Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Yes, it’s another post about Twitter. In my defense, though, the current Twitter drama is like being in the Mob or on Brokeback Mountain: every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in and then fuck me. Or something like that

The New York Times and other leftist media sources recently reported an increase in the number of hate speech incidents on Twitter since Elon Musk took over. Their source was a study conducted by several groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, academia, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate, all pointing to what they’re trying to push as an epidemic of hate. Their solution? Get another COVID booster.

Actually, the Left has a few different options on the table from having the government oversee Twitter to investigating Musk’s purchase to leaving the platform altogether to staying and fighting as Alyssa “I’m Definitely Not the Boss” Milano suggested. In other words, they don’t have a clear strategy, but they have a clear idea of what hate speech is.

And, as we’re about to see, they’re completely wrong. Again.

hate speech

What the Left thinks it means – hateful speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and should be illegal

What it really means – hateful speech that is protected by the First Amendment, but not necessarily by Twitter

I’m going to be honest with you at the start. Neither side has this issue completely right as it pertains to Twitter. As a private company, Twitter can set the rules as to what it allows on the platform, and the First Amendment need not apply. After all, the first five words of it are “Congress shall make no law” and last time I checked Twitter isn’t Congress. Although I’ve found an increasing number of twits on both…

At the core of the issue is how hate is defined. Since hate speech first came into the public lexicon, hate has evolved from racist, sexist, and generally unacceptable commentary to anything that hurts a Leftist’s fee-fees. Prior to Musk buying Twitter, the Left had a field day getting accounts nuked for Terms of Service violations more spurious than the credibility of Media Matters.

That’s because the Left has friends in high places, namely the moderation staff. When you get to define what constitutes hate speech, you can justify any moderation invoked under it. With the moderation staff at Twitter leaning so far left the only parts of their body that got sunburned were on the right, let’s just say they were fairly liberal with their definition, and definitely illiberal with their enforcement.

But, remember, it’s Elon Musk creating more hate speech on Twitter.

Actually, the hate speech has been there; it just hasn’t been called such. Like the “Summer of Love” in 2020, the Left crafted a tidy, yet wholly unbelievable narrative. And when confronted with the flood of conservative Twitter accounts going down, their response was the same: they shouldn’t have broken the rules Twitter, a private company, created.

All while telling a Colorado baker to bake the cake, I might add.

Fast forward to, oh, now. The Left no longer defends the private company because the rules are starting to apply to the people who used to be the ones who made up the rules as they went along. Although there are some inconsistencies with how the rules got applied, the fact the Left got a small taste of what conservatives endured for years isn’t entirely unwelcome, at least to me. Still, Musk should work on ensuring the rules are fair across the board, and that starts with the moderation team.

Meanwhile, back in the “hate speech is on the rise on Twitter” camp, they’ve run into a bit of a problem: the numbers don’t seem to match what is going on, or at the very least what the Left says is going on. But why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good two minutes hate, right?

Which brings us back to what constitutes hate speech because, well…the people making the claims of a rise of hate speech on Twitter aren’t exactly forthcoming with their methodology. Although they cite the number of “slurs” being posted, they never provide context. Granted, there are few instances where calling someone a racial, sexual, or other type of slur would be fine, the fact there are some and the lack of transparency of the internal mechanics of the study being promoted as gospel should be enough to make even the most rabid Leftist pause.

Should be, but doesn’t apparently.

This is the time to push back against the Left’s narrative by asking hard questions. How is “hate speech” being defined? What was considered “slurs”? How were these slurs counted? Was context considered in the determination? Do we really need any more Tyler Perry movies?

Although these questions (especially that last one) will remain unanswered most likely, there is one thing that isn’t in dispute: the First Amendment protects hate speech. No matter how many Twitter Leftists repeat the idea it’s not, the US Supreme Court has already ruled it is. And before the Leftists decry this as a racist decision by a right-wing court, Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and…the Notorious RBG concurred.

