Who Is That Masked Villain

Posted on by accordingtohoyt

girl-524141_1920

If we’re going to be honest the masks started falling well before this year.  But I call this year the year of the great disappointment.

Let’s for instance talk about Eric C*aramella whose name is being spelled like a swearword and deserves it: did I go overboard with memes. Sure. I did. Sometimes genetics is destiny, and when I get the Latin up, the legions of Rome go marching through my emotions and…. everything gets red and I become weaponized.  Or as I told Dan: Behold the power of Portuguese autism. It’s like other autism only louder and ruder.

The proper way to deal with that in a society with free speech is to let it be. Of course, if FB hadn’t deleted my very silly meme, I’d never have got that mad.

However how the left deals with it is by trying to stop the speech.

It is a truism that we want them to talk louder and they want us to shut up. And that’s fine.

But that they are trying to shut up A NAME everyone knows (with associations everyone at this point also knows) is a step beyond.

And in personal experience I blocked THIS ONE PERSON who btw should understand free speech since he swore an oath to the constitution.  And I stopped getting suspended by FB for older memes. I had hoped, honestly, nothing would happen, and I could just unblock him.  I am disappointed.

And yes, I know FB is not the government, but his desire to suppress speech tells me he would do it by government fiat and not see anything wrong with it, so long as it was “wrong” speech.

Again, we’ve always known the left wanted to silence us, but that they’re willing to do it on something so trivial and stupid, tells me they want to use people as meat puppets only allowed to say, hear, see and think the “truth” promulgated from the top that day.

Perhaps they wish to live like that. But most of us couldn’t.

And you know what? I wouldn’t WANT to.

Bite me, big brother. I have two middle fingers.

 

 

 

 

167 thoughts on “Who Is That Masked Villain”

  3. It has come to my attention that the cover of Darkship Thieves needs editing. The lady should be displaying her two middle fingers. Because Sarah has them and she is clearly not afraid to use them.

    1. OMG… it wouldn’t take much either, not if someone knew how to do that… which I don’t. I’d try but it would take a long time and look bad and I’ve got family visiting this weekend.

  4. “…did I go overboard with memes. Sure. I did.”

    Who was it said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” or something like that, back in the 1960s? Oh, yeah, that ‘daisies’ commercial guy…(if only we’d got Barry G., but never Barry O.)

    These strange days, extremism (or at the very least extreme enthusiasm) in the defense of liberty approaches ever more closely a simple civic duty.

    “…his desire to suppress speech tells me he would do it by government fiat and not see anything wrong with it…”

    And this is why they cooked up something called the Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment at the head of it, once upon a time. And (IIRC) refused to let there be a United States under that new Constitution till this (and other similar) lacks were fixed… such ideas as that, from guys such as this.

    1. Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative” is practically my political bible. To be honest I have no idea if he actually voted according to what he attached his name to in that book (I am given to understand that it was ghostwritten) but that book comes so close to where I stand… It’s very close to my own “small-l” libertarianism.

      I just wish more “conservatives” actually followed, and voted, those principles.

      1. Quoting Wiki, which is consistent with what I’ve read in other places,

        The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law* of William F. Buckley Jr. Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals.

        but is far simpler than typing it out myself.

        He ought not be confused with conservative gadfly L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center founder, CNSNews and the Parents Television Council.

        *married to Patricia Buckley Bozell

      2. I just wish more “conservatives” actually followed, and voted, those principles.
        Amen to this. While not getting into the frenzied foul-mouthed “cuck” stuff at Ace of Spades, this is the biggest disappointment of the last several years: all of the folks who claim the title “conservative” and who have not actually stood by the beliefs that should define that.

        I saw it long before Trump, as (in particular) the continued refrain of “not the hill to die on” echoed through a legislature supposedly full of the folks, and the “conservative” media defended that position.

          1. Sorry, I was trying to avoid it, but couldn’t see a way to do so and still communicate what I meant.
            If you want to edit it out, feel free.

            1. No. Your use was appropriate. BUT again, I get how people at Ace of Spades feel these days.
              Sometimes I think one of these days the berserker will just take over. Permanently.

        2. The problem of “not the hill to die on”-ism is that they never define what is “the” hill to die on. With never “this far and no farther” standard it is challenging to maintain support.

          In politics you cannot win on defense; you eventually retreat into irrelevance.

  5. They read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and believed the Thought Police and Ministry Of Truth were the heroes. They grew up wanting to be the Thought Police.

    I read Antediluvian by Wil McCarthy last week and, combined with some research I’ve been doing for a story, it gave me a really Eeeevil dystopian idea:

    Somebody cooks up a bioterror virus that returns the FOXP2 gene to its primordial configuration. FOXP2 is responsible for development of the brain’s speech centers, and seems to be the primary reason we are capable of complex speech.

    The virus should have little effect on adults, but children born after they caught it would never learn to talk, or to understand language.

    The ‘progressives’ would cheer for the end of civilization and a return to our ‘natural state’.
    ———————————
    All species are transitional species — except the ones that fail to adapt, and go extinct.

    1. And with tools no more complex than what a crow can use. Latest thought on FOXP2 is that what it really does is allow fine motor control, which includes precise control over the speech apparatus. (Note how non-speaking animals tend to stab and swipe with their manipulative digits rather than use precision movements.) So… no more construction that requires anything as complex as tying a knot.

    2. You just figured out how the humans lost speech in “Planet of the Apes”.
      Good for you.

  6. I don’t think your reaction to that provocation was extraordinary. You posted a joke, and the forces of SHUT UP!!! tried to shut you up. The correct reaction to that type of shit is to display the middle fingers and say it again only louder.

