn’t even hit logic’s level…..

                    1. well, the X-books properties belonged to Fox, so they couldn’t have an AoS person suddenly have mutant powers manifest…

                      (that and they shied away from having Wendell Vaughn show up)

                  2. Given the incoherence of most stories of fantastic racism — that still couldn’t have helped.

  2. No, you should probably NOT write a post. Books come first. And short stories. Feeding the Fictional Muse ALWAYS takes precedence. Keep her healthy and alert so she can continually torment you.

    As Kip so proudly proclaimed at trial, Go ahead, take away our post! We’ll make our own! Then we’ll come back and comment here!

  3. Regarding Martin Niemöller’s words, it might be considered that one of the values Jonathan Haidt identified identified as highly important to conservatives and irrelevant to liberals is that of process While liberals value results, methods be damned, conservatives believe that how you get to a result matters as much or more than the result reached. As we see played out over and over again in the #MeToo era, due process is a conservative value, liberals only demanding it when it serves their desired ends.

    Thus even if we dislike Socialists, Trade Unionists, and Jews it is important that we speak out and demand fair trials, due process and adherence to the rule of law because without those we are no longer Americans.

      1. Well it’s both. I always loved an exchange from Lewis’s THE GREAT DIVORCE that summed this up:

        “To travel hopefully is better than to arrive.”

        “If that were true, and known to be true, how could anyone travel ‘hopefully’? There would be nothing to hope for. “

  4. My preferred version:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I donated to the Socialist’s legal defense fund.

    Although I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I submitted an amicus brief about the right to collective bargaining.

    Although I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I helped smuggle as many as I could out of the country.

    Although I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and I was out in the countryside with the resistance.

    But I hope they appreciated the high explosive charge I left behind, wired to the front door.

    1. That sounds more like this crowd. You forgot the line about leaving range markers for the neighbors to use if needed.

    2. I like it!
      As long as it doesn’t blow up some poor girl scout selling cookies.

  5. Real live, actual neo-Nazis and their ilk are a tiny minority, deeply divided among themselves over their programs, and often personally deeply dysfunctional. But they make such a wonderful punching bag for our current crop of crypto-Commies that, if they didn’t exist, they’d have to be invented.

    1. In many ways, they have been. I think most of the Neo-Nazis would be something else if Hollywood did make Neo-Nazi gangs look cool by making them the go-to bad guys.

      1. As far as I’m concerned, the only time Hollywood ever used Neo-Nazis effectively as villains was in The Blues Brothers.

        “Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis.”

    2. Seriously, it’s the same as the KKK back in the day … many of the actual Klan membership were law enforcement informants. Bet it’s the same with the tiny number of real neo-Nazis.

      1. And half of the rest are Democrats acting to stir up trouble so they have something to rail against, and justification for not crushing Antifa like they so-richly deserve?

        1. Speaking of Antifa … Bwah-hah-ha!

          Quote Trump: “Have you ever noticed Antifa is never there when we have a bikers’ rally?”

          HT: Power Line’s John Hinderaker

      2. Depends on how far back you go on that.
        But yeah, by the 1980s there were already jokes about how the FBI was keeping the Klan afloat because the informants were the only ones who regularly paid their dues…

      3. I recall reading in the ’80’s that “The only reason the Klan can have a softball league is the number of undercover FBI agents who play.”

    3. But they make such a wonderful punching bag for our current crop of crypto-Commies that, if they didn’t exist, they’d have to be invented.

      Just a few hours ago I had a discussion in a similar vein with my kids.

      They were talking about what they would be in the future (example: they need to open a hair salon on the moon so Eldest can style hair while Third is an astronaut and Second can help both) and one of them said “and then we can make a great poster to tell people not to pollute the ocean!”

      I started out simple– who puts trash in the ocean? Do they CARE about posters?– and then went into why so many of their cartoons hammer on this, because doing something good feels really good, and if you can do it without any cost– with nobody arguing with you– it’s even better. It’s popular because it’s an obviously good thing (who wants a mess?) that nobody will argue with you about, and that doesn’t require any actual work, like cleaning your room does.

      The phrases ‘cheap grace’ and ‘virtue signaling’ were not used, I’m saving it for when they’re a little older and more cynical.

  6. In so many ways, the actions of these anti-white supremacists remind me of what happened in Nazi Germany – and in the Soviet Union.

    There are older antecedents:

    Reparations and the Spirit of 1789
    Burke’s concerns about the French Revolution resonate in today’s debate.