Oops.

Even if you disagree with the ruling, and with basic Constitutional principles for that matter, the concept of hate speech online and in general just doesn’t work without understanding intent. In most cases, it’s clear, but if you’re just looking for words and not context, there will be a lot of hits that should have been misses. Or Ms. if you’d prefer.

Without that added context, you’re more likely to find a cost-effective government agency than you are to find a consistent and logical conclusion. You might as well use a blindfold, a dartboard, and several adult beverages to confirm whether something is hate speech. In other words, a more sensible method than we’re using now.

What the Left fails to understand, either purposely or…oh, who are we kidding, is how to combat hate speech. What they want to do is remove it from the public square so no one can see or hear it. All that does is make it more attractive for those looking to push the envelope more than a postal employee working straight commission. It’s the forbidden aspect that makes it so attractive, as Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center found out way back in the 1980s. Nice to know Leftist still can’t learn from history, though.

The other and ultimately preferable way to fight hate speech is with…brace yourselves…more speech. By letting assholes spout off, they get their feelings off their chests and we can respond by not being assholes. That, and we can find out where the assholes are and know who not to send Christmas cards to, so…win-win! For the most part, I think Musk falls into this camp, which is a good thing for online speech all the way around.

Not that it will convince the Left to stop being hall monitors. Just look at how they treat each other on Mastodon! They need to feel they’re in control, which is why they’re trying to paint Twitter as a cesspool where only racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and other shitty people congregate. That’s why they have to invent a scandal, especially considering their predictions about Twitter going the way of Kanye West’s future endeavors have yet to occur. (Amazing how the same folks who say the Earth is going to end in 10 years as they did in the 80s can’t get predictions right, isn’t it?)

So, I would take the studies showing an increase in hate speech on Twitter with a grain of salt…the size of Mount Everest.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Normally, I wouldn’t go to gun-grabber and utter dumbass David Hogg for information on what time it was, let alone anything else, but this week he gave me a topic I wanted to research in greater detail. In the aftermath of a shooting at Club Q, a gay bar in Colorado Springs, Hogg took to Twitter to complain about stochastic terrorism.

Although the Left has been using this phrase for a few months, they haven’t really defined, except to say it’s violence inspired by those evil right wingers. You know, the ones who said it was okay to loot, burn down buildings, and build oddly-named autonomous zones on city streets…oh, wait…

Since the Left isn’t going to give us an in-depth definition, I guess it’s up to me. Otherwise, you’d just be stuck with the Mastodon piece

I did this week.

stochastic terrorism

What the Left thinks it means – politically-motivated violence designed to harass and hurt Democrats and left-leaning individuals and inspired by conservative leaders and media figures

What it really means – a combination of two words designed to make Leftists sound smart without them actually being smart

Since I’m a word guy, I want to split the term into its component parts as a means to try to understand the totality. Let’s not forget the Left loves to play with language and combine words that don’t go together that well, like climate justice, democratic socialism, and Leftist intellectual.

The word stochastic is a 25 cent word that adds an intellectual heft to the phrase by virtue of sounding impressive. Thanks to our good friends at Dictionary.com, we have the following definition:

of or relating to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

After a bit more research (and a bit of common sense), it occurred to me the heart of the word involves probability or random variables. Keep this in mind for a little later because it’s going to become important.

Once again, our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a solid definition of terrorism, but I want to focus on the primary definition:

the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives

The key word here is “unlawful.” Of course, I’m curious to find an example of a lawful use of violence or threats for coercive purposes, but that’s research for another time. The point here is terrorism is, by definition, illegal, as is inciting violent or criminal actions. Just ask Charlie Manson. Oh, wait, he’s dead.

So, when we put the parts of stochastic terrorism together, we get…a confusing mess. At best, we might be able to simplify the term to mean violence or threats involving probability. And that’s reaaaaaaaaallllllllly being generous to the Left here.