    On the subject of masks coming off, the Don Cherry business is a perfect example.

    https://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-new-rules.html

    Conservative Canadians living outside the Woke Bubble of Toronto believe deeply as Don Cherry said out loud: don’t be disrespectful to the Honored Dead. Its a Canadian thing. That’s -our- culture, we’re not going to change it.

    So the Woke have responded, as they always do, with hate and the vilest racism. But because it is aimed at conservative white Christians who play hockey and like Don Cherry, we’re all supposed to shut up and take it.

    The mask of caring tolerance worn by those Wokesters all these years is what’s fallen away. It isn’t that they are caring and concerned about the poor people, the brown people and the confused about their plumbing people. That’s the mask. The truth is what motivates them is their hatred of us. Anyone outside the Woke Bubble, they hate us. Like, hard core. Throw you in jail level hate.

    We’ve been willing to tolerate the Woke all this time, put up with their crazy demands, ignore their supercilious bad manners, ignore their name-calling. What changed is they are no longer willing to tolerate -us-. They’re determined we are going to knuckle under or die, pretty much. To that end they’ll get you fired, picket your house, send death threats and so forth if you speak up.

    I for one welcome this new openness. I like to know ahead of time who is going to come with a smile on their face and a knife in their hand. Then at least I can make them stab me in the front instead of the back.

    That’s why banning one guy and the nonsense stops is a -good- thing. Now you know what’s up. That he should have known better is on him. Not you.

    1. I’m becoming more certain by the day that we should play them like a fencing match. Give them an opening for them to attack, then parry-riposte with a straight drive right to their throats. They want to play full contact, fine. Life is, and should be, treated as self-correcting.

      1. On that note, the same body that arranged to have Don Cherry fired has received a similar number of complaints about The Social tv show and Ms. Jessie Rae Allen. Enough to shut down their complaint system server.

        Things in media have progressed to the point where I do not expect Jess Allan to lose her job. She’s protected by the echo chamber as long as she only expresses hatred for Whites and the non-Woke.

        But let her wonder on air if transgender women should really be competing in women’s sport, then she’ll be gone in a heart beat.

                1. Preaching to the choir, Orvan.

                  The one silver lining in this cloud is that the whole fricking country just watched them do this. All those Normal People who never pay attention to politics, they’re damn well paying attention to this.

                  Whether that makes any difference in the long run remains to be see.

        2. I’ve run into the transgender in sports issue personally. I know people who’ve gone in either direction; M2F, F2M. I’ve competed against a guy who’s transitioning to be a “woman”, and he beat my butt fair and square. I’ve also competed against a gal who’s supposedly transitioning to be a “man”, and she has also beaten my butt fair and square, several times (although I’m closing in on her.)

          I’m 100% against any born men competing as women in women’s sports. When they “transitioned” is irrelevant. The cellular level differences make competition unequal, and unfair. I’m less upset about born women competing as men in men’s sports; if they want that level of challenge, I’d say go for it, except if they’re boosting with hormones, which regardless of their masculinizing effect, are also considered performance-enhancing drugs, and therefore should be universally banned for any athlete. In those events where men and women DO compete with each other, then I have zero problem with transgenders there.

            1. Woke is, and has always been since its adoption, asleep and dreaming the impossible dream of absolute control without consequence or harm with them at the helm. To the woke, reality is the dream.

    2. Ok, this is just me, but to my mind the ‘mask of caring tolerance’ worn by the Woke never fitted that well or covered that much. And they kept forgetting it on the bus, too. Seriously; half the value the MSM has had for the Progressive Left has been in converting up when they ran their ratchet-jaws inopportunely. I’ve been well aware that most of the leadership of the Progressive Left were liars and vicious bigots who make Richard Nixon (who I loathed) look like an exceptionally naive Boy Scout for a looooong time.

      And I think I’m not alone. I think that the administration of George Bush Jr. was the last time the Democrats will have a Republican President to deal with who isn’t an alley-fighter. I think that the non-progressives are waking up and saying (to quote Asterix out of context), “Sic transit Gloria; we’re sick of you and we’d like to see you in transit!”

      1. IMHO they used to pretend to care, usually. Regan administration was when they started to really flex, and of course Bush the Younger was when they really started to freak out because Algore lost and Camelot II was over.

        But now they’re literally screaming their rage and hate. You watch that clip I linked up above, and think about if that would have made it to air even ten years ago. The guy in the control room would have been talking in their ears: “do you -really- want to piss off every hockey mom in Canada, Jess?”

        But now its a feature, not a mistake. She’s been doubling and tripling down on it all over twitter. Even CTVs “apology” is “we’re sorry if anyone was offended by us TELLING THE TRUTH about you deplorable racist/bigot/homophobe dirtbags!”

      2. For more years than I can recall have been citing the Walrus and the Carpenter in any discussion of Progs’ crocodile tears:

        It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said,
        To play them such a trick,
        After we’ve brought them out so far,
        And made them trot so quick!’
        The Carpenter said nothing but
        The butter’s spread too thick!’

        I weep for you,’ the Walrus said:
        I deeply sympathize.’
        With sobs and tears he sorted out
        Those of the largest size,
        Holding his pocket-handkerchief
        Before his streaming eyes.

        I like the Walrus best,” said Alice, “because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.”

        “He ate more than the Carpenter, though,” said Tweedledee. “You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn’t count how many he took: contrariwise.”

        “That was mean!” Alice said indignantly. “Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.”

        “But he ate as many as he could get,” said Tweedledum.

        This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, “Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—

        N.B. – any resemblance between the Walrus, the Carpenter and America’s two political parties (Democrat and Republican) is purely cynical.