    By Liam Warner
    The long train of abuses and usurpations known as the French Revolution began in earnest 230 years ago Sunday with the storming of the Bastille prison in Paris.

    Across the English Channel a red-haired Irishman, Edmund Burke, heard with increasing alarm of the destruction a lawless mob visited on France’s ancient constitution. A 1790 letter he wrote to a French acquaintance became his celebrated “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” a foundational work for modern conservatism.

    Among the offenses at which Burke takes aim is the seizure of Catholic Church property, which the sans-culottes had justified on grounds that the clergy was oppressive and corrupt. Burke can’t recall anything of the kind from his recent visit to France—indeed he remembers quite the opposite. But the revolutionaries aren’t satisfied avenging the vices of the current clerical generation. They imagine themselves dealing retribution for centuries of crimes, St. Bartholomew’s Day 1572 and all.

    This Burke cannot abide. It would be one thing to punish present-day offenders with street violence and alienation of property, but another thing entirely “to rake into the histories of former ages . . . for every instance of oppression and persecution . . . in order to justify, upon very iniquitous, because very illogical principles of retaliation, their own persecutions.”

    One cannot read these words without thinking of the latest wet timber hastily nailed to the Democrats’ platform, slavery reparations. The same people clamoring for taxes on wealth to stop children from inheriting their parents’ fortunes are happy to allow the heredity of guilt. “After destroying all other genealogies and family distinctions,” Burke writes, “they invent a sort of pedigree of crimes.”

    I would comment on original sin if I thought the Democratic candidates would be interested, but they’re too busy writing checks. Black Americans are lagging, and slavery was once practiced here, so they deduce both causation and claims to compensation.

    Critics have pointed out that many Americans, black and white—not to mention others—moved here only recently; that slaves weren’t the only people who suffered mistreatment; that recipients would be paid in part with their own taxes; and so on. Burke gives us a further reason to object: “To take the fiction of ancestry in a corporate succession, as a ground for punishing men who have no relation to guilty acts, except in names and general descriptions, is a sort of refinement in injustice belonging to the philosophy of this enlightened age.”

    In general the righting of wrongs diminishes in feasibility and justice as time passes. We dare not annul laws passed when blacks were disenfranchised, or seize houses bought in the era of redlining. Our efforts would be better spent directing the future than auditing the past, particularly since reparations would hardly end the discussion. Burke’s rejection of the principles of France’s bloody revolution should warn us against adopting them, even for bloodless use.

    Mr. Warner is a Robert L. Bartley fellow at the [Wall Street] Journal.

    I’ve no doubt that, if we go back to the earliest recorded History we can find additional examples.

    1. I’m actually kind of pleased to see how many more accurate discussions of the Terror there are going on– when I was a kid, it was kinda glazed over with “well there were some bad things done but it was TO REALLY BAD PEOPLE!”

  7. Yep, I deliberately don’t say anything political in open posts on FB 99% of the time, because of this kind of thing. And regularly use the mute feature on people i am ‘friends’ with to not listen to their progressive bullshit.

    1. #metoo

      Taking to commenting only on private forums; on just about any topic. AccordingToHoyt and Sarah’s Diner being some of the few sites I feel free to comment on.

      1. I generally state my point and move on. When I refuse to engage further they declare victory and do the happy dance. Doesn’t matter to me.

        I spent my time wrestling the tar babies a long, long time ago. I have nothing to prove.

        What’s that old Far Side panel? A baby godzilla, and a sign that says “You must be THIS tall to attack the city.”

      2. I try not to be rude.


        When someone is rude to me, I don’t pretend that they are RIGHT, or polite– I go all fact based.

        It really pisses folks off…..

        1. I think Scott Adams has pretty well proven that most of the progressive socialist Left are emotionally driven. They deliberate blip over any factual information as being irrelevant to their belief system; other than absorbing enough to actually get them pissed off and targeting you.

      3. Same here – although I am fairly unbuttoned on Chicagoboyz and on Instapundit.
        The thing that allows me at least that degree of bluntness is that – a) retired, b) live in Texas, and c) Tiny side bidness in writing and publishing, Oh, and d) my neighbors like me. So there is nothing much that lefty trolls going about policing behavior can do to me. Scream and screech over my books? Oh, dooo eeet! I’d love the sales that controversy brings. Try and get me fired? Socially ostracized? I have no employer and little social life, so good luck with that.
        I do not post the political stuff on my book blog, or on my FB page, though. Look, I have friends, readers and family who are lamentably free-range liberal; no point in kicking them in the teeth

        1. I had abandoned all y’all here and communing via the Diner. Then I wisely abandoned Facebook. I miss Curtis Scott’s 3D puppy pictures and Jim Belmore’s pizza tips, but the cr*p and annoyance of Facebook itself was too much. Discus on PJ media is pretty safe. When I feel adventurous, post at The Hill, the Trolls there are good for picking up the latest outrage of the moment.