Then, I see how the Left applies the term, and that generosity goes the way of Keith Olbermann’s broadcast career. The way they use it is grossly inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. In other words, the way they usually use language. Relating to the Club Q shooting, Leftists blamed Republicans, Tucker Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Walsh, MAGA Republicans, LibsofTikTok, and I’m sure anybody to the right of Joseph Stalin by now. They’ve also started laying the groundwork for the idea the past year or so of “anti-trans rhetoric” is responsible for the Club Q shooting.

First, a bit of backstory the Left keeps “forgetting” to include in their rush to damnation…I mean judgment. What the Left is calling “anti-trans rhetoric” is a response to what LibsofTikTok has been posting showing…what pro-trans teachers, medical facilities, and events have been posting themselves. Now, I’m not talking posts about trans adults, mind you. I’m talking about pro-trans rhetoric and events aimed at children.

When the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives responded to what these pro-trans PR reps with power willingly posted on their own social media, these reactions got spun from “we have no problems with trans adults, but leave the kids out of this” to “ARGLEBARGLEREPUBLICANSWANTTOKILLALLTRANSPEOPLE!” And that’s just Cenk Uygur!

And it’s through this spin that the Left’s stochastic terrorism’s hat gets hung. Unfortunately for them, it’s also where the hat falls down, lands in a pile of shit, gets puked on by pledges trying to get into a fraternity, lit on fire, thrown into a toxic waste dump (no, not Twitter), and allowed to evolve into the new Senator-Elect of Pennsylvania. Or shipped to New Jersey.

Remember what I said about what stochastic meant? Well…it doesn’t exactly apply here, using the Left’s own logic and the actual definition of the word. What the Left is doing is drawing direct lines between the Right’s rhetoric and the Club Q shooting. Now, if something is based on probability, that would require at least some level of uncertainty, a chance the final result might not happen in spite of the calculations. By targeting the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives directly, that takes away the uncertainty, which undercuts the stochasticity of the situation.

See? Told you it would be important.

Then, there’s the terrorism angle to consider. Remember, terrorism is an unlawful act. If trans people truly feel threatened by what right wing pundits and online accounts are saying, where are the reports to authorities? To my knowledge, none of the people who claim Republicans/conservatives are engaged in stochastic terrorism have filed charges, sought legal counsel, or taken any of the necessary steps to protect themselves within the law.

Now, why would that be? I’m just some old white guy in Iowa, but something tells me the trans people and their supporters know they can’t meet the legal requirements to get an investigation started. At least, without the police or federal agents laughing hysterically for 10 straight minutes over what amounts to hurt fee-fees over social media self-owns.

And to be honest, the lack of legal action is the smart play here, especially considering filing a false police report is pretty much a big no-no. Plus, it opens up a lot of problems for Leftists like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty more whose rhetoric comes a lot closer to stochastic terrorism than anything Tucker Carlson has said. But if Froggy wants to jump, I say jump. Fuck all of the around and find all of the out.

Before, I close this out, I feel I need to make something crystal clear. Not all trans people and their allies are in favor of what some members of their community are doing in the name of trans visibility. In our efforts to root out the bad actors, we need to ensure we’re not catching the good ones in the “OK Groomer” net. If we don’t, we’re going to wind up doing more damage in the long run and play into the Left’s narrative about us.

In the meantime, call out the Left’s bullshit by asking for receipts. Demand they show us what Tucker Carlson or LibsofTikTok said or did that rose to the level of terrorism. Or if you really want to embarrass them, ask them to define stochastic. Make sure to have your phone or web browser handy to show them the actual definition.

And tell them David Hogg sent ya.




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Black Friday Edition!

To get us all in the holiday shopping move, I decided to whip up a special Lexicon edition! And, no, I don’t have the receipt, so you can’t return it.

With Elon Musk making massive changes at Twitter, Leftists have been of two minds: one, Twitter is dead, and two, there has to be an alternative to Twitter that will be better. Of course, this makes as much sense as a death ray invented for peaceful purposes, but this is the Left we’re dealing with here.