    3. The real “meat” of Cherry’s tirade (which some of us have heard even down here in the Great not-so-White South) might well be part of the reason (if not the vehicle) for those complaints — his very explicit point that it’s something close to a civic duty to pay open respect to the veterans of Remembrance Day.

      Because despite, and in the face of, all the easy talk (some of it very much not empty) along the lines of “we value your service even if we don’t agree with the uses to which it is put” — there is a strong, public current of refutation to that very principle. More along the lines of “we respect your service as long as and only as long as we agree and approve of its aim” — which we can see in today’s ongoing war against the service of Southern Americans of the 1860s to their state and/or American nation (a historic county courthouse veterans’ monument “To Our Confederate Heroes” was/will be removed this week and less than a dozen miles from here), yesterday’s open contempt for and rabid vilifcation of our 1960s war veterans, and more.

      In other words, not wearing that little red plastic poppy (familiar to me from my few months living and working in Canada, incl. That Night when the country very nearly fell apart under my feet in a Québecois secession) might not be a sin of omission, by immigrants or by others, in Wokerswamp Canada.

      It might be a very deliberate sin of commission instead.

      And all the yelling and squealing an implicit, but powerful, way to declare the respect, not the disrespect, to be the “wrong” thing. To impeach (as it were) the message by removing the messenger.

      1. It is about gratitude … an emotion rarely expressed on the Left. They think it funny to spew, “We support our soldiers when they shoot their officers.”

        Of course, when they send those soldiers to confiscate our guns it is unlikely they will praise the shooting of their political officers.

      2. Kill the messenger is exactly the aim. We just watched Don Frickin’ Cherry get booted out of Coach’s Corner after 39 years on the tube for saying what EVERYBODY already knows. That’s as big a deal as anything can be in this country. It was like watching Ed Sullivan get fired.

        Anybody in media who wants to keep their job and reputation has just been served notice. No one is safe.

        Message received.

    4. “Conservative Canadians living outside the Woke Bubble of Toronto believe deeply as Don Cherry said out loud: don’t be disrespectful to the Honored Dead. Its a Canadian thing. That’s -our- culture, we’re not going to change it.”

      And damned well should not. Canada punched WELL above its weight class in both World Wars. And if too many Canadians forget this…well, there are a few Americans, like me, who remember.

    5. i beg to differ

      it is not ‘throw you in jail’ level hate

      it is ‘send you to reeducation camps’ level hate.

      1. Kind of what I meant, Kamps are just a bigger jail. The hate is palpable, you can feel it. They’d happily build camps and send half the population to die in them. That’s who they are.

    6. What changed is they are no longer willing to tolerate -us-. They’re determined we are going to knuckle under or die, pretty much. To that end they’ll get you fired, picket your house, send death threats and so forth if you speak up.

      This was inevitable, after all. They were honestly incapable of keeping their emotions and sentiments under control for long.

  7. Bite me, big brother. I have two middle fingers.

    One of the most true things I ever read on Slate.com was a piece about there’s no need to fear Big Brother: the US government is too incompetent and over-burdened to pull off a police state. Instead, fear the “Little Brother” — the private companies and the tattletales who use them to punish their fellow citizens.

      1. “I can sue Little Brother. Big Brother, not so much.”

        Good luck with that. In the extremely rare instances when anyone is able to hold Little Brother accountable for anything, it has little or no impact.

            1. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/11/15/break-them-up-50/

              Wall Street Journal story showing Google ain’t playin’ fair with the searching.

              The thing about Little Brother is that private companies are really big and really powerful… until they’re not. And all it takes is one turn of public opinion to put them in the toilet. Google will be circling the bowl presently, besieged by regulation and class-action lawsuits unto destruction.

              Big Brother is different. Him it takes a revolution to get rid of. See Hong Kong.

            2. Ah, but they weren’t SPYING on you.
              Most importantly, they had crossed the progs with their dirty, smelly freedom. The tech companies have not, for the most part.

          2. Do you really find those to be examples of the little guy going after the big guy? I see them both as precisely the opposite. These are both instances of Big Brotherism exerting its power.

            1. At the begining of the lawsuit cycle there were suits filed by individuals. That was the “little guy” going after Phillip Morris et al. Later on, after the little Davids put one on Goliath’s forehead, -then- the rest all piled on.

              1. So, I hear you saying that you are in favor of Big Brother jumping in to protect us poor benighted peasants from the big bad tobacco and firearms companies. How do you propose to decide which cases the government should lend its weight to? Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some set of principles which would define the rights of the little guy, without needing to appeal to completely ad hoc political intervention.

                1. “At the begining of the lawsuit cycle there were suits filed by individuals.”

                  To reiterate, the first lawsuits were filed by –individuals– for damages they suffered from smoking. The state and class-action suits came later.

                  I’m never in favor of Big Brother jumping in to regulate things, particularly firearms.

          3. I like the ‘Camelot II’ metaphor. It just fits so well. Like the Arthur cycle, the hagiography of JFK bears little actual resemblance to the facts of that era. And, as a sequel given a number instead of a real title, the Clinton administration was a cheap and unoriginal copy, with a worse cast, worse writing, and so on.

            2. I’ve lately been reflecting on the Caine Mutiny‘s post conviction celebration. While Trump may be mad, he’s been driven so by disloyal subordinates and obsessive enemies.

              “You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer – he wasn’t WORTHY of your loyalty! So you turned on him. You ragged him – you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you suppose the whole issue would have come up in the typhoon?”

          4. Only because Big Brother allowed them to be sued. Or do you really think that any social media company will ever be treated as a publisher so they can be sued?