          1. FB = mostly private groups. Most of them are Service Dog groups. Even there you have to be careful. Lord help if you mention eCollar, prong, or even martingale flat collars, on some. Or even link to a trainer who uses a full range of tools depending on what a dog needs are (just linked to the rules of the pack walk, for crying out loud.)

            One of the few public sites is Yellowstone NP. Boy mention that we will be taking my Service Dog on hiking trails(!!!), you’d have thought we were riding in on the trail in a bulldozer.

        2. “Socially ostracized? I have no employer and little social life, so good luck with that.
          I do not post the political stuff on my book blog, or on my FB page, though. Look, I have friends, readers and family who are lamentably free-range liberal; no point in kicking them in the teeth”

          Yes. ^^^All of this^^^ (Well don’t have a book blog, but you get the gist.) It is the Family aspect that gets me. Reposted/Shared a meme of FB regarding the Betsy Ross Flag … Okay should have saved it, and cropped it. It was topped with You-Know-Who-name is a POS. Okay that part was over the top and uncalled for. Bigot, yes. POS, calling him that was out of line. Ended up deleting it from my post.

          Another part of it was because, my sisters, between the two of them have THREE daughters who work for Nike. Nothing against Nike, they are making gold all the way to the bank on the topic (I think they made a bad decision. Business wise, not so much.) One of my sisters, and my mom, had to call and ask what POS meant. They are NOT the, uh, liberal one. They laughed. I blame Stanford & 25 years at HP for baby sister’s liberal failings.

          1. Heh, couple of weeks ago I had someone try to get me to post specifics of my husband’s employment.


            I did NOT say “So, are you stupid, or do you think I am?” but I did say that after the Obama years I was going to be freaking obscure.

            Other than WHO I talk to, you ain’t gettin’ shit, and a LOT of even basic social service gov’t workers talk to ICE types.

            1. Seriously. I do not understand anyone who posts intimate life details on Facebook, besides “Hey, I’m moving to a new state” or “Hey, I went on vacation, it was awesome” or “Hey, got engaged/married.”

              1. One of my mother’s co-workers went on vacation. She was very careful to keep quiet that they were gone. She and her family returned to find their home burglarized and trashed. It turned out that one of the teens in the family posted on social media that they were leaving, so some friends-of-friends looted the place, and partied on their way out.

            2. Agreed. Neither the company, nor anyone from work gets FB friended. Nor does the page ever mention the company I work for. Sure, someone could put two and two together if they wanted to take the time to dox me; but I’m not going to do it for them.

            3. “He’s a janitor. Well, the job title is “clean-up specialist” but he tells me all he does is remove embarrassing messes. His company? Cozy Nostrums, i think.”

          2. If I post it on FB, I won’t delete it if it’s objectionable to someone. At least I have the courage to own it. Yep, I said that, or agree with it. If you can show me facts as to why I was wrong about something, well, then I’ll apologize and post a retraction. I know I’ve posted a couple of retractions over the years, but damn if I can remember the last one.

            1. Ever notice that most complaints are of the “That’s a terrible thing to say!” sort and rarely that your statement is factually invalid — with evidence and logic to support the challenge?

              That’s why arguing over it is useless — it’s like the Far Side cartoon about “What you say/what your cat hears.”

              Of course, most people are not interested in being factually and morally right, their interest lies in being recognized and admired for being correct.

    2. On FB I’ll occasionally politely fact check the most egregious nonsense but don’t think it’s worth it to fight over the opinions there. It’s mostly extended family members on my feed and they are generally lovely people to be around in person – even the one who posted that anyone afraid of the ICE raids could come stay with her for a while.

      1. I admit to trolling a bit on those articles– I share a bunch of good legal advice.

        From gun, homeschooling and other conservative sites. ^.^

  8. Not a slippery slope so much as a trap door. Not a slow slide, an immediate fall.

  9. Being publicly awful doesn’t convince many people. It ought to be easy to insist on your enemy’s right to speak and reveal themselves.

    The fear that leads to silencing isn’t a fear that people will be publicly awful but that they *won’t* and then there’s a good chance that random neutral parties will say, “Well, she seems normal, not at all like the monster that I was told about.”