Well, the Left has been promoting Mastodon as just such an alternative. Now, if you’ve never heard of it, don’t be surprised. It’s only been around since 2016, but now Leftists are starting to get the ban hammer for shit they’ve been getting away with for years, they’re looking for any USB port in a storm. Will they find safe harbor there? Will it become as big or bigger than Twitter? Will the Detroit Lions ever win another Thanksgiving Day football game? We’ll find these answers and more!

Mastodon

What the Left thinks it means – a better version of Twitter, post-Musk

What it really means – social media for Leftists who prefer pre-Musk Twitter where they do whatever they want

Whenever there’s a new cultural phenomenon, Leftists tend to do one of two things: co-opt it so it can be turned into a propaganda arm, or try to copy what the Right is doing. As the Left has discovered, it’s easier to do the former than the latter because all the heavy lifting of actually producing something has already been done. All they have to do is show up and find their ways into key positions to drive the propaganda. This has been pretty successful, considering when they’ve tried to imitate the Right (i.e. Err…I mean Air America) they’ve managed to fuck it all up.

This is how the Left got to hold so much power at Twitter and other social media sites like Facebook and YouTube. With the combination of tech-savvy true believers and sympathetic (or just pathetic) corporate leadership, Leftist enjoyed free reign without fear of consequences. After all, as long as they were on the right side of issues (i.e. so far Left it makes Karl Marx look like Milton Friedman), they weren’t doing anything wrong.

I mean, aside from targeted harassment, doxxing people, death threats, and censoring of stories that broke the Leftist narrative, of course.

Once Musk started asking questions, Leftists started circling the wagons to deny what had been a given on both sides of the aisle, and it wasn’t even a secret it was going on. Don’t believe what has been documented numerous times! Believe the narrative (which has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the middle of gangland shootout)!

Yeah. I’m not even on Twitter and I know the official stance pre-Musk was bullshit. It’s not even a mystery why Leftists and their media pals (redundant, I know) started saying Twitter was turning into a cesspool after Musk took over. It even inspired the idea Twitter would be dead within a week, as predicted by a (now possibly former) employee.

Yeah, that didn’t happen.

So, what does any of this have to do with Mastodon? Aside from the Left’s snowflake (emphasis on flake) attitudes about having to share their sandbox with those icky right wingers, it shows they’re willing to try to ruin another social media platform so they don’t have to share. Just with Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Mastodon saw a boom in users, and judging from the positive press gushing over it, they were mostly Leftists.

Yet, with growing popularity comes increased scrutiny of the tech security and ideological varieties. I won’t go into the tech side of it because a) that’s more Chris’ wheelhouse, and b) I can’t say as I understand the ins and outs well enough to discuss it. From my interpretation of the articles I read, Mastodon’s security may be as effective as Kanye West’s advisor on Jewish affairs.

But on the ideological side? I am so there.

It seems the ban-hammer harpies that used to infest Twitter have already infested Mastodon. In the short time since Leftists fled there, there has been a Ban-A-Palooza against…Leftists! Yep! They’ve started eating their own over there, including noted Leftist Wil Wheaton, apparently for not being woke enough. The irony? Wil loved to block people on Twitter for saying “Shut up, Wesley” on his account. Now, Mastodon has literally shut him up.

Another user was allegedly banned from the site for, get this, being a capitalist. I would be hesitant to run with this story because I haven’t been able to verify it independently. I add it here as a possible example of just how far Mastodon has gone in just a short time.

In thinking about how the Mastodon influx has unfolded (mainly since I can’t watch my Baltimore Ravens on Sundays with any degree of certainty or without having to fork over my immortal soul), I came across an interesting hypothesis, and with everything I’ve found and relayed to you, I have a hard time ignoring it.

Mastodon is a long-term troll against the Left.

Granted, some of these ideas are out there like the Hubble, but let me lay out the case for you.