              1. Its going to cost them everything. All the smart engineers are already bailing out of Google, they can see the work environment there going toxic. Once the really talented guys leave, the not-so-talented coat-tail riders won’t be smart enough to fix the things that break. Then it’ll crumble to shit, just like HP did.

                Companies are fragile. Its extremely hard to build them up, pretty easy to break them apart.

                1. Always easier to destroy than create, unless all you can create is chaos. I can respect the man that writes code that runs like a swiss watch. Not so much the fellow whose greatest “accomplishments” are on Twater.

    3. Except that Little Brother is enabled and protected by Big Brother. You ultimately have no legal recourse against anything Little Brother chooses to do because Big Brother will rule in Little Brother’s favor.

    4. “Instead, fear the “Little Brother” — the private companies and the tattletales who use them to punish their fellow citizens.”

      In my experience, the ultimate foundation for this is rather simple… and rather boring. Namely, advertising. Large social networks prefer staying advertiser-friendly for as many types of direct-consumer-oriented businesses they can find. Businesses which, with rare exceptions, don’t want to risk being associated with any controversies, lest they end up in PR hot water themselves. Hence the clampdown on otherwise legitimate free speech.

      That said, it has also taken to be used purely maliciously, by all kinds of keyboard warriors looking a safe outlet for their bullying tendencies. But here’s the kicker – the whole thing will only go on as far… and until… a critical mass of companies realize just how little that sort of PR really means nowadays. Or, like a certain shaving products manufacturer recently did – how it can actually be counter-productive. Inevitably, the dam will break – companies will learn to dismiss most kinds of political-correctness critiques by pseudo-consumers (those who complain a lot, but actually aren’t reliable customers), while a growing number of competing social networks will try and entice potential users with precisely the offer of less censorship.

      In general, it’s telling that the media most funded by direct sales – so, books and music, for example – are also least prone to bowing to busybodies. To contrast, comics went pinko decades ago, and it’s pretty clear why – a good quarter of any given issue is taken up by ads… all while the actual story is busy bashing Greedy Corporate Capitalist Villain #437 or such. Same goes for most video games, sadly – online play means online ads, and typically wide-range packages, rather than specific products. This in turn subjects game designers to the whims of advertising companies… and the aforementioned pseudo-consumers.

      All in all, I’d say we’re about to witness is the grand failure of a business model where products are tailored to the people least likely to use them, while also becoming needlessly restrictive of their actual consumer base, and facing ever greater competition. The dam will break… and it’ll be a splash to remember.

        1. You are so profoundly wrong about books and music. Seriously, you have no idea. They’re increasingly red and they were mostly socialists by the thirties.
          All mystery books had “industrialist” villains in the 90s. And let’s not talk about SF recently. Seriously.

          1. I dunno; I thought the techno-thriller market, though derided as airport fiction, still tends to feature a healthy mix of political inclinations… which probably explains why it’s so often derided in the first place. I also notice a reasonably healthy cozy mystery and paranormal offerings, evidently aimed at Southern or Midwestern readers. But yeah, most of it is way below the radar and gets no mainstream publicity whatsoever. It’s kinda like how country singers can go platinum without ever so much as a mention by the general music review media.

            And this is where I find the actual problem lies – in meta-media. In reviewers, commentary shows and the like. This is where the left has a real foothold. It’s not quite a Big Brother, nor a Little Brother, but more of a Whiny Cousin that’s got an opinion about everything, and unfortunately, it’s the only opinion most people ever hear. Sure, I reckon conservatives aren’t big on Oscars-type award circlejerks, but there’s gotta be some equivalent ground to at least observe new market offers. Most times I’ve found a good non-pinko author, it was after following the trail of bad reviews, usually having nothing to do with the actual content of the book. But I don’t think it’s a model that works for most people.

            So yeah, what is the conservative equivalent to, say, “Siskel & Ebert”? Where does one go, what does one watch or read, to find about new books by conservative writers, new movies by conservative film-makers etc.? Because if nothing of the sort exists, then that’s the direction to go on in order to turn the tide.

            1. I’ve found a good source for conservative-sympathetic authors (many of them indy) in the Ace of Spades Sunday morning book thread.
              I looked back at my own book purchases over the last year or so, and while a good few were for the purposes of research – just about all the ones that I bought and read for pleasure were books that came up in the discussion thread. And not all indy-published, either. The Otto Prohaska series, the Roman-Britain Vindolanda series by Adrian Goldsworthy … all kinds of interesting, mainstream-published but now obscure books from authors like Nevil Shute. Check it out, every Sunday morning!

          2. That’s one reason I skipped over the remake of ‘The Magnificent Seven’ — they replaced the Politically Incorrect Mexican Bandits with Eeeevil Capitalists.

            I’m sure John Sturges and Akira Kurosawa both rolled over in their graves.
            ———————————
            “Why does Hollywood keep re-making the good movies? It’s the bad ones that need it!” — George Carlin

      2. “But here’s the kicker – the whole thing will only go on as far… and until… a critical mass of companies realize just how little that sort of PR really means nowadays.”

        Hmmm, no. I have to disagree. That sort of PR means a lot. The problem with that is it’s extremely volatile. As long as you can keep the mob going in one direction, you’re golden. But that also means it’s possible for someone to hijack your mob and turn it against you.

        1. Point. Thing is, it’s precisely this kind of mob that’s mostly made up of pseudo-consumers – people whose purchasing habits don’t make a difference either way. If anything, the mis-step is when a company tries to appease them, and ignores or outright insults its actual customer base. Meanwhile, the real weak link is in dedicated advertising companies – those who service dozens of manufacturers, and in turn reach out to multiple social networks, with blanket contracts for the full package.