    Which is why we get this very strange paradox of Anti-fa “demonstrating”… which is a way to get as much attention as possible, and then perversely deciding that they should never be reported upon or filmed and then beat up or block people who try.

    They want the noise and notoriety but they don’t want the *scrutiny*.

    1. Being publicly awful doesn’t convince many people.

      No, but it does make people avoid you, which means they don’t say anything around you, which means there’s an area they’re not saying things, which allows those who think differently to feel isolated– IF you can make it so that a big enough area is included in the “avoid the stupid person” zone.

  10. The Left wants the power to destroy anyone that displeases them without having to bother with due process. It’s as simple as that.

  11. Into our town the hangman came,
    smelling of gold and blood and flame.
    He paced our bricks with a diffident air,
    and built his frame on the courthouse square.

    The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
    only as wide as the door was wide
    with a frame as tall, or a little more,
    than the capping sill of the courthouse door.

    And we wondered whenever we had the time,
    Who the criminal? What the crime?
    The hangman judged with the yellow twist
    of knotted hemp in his busy fist.

    And innocent though we were with dread,
    we passed those eyes of buckshot lead.
    Till one cried, “Hangman, who is he,
    for whom you raised the gallows-tree?”

    Then a twinkle grew in his buckshot eye
    and he gave a riddle instead of reply.
    “He who serves me best,” said he
    “Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree.”



        1. Yeah — everybody knows it is actually all about how the Patriarchy uses myth to suppress the facts of natural female dominance!

          ‘The Lion King’ is a lie that erases the female pride: scientist
          Some catty critics have said that the characters in the new remake of “The Lion King,” featuring the animal kingdom animated with CGI technology, lack the “charisma” and expressiveness of the original cartoon version.

          Zoologists and lion researchers, however, argue that the beloved Disney franchise has missed something even more crucial all along: scientific accuracy.

          A scientist at the Lion Research Center at the University of Minnesota says that, if “The Lion King” story were true to the big-cat community, the movie would not have been about Mufasa’s kingdom, but rather Sarabi’s. Sarabi is Simba’s mom — and many may not remember her name, since her role was so understated.

          Craig Packer, a leading lion expert, tells National Geographic that, in reality, “females are the core. The heart and soul of the pride. The males come and go.”

          Had Disney, with its long history of patriarchal tropes, cared to get the story straight, they’d know that lion prides are actually matrilineal, where females lead the pack and loner males hardly stick around to form the bonds of family.

          1. So, let me see. First we had a cartoon, then a sort-of live action with real animals and CGI. Both feature TALKING animals! And so-called scientists are complaining about some OTHER scientific inaccuracy?
            For the record,, I thought the males babysit while the females hunted because only the males were strong enough to kill some of the predators that wanted lion cubs for lunch.

            1. I had that thought, too — but figured this was a few “academics” seeing a chance to promote their research using a movie for the clickbait.

              It’s a good thing not every ignored researcher tries that, although it might have made the Ghostbusterettes slightly less noxious.

              1. Perhaps, but that type of preplanning requires a modicum of intelligence and sanity, which seems to be absent. I suspect that their minds are so filled with this drivel that occasional bouts of gibberish are destined to come forth.

                1. Having spent a fair amount of my time chatting with geeks (I am of the tribe, after all) I suspect you are right, but like to try* to be charitable in attribution of motives as it makes for a happier world.

                  *Does not apply in all circumstances. For example, I find it much easier to practice charity from the shotgun seat rather than the driver’s.

                  1. When they started attacking children for the hat they wear, most of my charity evaporated. I will extend it only when they return to the human race.

                    1. That’s a different matter – it is deliberate targeting, not getting carried away by enthusiasm. That is simply the same as puppy kicking, and charity consists of shooting them in the heart rather than the guts* abdomen.

                      *My apologies: they’ve got no guts.

          2. Because that’s one thing I’ve always asked for in my Disney movies: scientific accuracy. Would you believe that no medical doctor has ever been able to determine a method by which someone could prick their finger on a spindle and fall into a coma? Or that it’s been shown that it isn’t physically possible for a carpet to fly, much less an elephant?

            (We’ll ignore the fact that “scientific accuracy” also means that Simba and Nala were likely half-siblings, thus making that romance the subject of all kinds of uncomfortable discussions with your 10-year-old…)

            1. I can get a carpet to fly at least 50 feet. Unfortunately, it’s not load bearing, and gravity always asserts itself. Not to mention you’d get horribly dizzy from the spinning.