First, think about how you say the word “Mastodon.” Most people would pronounce the first “o” with an “a” sound, so “Mastadon” instead of “Mastodon.” Now, put a little vocal comma between the second syllable “sto” and the third syllable “don.” Put it all together and you have “Masta Don.” As in “Master Donald Trump.”

Holy Own Goal, Batman!

Then, there’s the bans I mentioned earlier. Not only are they on-brand for Leftists, but they are so on-brand as to throw up red flags that it might be a long game for someone who wants to fuck with the Left, a la Titania McGrath. I’ve always felt one of the best ways to mock Leftists is to hold a mirror up to how they act and crank up the absurdity to 11 (because it’s one higher). If I’m right about Mastodon, they have mastered this so sublimely as to be virtually indistinguishable from the authentic Leftist.

However, I could be wrong and Mastodon is really trying to be a successful competitor to Twitter. If so, I have no qualms about it. Competition tends to make a product or service better, so even if Mastodon is as competitive with Twitter as the Detroit Lions is to, well, just about any other NFL team, there might be enough incentive for Elon Musk to make changes to improve the overall quality of the app. Then again, the Leftist exodus from Twitter has already done that, so well done, sir!

If Mastodon wants to be around longer than a TikTok video, I have a suggestion. Start up other social media alternatives and name them after other prehistoric animals. You know, like…oh, let me spitball here, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, Saber Tooth Tiger, and Tyrannosaurus. Then, merge them all into a single company called Megazord Inc. Maybe include room for a Dragonzord in there, too.

You’re welcome.



No Red Wave

Why the Republicans are losing elections. It’s very simple, the party is full of techno-phobic people.

In a nation of 350 million people. The Republican Party pushes for paper ballots and hand counting of votes. And the Leftist controlled Democratic Party is only happy to help keep this antiquated system going. Because it makes it very easy to cheat and inject fake ballots.

This is not the only place that the Republican Party rejects technology. This is also very evident in Social Media as well. Instead of embracing this 21st century communications tool. They ignored it and allowed the Left to embrace and then control it. And now complain about that control.

And what does the Republican Party do instead? They have bus tours for candidates. Does anyone even go to these? Certainly not the younger voters. Social Media is where they can be found and that only has the message from the Left.

Thus, there was no red wave in the 2022 elections. They message never went beyond the choir that was singing it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After every election, political leaders, pundits, and squawking heads try to figure out why the two major parties performed the way they did. Leftists, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, came down hard against one factor they feel helped Republicans retake the House of Representatives: redistricting.

Oh, they still talk about gerrymandering (and still get it wrong when they do), but this time they’re really drilling down on the fact Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis got favorable results from redistricting, i.e. Democrats going down like the New York Yankees in this year’s Major League Baseball postseason. But unlike Leftists, the Bronx Bombers can’t blame DeSantis for a poor performance. Then again, it might just work…

In either case, the Left is trying to get us to believe redistricting has negative connotations, so naturally it’s up to us to uncover real reason Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden.

redistricting

What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by Republicans to draw favorable Congressional Districts so more of their candidates win

What it means – a process that is not only legal, but done by both major parties so more of their respective candidates win

Every 10 years, the US government conducts a census, which helps give it a better idea of demographic trends in certain areas. This information gets parlayed into a number of other decisions, including how to draw Congressional Districts. As population surges and ebbs, the shape of each District can change depending on who gets to determine how each District gets to be drawn. Although it varies from state-to-state, the majority of states allow the party in power at the state level to draw the Districts, and it’s supposed to be done in a non-partisan manner.

Yeah, and I have some cryptocurrency in FTX that’s worth billions.

Instead of drawing logical and appropriate Districts, politicians tend to draw them like a drunk Lindsay Lohan with an Etch-A-Sketch. (For you Leftists out there reading this, the link I just posted provides examples of actual gerrymandering, so you can finally figure out what it means. You’re welcome.) And when the party in power controls how the sausage gets made, the Congressional Districts are going to look like a fever-dream combination of Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher, and Pablo Picasso after an LSD bender with Jim Morrison.