          Consequently, a rising alternative is for advertisers to work directly with content creators. On video streaming websites, for instance, getting demonetized means nothing when you’ve got an ad bumper as part of the video itself; all while the sponsors can rest assured the content is in line with their image in particular, instead of being tailored to appease groups that aren’t even in their target base. Everybody wins… except for the busybodies, but that’s a win in itself.

          The final piece of the puzzle is momentum. The mainstream media still has considerable pull in being able to fan various controversies. But that’s why I’m saying – critical mass. After a few niche-oriented companies prove in principle that being “controversial” doesn’t automatically result in lost profits, more will follow. The parallel can again be made with books and music – which advertise nothing but themselves, and are still tailored to specific audiences, and can afford ignoring any unsolicited complaints. It’s only a matter of time for this to spread to other media, and the businesses that advertise therein.

          1. Like all the people who flounced over to Larry C’s blog and threatened not to buy his books. Which they had never bought before.

  8. From the same people who favor banning “hate speech”, we also have banning “offensive speech”…that is, speech that offends those that the censors think are or want to be powerful. So, you can say what you like about Donald Trump, but don’t you dare say a word against Xi Jinping, Criticize white Mormon males all you like, but don’t you dare say a negative word about LGBTwhatevers. Free speech for me but not for thee. I take that kind of hypocrisy as more offensive than the vilest of insults.

    As it happens, I object to threats of murder and mayhem, try to avoid cute but insulting nicknames, dislike orc-speech ,and tend to agree with a certain fictional queen who proclaims “Profanity is the crutch of the ignorant.”, (I’d modify that to lazy). On my own blog, (if I had any commenters besides spammers) I would insist on civility of speech.

    But I will fiercely defend the right to speak the truth. When it goes as far as firing people from their jobs for stating an obvious truth, for example the claim that medical science does not yet have the ability to implant functioning ovaries and uteri, and therefore trans women do not menstruate and cannot get pregnant, that is acting out worse hatred than any so-called hate speech.

    1. Profanity may be the crutch of the ignorant (and/or lazy) but there are times when the only really satisfactory thing to call some politician is “c*cks*cking sonofabitch!”.

      So, MY objection to profanity is that it’s overuse robs it of force when you really NEED to shock.

      1. Aye! Ponder the difference of say, Seaman John Doe saying that, vs, the Pope. Alright, some previous Pope. One is of little note. The other would BE the news for a little bit anyway.

      2. That, too. But think whether it’s better to say fellating offspring of a female dog, or whether to give a specific reason for your contempt, such as “Politician X is a thief who hides behind an army of tax collectors and doles out other people’s money to buy airtime and votes.” or “Politician Y is a convicted bribe-taker” or “Politician Z has a degree in political economics which would disqualify him from running a lemonade stand”. or “Politician Q is always camera ready but never debate ready”, or “Politician R couldn’t tell the truth if his re-election depended on it”.

        1. The problem of profanity is that it has become so common as to have lost any capacity to shock — and shock is the primary justification for use of profanity.

          Studies have shown that when, for example, you hit your thumb with the hammer, cussing has a marked effect of reducing the discomfort … but this only holds true for those who do not routinely cuss. For those, the abuse of profanity has neutralized its benefit, rendering jejune that which ought stupefy.

          Profanity’s greatest fault, of course, is that it lacks wit, and with is the venom which a proper insult ought deliver to the quick.

          1. This is why I consider it a crutch for the lazy. To deliver a well targeted and effective rebuke, one with a proper sting to it, takes more thought then common vulgarity does.

          2. I don’t think I’ve ever seen (or heard) anyone casually use the word “jejune”, before. Bloody brilliant!

          3. To be properly profane, there must be an element of the sacred. Do we enshrine motherhood, as we once did, such that to insult one’s dearest mother would immediately ensure a punch in the nose? No, indeed we do not. We certainly hold no deities above reproach, as a society anymore. What then is our chosen bastion that we shall defend gainst all comers?

            Perhaps we find an answer on the left in their cult like devotion to race and gender ambiguity? Imagine the possibilities. “That’s mighty white of you,” for example. Might twist a few brain cells up for a moment. *chuckle* Then again, maybe not. To imply the existence of something so complex as a religion involving the ideas of the sacred and profane may be a bit of a bridge too far. This is why I call it a cult.

            Of course, with this crowd it is much more likely you’d get the kind of insult that may require a dictionary and maybe a history book or three. No idea where I’d get that idea of course. *grin*

          4. The most effective profanity for me involves “[Diety] damn it”, uttered with conviction.

            Maybe it’s not a surprise, but $SPOUSE, who hardly ever swore, now joins me in discussing certain politicians with profane or scatological terms. If a certain congress creature doesn’t like his all-too-obvious nickname, maybe he shouldn’t act like one…

        2. I find myself saddened that practitioners of enjoyable and relatively harmless sexual congress (shared by both genders, or so I’m told) along with the female portion of man’s best friend are being conflated with such extreme filth as a typical politician. Next we’ll be accusing fellatio proponents and canine mothers of being something truly evil such as practicing law.

            1. Well there is always:

              Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a crooked politician?

              A: Chelsea

      4. Simon: I swear when it’s appropriate.
        Kaylee: Simon, the whole point of swearing is that it ain’t appropriate.
        …later…
        Simon: Son of a bitch.

        (Unfortunately, I can’t find a video.)

    3. I used “the n word” in class several weeks ago to illustrate a point about the First Amendment. The students all twitched, and a few stared. 1. I could never do that in a public school. 2. They’d probably never heard anyone use it live. 3. They got really thoughtful and quiet and we had a very good discussion about speech, why some things are never legal (incitement to riot), and so on.