  12. Could Stephanie do a sunspot update here maybe, please? There are weird things being said that I think she had better information on and her explanations made sense…might save you and Amanda a post or three…

  13. For those who have so gleefully been pointing fingers and calling names – and I don’t care what side of the argument you’re on – consider this. What are you going to do when those fingers are pointed at you? Because, the time will come if you keep this up.

    Unfortunately, there’s an answer for that: Then we’ll just make sure the time never comes. Unfortunately for the rest of us, when, or if, the time does come, it’s going to be too late for “I told you so.”

    1. Point to remember, when using a hand gun, most of the fingers are pointed back at you, and one is pointed to the side.

      Using a long gun/rifle, usually the fingers are pointed to the sides or back at you. Only the thumbs are usually pointed in the direction of the target.

    2. we’ll just make sure the time never comes.

      I remember that same thought coming from proponents of a “Thousand-year Reich.” Things did not work out the way they expected.

      One difference between us and them is we practice discernment and understand history.

      1. But the Thousand-year Reich only went down in a World War, trying to fight on two fronts. Stalin, OTOH, died of natural causes (so far as we know). Ditto Mao, Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il-Sung. North Korea is currently ruled by his grandson. Sure, there were those who got their comeuppance like Trotsky and Madam Mao, but the revolutionary regimes survived them. And that Historical Irony didn’t buy much for the rest of us.

    1. Yep – it is a bad idea to pick a fight with an old guy who’s got little to lose.

      Especially when he’s spent his life eating punks for breakfast.

  14. The Wall Street Journal weekend edition has dueling commentaries. One is an editorial by Ayan Hirsi Ali about Islamists and the problems they and their allies are creating. The other is a piece about anti-Semitism. The latter mentions Islam once, talking about the problems in France, and then focuses on the Yellow Vests, Pres. Orban of Hungary, Labour’s little Jeremy Corbin problem and “white supremacy,” all the while tap-dancing around the core of the problem. Oh, and the author also drags up the canard about Pres. Trump and Charlottesville. *facepaw*

  15. There was an SF short story in the 1950s about an American small town in the grip of collective paranoia about “seditioners”. These mysterious subversives were undermining and corrupting the community, and had to be destroyed immediately (lynched?) when uncovered. Anyone who doubted the existence of “seditioners” or the guilt of any accused “seditioner” was thereby revealed as a “seditioner” too.

    IOW, a closed-feedback loop. The protagonists of the story were undercover operatives (government?) whose mission was to infiltrate the town and stage a cathartic public action that would disrupt the loop.

    We seem to be developing a similar syndrome on a national or even transnational scale. I can’t think of any way to break it up.

    1. Find yourself the nearest Antifa march, infiltrate, and then accuse one of them of being an undercover Nazi infiltrator. Then step back and watch them eat each other.

  16. “especially the ass who drove his car into the crowd”

    The crowd that was carefully arranged by the Mayor (Democrat) and Gov McAuliffe so his route out of the area was likely to go through them.

    Now an independent report has come out, suggesting that much of the blame for the clashes, injuries and death lies with poor police work by the Charlottesville Police Department, the Virginia State Police and the University of Virginia Police.

    The report, authored by former U.S. attorney Timothy Heaphy for the Charlottesville City Council, found, as reported by USA Today:

    • Charlottesville police didn’t ensure separation between counter-protesters and so called alt-right protesters upset with the city council’s decision to remove the Robert E. Lee statue from Emancipation Park.

    • Officers weren’t stationed along routes to the park, but instead remained behind barricades in relatively empty zones.

    • City police didn’t adequately coordinate with Virginia State Police, and authorities were unable to communicate via radio.

    • State police didn’t share a formal planning document with city police, “a crucial failure.”

    • Officers were inadequately equipped to respond to the clashes between the two groups, and tactical gear was not accessible to officers.

    Furthermore, though no specific evidence of a “stand down” order was found, as some have charged, the report did find that police didn’t do their jobs: “We did not find evidence of a direct order to officers to ‘stand down’ and not respond to fights and other disorders. Even if there was no explicit ‘stand down’ order in place, CPD and VSP both failed to ‘stand up’ to protect human life.” Areas where conflict could be expected to occur didn’t have police officers assigned to them; areas where police officers were stationed were out of the way.

    When violence first broke out, according to two witnesses Chief Thomas reportedly said “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”

    When the police finally decided to shut the rally down, they did it in a way that forced the protesters and counterprotesters into each other, instead of separating them, making violence far more likely. Meanwhile police who could have deescalated the violence stood aside.


    The “neo-Nazis” were there with a permit issued under court order after the Mayor tried to lift the one they were originally issued.

Comments are closed.