Or in simpler terms, like the hosts on “The View” but more logical.

Because of the way most states handle redistricting, control of state legislatures and gubernatorial positions becomes essential. Although the 2022 elections brought the gubernatorial numbers close to even, Republicans still control the majority of state legislatures. In other words, Republicans still have the power to draw districts or Democrats flip more states, whichever comes first before the next census in 2030.

If trends continue, that means 8 more years of Leftist seething over Republicans having any control over elections whatsoever. Provided our good friend Uncle George Soros doesn’t decide to pull more shenanigans to rig who counts the votes, of course…

Thus, we’ve arrived at the real reason why Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden. Even in the states where they have the ability to affect change, they lack the control in the entire country to enact their ideological goals. And it means they have to deal with…REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS! The horror!

Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want people to be in control of who they elect…unless it’s one of their approved candidates! But I’m sure that’s not true. Only a bunch of emotionally stunted insecure adult-babies would think that way, right?

So, how do we address the problem of drawing Congressional Districts the shape of Olive Oyl with a bad case of scoliosis? Some states have non-partisan committees that meet to agree upon redistricting, and some states even allow the committee’s recommendations to be vetoed. Simple, easy, and fair, right? In theory, yes, but when politics gets involved, the practice may not always follow the theory.

Let’s take one of the hot spots from the midterms, Arizona. Under the state guidelines, there are 25 seats available, with 10 going to Democrats, 10 to Republicans, and 5 to unaffiliated citizens. If the 20 politically-affiliated members are deadlocked, logic would suggest all decisions would come down to which side persuaded the 5 unaffiliated members.

That would work…except the GOP tends not to be so monolithic in approach. Yes, the state that gave us conservative stalwart J. D. Hayworth also gave us John McCain, which means the Arizona GOP can have more identities than Sybil. That tends to work in favor of Democrats, whose hivemind approach makes ganging up…I mean carefully considering the drawing of district boundaries a lot easier on them.

Even if you’re not sold on the partisanship angle, here is the most recent finalized redistricting map the commission put together. If this is the best a crack team of officials can come up with, maybe we should assume they’re all on crack and move on from there.

Having said that, I’m not completely down on the idea of the non-partisan committee drawing up Congressional Districts. I just think the idea needs to be tweaked a bit. For example, do we really need 25 people to make a decision like this? Fuck no! Pick one person at random from the active and eligible voting base in each District, or in the cases of states that only have one District, 3 to 5. Since it’s random, the political fuckery will be lessened.

From there, each member has to review the existing map and be able to speak to why it is the way it is. The more these members learn about the districts, the more likely they’re going to find out where the bullshit is. After a certain amount of time (say, a week), they convene to discuss what they’ve found and how to redraw the Districts if needed. When there are disputes arising from practical concerns, the committee as a whole votes on it with majority rule. In case of a tie (because this is going to happen), the Districts in question stay the way they are.

In the case of ideological concerns causing redistricting trouble, though, those will automatically be non-starters. We’re trying to draw Congressional Districts, not play a live action game of Risk here.

I will admit there are bound to be flaws in my idea (and I’m sure people will let me know how much of a dumbass I am for even thinking up the idea), but compared to what we have now, it’s bound to be better.





Trump and 2024

Donald Trump is officially running for President in 2024. And as a supporter of the former President in 2016 and 2020, I don’t know how I feel about him running again. Especially when he warned Governor DeSantis not to run.

No, Mister President that’s not how its done. We need the best to run for the high office. If that is you then you are already there. If that is someone else, they need to also put their hat in the ring.

In 2016 and in 2020 Donald Trump was the best man for the job and the needed man for the job. The election of 2016 defied all predictions and brought about the needed change in our nation’s capitol. And opened the eyes of the country to the deep corruption that exists in Washington DC.