        1. Yes. The discussion began by talking about how ideas could spread more easily once Great Britain dropped pre-censorship in the early 1700s, while France and other places kept it.

      3. I am not sure when this Lenny Bruce routine was performed — during the Kennedy Administration, obviously — I know the play was on Broadway circa 1972 because saw it then. The movie, with Dustin Hoffman in the title role, was made in 1974.

        I agreed then and agree now that suppression of a word gives it the power of taboo and is thus more destructive than wide-spread use.

        1. Apologies – I meant to note that was NSFW.

          Nor is this:

          From 1967 … I still think society was better for being able to openly discuss such. A word is no more intrinsically harmful than a baseball bat; it depends on how people use it.

      4. Cue up an old Richard Pryor LP and watch their heads explode.

        Some of his skits consisted of at least 50% that word, repeated and inflected differently. And he wasn’t the only black comedian to give it a workout.

        1. Since vinyl seems to be making a comeback, playing that LP is likely possible. Still, “That N-Word’s Crazy” lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.

          NSFW … but funny as Hell. It ain’t about color it’s about culture.

  9. Regarding profanity: Long ago I read the Women’s Room (don’t judge, it was the early ’80s and I was in college). BUT, there was a line in there I really liked that rang true. Something along the lines of one advantage to never using profanity is that when you do, people take you seriously.

    I’ve been very fortunate in my academic career (where Big Brother got his start!) in a number of ways. One of which is that I have never had to deal with student or faculty accusations of any of the wrongthink that is currently fashionable. The other thing I am grateful for is that I know how to write (at least the technical bits) and this career has given me the tools I need to head out into the wilderness as an author of fiction on a full time basis (OK, those and a totally supportive husband who tells me he knows I’ll be great).

    Sarah is my role model for not giving any f*ucks about wokeness and those that perpetrate it. Thank you, Sarah!

    1. I’ve not read the work, but $HOUSEMATE relates the exhange in some book (which will no doubt be identified shortly, considering the local populace), paraphrased from imperfect memory:

      “Sir, have you ever heard me use profanity as an intensifier?”
      “No.”
      “It’s g*ddamn radioactive out there.”

      1. A documentary I was watching noted that when Congress refused to provide aid to South Vietnam (as required by treaty) during the final North Vietnamese invasion, President Gerald Ford used mild profanity to refer to Congress. But the listeners took note because Ford NEVER used profanity.

        1. “…when Congress refused to provide aid to South Vietnam (as required by treaty)…”

          This point may well be worth emphasizing: treaty law (as many here will already know) is the second highest law in our legal system, second and subordinate only to the Constitution itself. (Or so this non-lawyer keeps hearing.)

          So assuming the treaty or treaties involved really did require us to act in the defense of South Vietnam ( I’ve not tracked down the actual text of the relevant treaty or treaties for myself)… means it was less illegal for the Ford administration to find ways to continue the war as required by treaty, rather than to obey the directive from Congress to quit and run in the chaotic Congressionally-mandated rout we saw in our actual history. Because the second is merely an ordinary law or a lack of funding, while the first is a treaty obligation.

          Finding out would almost certainly have meant a Constitutional crisis then, leading directly (or even instantly) to a landmark Supreme Court case. But this argument suggests Gerald Ford could have said (only metaphorically) “screw this” — and then quite literally made it stick.

          And South Vietnam might by now, quite possibly, be much as South Korea is in our current world: a functioning democracy and minor world industrial power.

          At least on our timeline, we’ll never know. (“For want of a nail…”)

          1. The treaty required the US to at minimum send military supplies and aid. AFAIK, it did not require any direct military support. But Congress voted not to allow any aid, claiming that it would be a waste of funds and resources.

    2. South Park – which notably doesn’t bother much with the profanity filter – had an entire episode built around the expansion of profanity into everyday life. IIRC, the episode ended with one of the boys making the same observation that you noted -i.e. that profanity loses its punch if it’s used all the time.

      I don’t personally use it in public, and I’ve literally had people astonished to hear the word “crap” coming out of my mouth. Note that I do use that word frequently, but apparently had never done so within earshot of that group.

    3. Something along the lines of one advantage to never using profanity is that when you do, people take you seriously.

      Reminds me of an episode of Happy Days. I think this was when Richie and Friends were in college. They were taking a biology class together. Potsie had been having trouble. (And I’m amazed that I’m remembering so much of this as I continue.) With Fonzie’s help, he’d come up with a way to actually memorize the material–by turning it into something he was good at memorizing–song lyrics. (I’m coming to a point here, really.) So, during the test, he’s over at his seat, head bobbing and his lips moving as he’s filling in the test. Gets every answer right.

      Teacher gives him an “F” on the assumption that he must have cheated. This leads to the buds all rushing to Potsie’s defense, including Fonzie bursting into the room, with an indignent “My boy don’t cheat!”

      In the course of this, Richie says something, ending addressing the teacher as “bucko.”

      Fonzie gets a shocked look on his face, looks at the teacher, pointing at Richie and says something to the effect of the teacher had better beware “because when he starts with ‘bucko’…”

  11. We are all of us most certainly living in the time of the double bird flip.
    What seems obvious is that the next step, likely by late next summer, will be to retract those middle fingers and form hand into fist.
    And in extreme cases make use of those index fingers as the operational inputs to mechanical devices designed to reach out at distance to get the attention of violators of public decency and safety.

    1. Form fists? Not until I’ve employed the index finger to vote against any and every Democrat on my ballot.

  13. I know that free speech doesn’t apply to private institutions and all, but I think that giant tech monopolies like Facebook and Google are powerful enough that perhaps they’ve earned some extra responsibilities.

    1. I figure it’s a balance of rights– similar to how I object to stuff like Texas’ giving “no gun” signs the force of law. They can ask folks to leave if they don’t want guns on the premises, but not a special carve-out for a specific method of self defense.

      1. That’s how it works locally. Pretty much they can fire you if you are caught carrying concealed on the property as an emplyee. My response is and has always been, if it ever comes up, it will be in the defense of self and co-workers ONLY. That is the quite literally only way they would know.

        At that point, sure, go ahead and fire me. I’m sure the local paper, radio, and television will be quite happy to hear about it. And I will deal with those consequences if and when they come along. The permit is not just a piece of paper. It represents a responsibility to be a good speedbump if and when the fecal matter impacts the rotary impeller.

        Part of being adult is learning to accept the consequences of your own actions.

        1. I figure that’s the safest route for all involved– “if I have to let you know I’ve got a gun, it’s that or die, and I’ll live on unemployment.”

          Texas, it’s a crime. Which is why that walmart shooter knew he’d be fairly safe– it’s right by a mall that’s 100% disarmed, nobody wants to risk forgetting.

          (And I am still shocked and gratified the Shoelocker guy didn’t get investigated.)

        2. Of course. If they are going to accept the responsibility for the safety of all therein it *should* be taken seriously.

          The idea of the second amendment isn’t about allowing citizens to own guns. It is about recognizing the *fundamental* right for any person to defend themselves and explicitly preventing the government from preventing that in any way.

          1. When the police accept legal liability for failure to defend my life and physical integrity, the can we begin to discuss limiting my right of self-defense.

            I’m not saying will rely on them, but there is a minimum ante to draw cards in this game and they’ve yet to meet it.

    2. Facebook and Google have reached the level of being utilities. Fortunately, there are alternatives to each. Unfortunately, getting people to move to those alternatives is a problem, even if they are dyed-in-the-wool anti-FB and G. The number of people I’ve convinced to follow me over to Me We I can count on one hand.

      1. I didn’t even know about MeWe until Larry Correia posted about setting up shop there. Never joined the Devil’s Database, but MeWe seems not hateful and moderately entertaining.

        1. You know, the 2nd biggest complaint I have about MeWe, after the number of users, is the name sounds like a young boy telling people he just pissed.

          1. *shakes head* I always think of the mews, the sort of old living quarters house above stables or suchlike, something like an old garage apartment. The mental image rather fits the somewhat close atmosphere that I imagine it as.

          2. The first time I heard of FaceBook I thought mugshots, fwiw.
            And Google, googol.

            I do like the bit, “DuckDuckGo, because Google is so 1984.” Which is rather sad, as before Google, the various search engines were all trying to everything (remember the bloated ‘portal’ search engine sites/pages?) And then Google came along with a brilliant, refreshing simplicity – that I miss. Google has, with its many tentacles, something a portal of its own.

      3. Facebook was first – and has a critical mass of people. And, honestly, is much easier to use and navigate than MeWe. I check MeWe once a week or so. I check Facebook more than daily – it’s where most of my family and friends are.

        Facebook is currently trying to A: Censor some points of view and B: Not be held responsible for anything posted on Facebook. It’s one or the other, they can’t have both. And being held responsible for anything posted would bankrupt them with lawsuits. For example, I had a friend – who subsequently deleted her account, who stupidly asked on Facebook if anyone knew a good hitman after her soon to be ex-husband irritated her again. Everyone who knew her informed her really, really, REALLY bad idea, even if you were just joking…. Imagine if shortly after that said soon to be ex had expired in a hit and run accident by pure random chance. His family would have included Facebook in their lawsuit…

  14. But what if the “private institution” is acting at the behest of government? Suppose a business is threatened with some kind of adverse government action if they do not do what is asked. When government has a say in the actions of such an institution where does the “private” stop and Government begin?

    This might not apply to Google and Facebook yet, but they are acting in support of one particular political party. And their headquarters are both located in a state where that party has all the power.

  15. It’s *possible* that blocking the one guy worked because of “friends of friends” and not him. Maybe. (Just putting that possibility out there.)

    But unless you knew which of *his* friends to block, blocking the connection is good.

  17. It is a truism that we want them to talk louder

    [Yul Brynner voice]Let him speak, that men may know him mad.[/Yul Brynner voice]

    and they want us to shut up.

    “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you do not prove him a liar. You only show the world that you fear what he might say.”

    1. This the emphasis on things such as “triggering speech”. The left isn’t shutting you up because its afraid of the lies that you’re spreading. The left is shutting you up because your lies are causing psychological harm to that person over there, (not) much like making rape jokes in front of a rape survivor.

        1. Oh, no, that’s not the case. Remember, most SJWs do their “work” on behalf of others. It’s not Latinos that are using the term Latinx. Latinos in general hate the term. It’s whites who think that they’re being considerate. Similarly, the guy who tries to censor you will claim that he isn’t doing it for himself. He’s doing it because that poor woman over there is so intimidated by the hateful screed that you’re trying to deliver, that he simply must prevent you fron speaking. He simply doesn’t understand how anyone could be so utterly clueless that they could say such horrible and reprehensible things in front of that woman (who, by the way, is too fearful of you yo speak up in her own defense, which is why he must speak up for her).

          Pithy comments about the shortcomings of the censors sound cute. But there was an actual method to the madness, even if many of the censors no longer know why. And it’s important to understand that method when trying to convince those caught in the middle.