In 2020 we saw how dangerous the Left really is to our Republic when the election was stolen with fake ballots and the Republicans did nothing about it. The Left does fear Trump that much to steal a Presidential election so blatantly.

So does that make Donald Trump the best candidate still in 2024? I don’t know. The jury is still out on this one. And there is a lot of time between now and the Republican National Convention where the nominee will be determined.

I for one, do want other Republicans to toss their hats into the ring. The more the better. That way we can find the best fit for the job and the times. And we will be able to win the Presidential Election in 2024 despite any attempts by the Left to steal it again.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Now that the midterm elections are over…mostly, we can now turn our attentions back to one of the most important issues of the modern world.

Blue checkmarks on Twitter.

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, Leftists have been losing their hivemind adjusting to the new boss not being the same as the old boss. From wanting to layoff 75% of the workforce (a good start) to suspending Kathy Griffin’s account for impersonating Musk in spite of requests to not do it (an excellent middle), the straw that broke the camel’s back was Musk introducing a fee to get a blue checkmark. The original suggested price for this was $20, but after interacting with horror author and general fuckwit Stephen King, Musk dropped it down to $8.

You would have thought you voted for Donald Trump the way the Left reacted. Even our favorite Congresscritter the Socialist Socialite got involved, sending multiple tweets about issues ranging from technical issues she blamed on Musk (that were later proven to be user error) to Twitter no longer being a good platform to talk to actual journalists and politicians to the irony of having to pay $8 for free speech (which is not only not ironic, but also not accurate).

All of this over a stupid blue checkmark.

But, as you might expect, there’s a lot more under the surface driving the Left’s outrage.

Twitter blue checkmark

What the Left thinks it means – a vital tool to combating impersonation and ensuring people know they’re getting information directly from the source

What it really means – a status symbol that was abused by those wanting to control the flow of information and who was seen as credible

It’s said the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the same applies to the information superhighway. What Twitter attempted to do was to curtail the number of people impersonating famous people, which isn’t bad in and of itself. As with tools or Congresscritters (but I repeat myself), it’s all in how they’re used that determine the ultimate outcome.

In the case of the blue checkmark, the tool became used to separate the valued from the unwashed masses, the elite from the normies, and the credible from the Weekly World News-esque information brokers. Now, if the process to getting one was the same across the board, it wouldn’t be an issue. However, pre-Musk Twitter made it an issue. Although official Twitter guidelines state there are no minimum membership requirements, they have a number of requirements that have to be met to be considered for verification.

Such as being famous.

And people wonder why I think Twitter is the Hannah Gadsby of social media: painfully unfunny, yet mind-bogglingly popular with certain parts of the population.

Let’s call the pre-Musk blue checkmark what it was: a participation trophy for people whose actual accomplishments make me look like, well, Elon Musk. The fact it got handed out to users in a scattershot manner (with many Leftists getting the checkmark without fail) made it valuable, but only to those looking for clout. Try paying your mortgage with a blue checkmark sometime. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it doesn’t end well unless you enjoy living in your car.

The best part about it? You could get your verification removed for any reasons without prior warning. And who got to decide that? Why, Twitter employees who lean so far Left they’re parallel to the ground. That’s how Leftists like Tara Dublin (aka the woman who flipped off a Trump supporter, called him names, and attempted to play the victim) has a verified account, but so many Right-leaning people or even neutral people have to jump through flaming hoops just to get denied.

By the way, I’m going to have to ask for hazard pay for looking at Dublin’s Twitter account. I think $10 will cover it because, well, ten bucks is ten bucks, eh.

Now that everybody with $8 can get verified, the Leftist elites aren’t so elite anymore, which pisses them off to no end. Before Musk got involved, they had free reign to do what they wanted without repercussions, even if their actions went against Twitter’s Terms of Service. But that’s what made Twitter the social media Love Canal that it was. Even a slight correction to remove the toxicity is enough for Leftists to lose their shit. Fortunately for them, there’s plenty more on the streets of San Francisco.