          1. Campus censorship: “There were no [whatevers] at the meeting, but that doesn’t matter. The [whatevers] were so distressed from hearing that you would be talking about [topic] that they couldn’t bring themselves to complain/attend/protest, so we have to stop you from hurting them.”

            Then they trot out the No True Scotsman argument: Milo’s gay, but conservative, so he’s not really gay. Mia Love is black, but she’s not a progressive or a victim, so she’s not really black. [Thank you, Antonio Gramsci. NOT!]

            1. This.

              It essentially allows the ones complaining to white knight and present themselves righteously in the defense of others, even if there is no immediate evidence that those others exist.

  18. I’m thinking back on some of the horrible screaming tantrums my son used to have when I told him truths he didn’t want to hear. Just because someone feels triggered because what I say does not correspond to his Visualization of the Cosmic All does not mean either that I am lying or that I am being malicious.

  19. The thing about tyrants is that they routinely arrest, coerce a confession, have a show trial, and sentence innocent people- and all parties involved know that the person is innocent.
    We’re not there yet*, but the Trump Show Trials are a step in that direction.

    *The Democrat run Jim Crow south could equal Stalin and Beria in regards to tyranny, if one was a black man near any sort of hint of criminality. The Groveland Four is a good example.

  20. On a not unrelated topic of dispute, Josef Joffe, writing in Commentary:

    Inspired by Aristotle and David Hume, the philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote: “All theories are hypotheses; all can be overthrown. The game of science has no end. Those who decide that scientific propositions are final retire from the game,” leaving behind “pseudo-science or faith.”

    as quoted by By Andrew Stuttaford at NRO gangblog, Le Corner.

    3. I saw the letters JEDNKH on the bottom corner of a sign on ESPN’s Game Day this morning when I was at the gym. Very discreet. 🙂

    1. Some discussion on the intertubes as to whether the explosive popularity of that statement is bots or just that LOTS of people really feel that way.

      If I were on The Twit, I would probably have repeated that, myself.

      1. I suspect people because it was closer to 7,000 and not 1 million. But then, I’ve noticed that the left thinks that anything slightly conservative is a bot.

  24. Who said, “Republicans think that Democrats are idiots, Democrats think that Republicans are evil”? I think they got what the point of what has been going on lately.

    Idiots and idiocy are somewhat curable. You can educate idiots. You can show idiots how they are being idiots. You can provide idiots with tools to work around their idiocy. And, in the worse case, you let Darwin have his way and take the idiot out of the gene pool.

    Evil? Especially the eeeevvvvvilll that Democrats think of Republicans? Unless they are willing to full-on flay themselves raw in contrition for their sins, they are evil, the original sin in the flesh. And, you cannot compromise with evil, in any way. You must fight it and destroy it, no matter what it takes and what allies you must gather.

    Look, Trump at best is probably the greatest 4Chan troll to ever walk the planet. He can make normies go insane and they just flail around doing nothing. Had the Democrats possessed something like a brain between them, they would have just waited patiently and let Trump’s own ego destroy himself. But, they fed the troll and people love entertainment.

    And, in the process, Trump is showing that the Democrats are naked. They don’t even have an Emperor’s dignity, but are spiteful little children who play psychological CalvinBall with the sole goal of making sure that they win. Doesn’t matter what they tear apart in the process, as long as they’re standing on top of the wreckage.

    2. “Unless they are willing to full-on flay themselves raw in contrition for their sins, they are evil, the original sin in the flesh.”

      No, they are easy to appease and quick to forgive. All it takes is coming over to the Dark Side, as demonstrated by David Brock who went from the American Spectator‘s hired character assassin to Hillary Clinton’s reputation throat cutter.

    3. you let Darwin have his way and take the idiot out of the gene pool
      Problem is that Darwin is a lazy sob. He usually requires encouragement to work in job lots.

    3. I finished a chapter I’ve been grinding at for six months. The dialogue kept running off into the weeds, so there was a lot of write, delete, write, delete…

      The next chapter is off to a good start.

      It’s fan fiction. I can’t help it if most of my inspiration comes from anime. Oh, and ‘The Chrysalids’ by John Wyndham.

  26. I understand Popeye’s has a terrific new chicken sandwich.

    Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash
    Chick-fil-A said Monday that it has stopped donations to several Christian organizations after receiving backlash from LGBT rights activists over the last several weeks.

    The U.S. fast food chain said that as it expands, it will no longer donate to the Salvation Army, the Paul Anderson Youth Home, and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which opposes same-sex marriage. The company’s charity, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, has donated millions of dollars to the two organizations.

    “We made multi-year commitments to both organizations and we fulfilled those obligations in 2018,” a representative for Chick-fil-A said, saying the chain will now focus its charitable donations on “education, homelessness and hunger.”

    The company’s plans to donate a total of close to $9 million to charity include a $25,000 to a local food bank for each new restaurant the franchise opens.

    “There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

    “When there is a tension, we want to make sure we’re being clear. We think this is going to be helpful,” Tassopoulos continued. “It’s just the right thing to do: to be clear, caring, and supportive and do it in the community.”

    1. Uggh, that’s not very smart. A large portion of their demographic IS the evangelical christians who go there in some degree to very politely show the transi/SJW’s their collective middle fingers. In addition there is a statement on this in Matthew 10:33 (NET translation used as it is explicitly copyright neutral)
      33 But whoever denies me before people, I will deny him also before my Father in heaven.
      I don’t think I would want to be on the wrong side of that statement… What next are they going to open on Sunday?

    2. Given how odd this is, I’m going to guess there is less here than it appears.

      They seem to shift their charitable focus every so often.

Comments are closed.