What is that saying Leftists always bring up these days? Something about equality feeling like oppression to a certain group

Oh, well. I’m sure there’s no other current event where this is being proven in a way the Left didn’t expect.

Of course, the best part about this is Twitter sued Musk so his offer to buy Twitter would go through. And Leftists openly pushed for this to happen, citing legal precedent. To paraphrase a famous line from “Pawn Stars,” congratulations, Leftists. You just fucked yourselves sideways with a rototiller.

The reason for the current outrage goes beyond the Left losing a meaningless status. Instead, it goes straight to a loss of power and the potential for Big Tech comeuppance, which will further erode the Left’s power within the tech industry. If Musk is even remotely successful in turning Twitter around and being profitable doing it, there will be a seismic shift in how Big Tech does business. After all, you can’t base a successful business model around people not known for being gainfully employed. Just ask Air America…oh, wait…

The $8 for a blue checkmark stings in another way. Back in the day when conservatives would complain about Twitter unfairly applying the TOS, Leftists would respond with, “Twitter is a private company and can set whatever rules they want.” Which is true, but a piss-poor justification for one-sided enforcement of rules. Now, they’re not so keen on the idea Twitter can do what it wants because it’s a private company. Instead, they want to be special and hold it over everyone else’s head, but Musk isn’t having it.

Now that the salt’s been poured in the wound, would you like some tequila and a lime to go along with it?

I’ve never had a Twitter account (mainly because there are too many twits on it), and I still don’t intend to get one because I don’t see the need to get into a social media dick measuring contest with people I wouldn’t let in my house, let alone my Twitter space. But I have seen this very scenario play out before, so I know how it ends.

Back in the day, America Online was the hot spot for anybody who was anybody. And, yes, it had a problem with biased enforcement of the Terms of Service, mainly in favor of Leftists who could impersonate other chatters, swear, lie, post private information of others, and generally be assholes. Not only was I the victim of such Leftist asshattery, but for a time I was a member of the enforcement arm, monitoring a political chatroom for anyone who violated the rules. While I did my best to be fair (and judging from the number of times Leftists and Rightists complained about my performance, I think I was), others weren’t so honest.

Soon, AOL’s chatrooms, particularly the political ones, were nuclear wastelands without the charm. Instead of nipping the clear bias problems in the bud, the powers that be decided to let it slide. And it slid…right off the edge of a cliff. Now, AOL is regarded in the same way CompuServe was regarded back when AOL was popular. Is it because of the bias? Maybe, but it’s definitely more due to bad management of which biased TOS enforcement is a part.

Pre-Musk Twitter was going down the same road AOL did, right down to the impending irrelevancy. With other social media sites like TikTok and Instagram coming onto the scene, Twitter’s popularity among younger generations has been dropping like Kanye West’s corporate sponsors. Any businessman or woman worth his/her salt could see this and try to make changes as a means to preserve the platform.

And that meant ripping the bandage off the gaping chest wound and addressing the problems without considering Leftist fee-fees, or at least asking they pay fee-fees for their electronic superiority complex. And if they don’t…Twitter is still free to use, just like it is for everyone else who doesn’t feel the need to spend $8. It’s not the end of the world, free flow of information, free speech, access to journalists and celebrities, and everything the Left wants us to believe is coming due to the proposed changes to the Twitter blue checkmark program. Ultimately, it’s Leftists getting pissed off because their blue checkmark doesn’t make them special anymore. It just means they are dumb or egotistical enough to pay to get their Tweets about politics, news, and selfies noticed.

In short, they want to feel like celebrities without the body of work to support it. (Hey, it worked for Paris Hilton!)

I welcome the changes Elon Musk will be making to Twitter down the road, if only to see Leftists’ heads explode. And if the blue checkmark changes are any indication, smart investors will go in heavy on tarps, ponchos, and rubber boots very, very soon.






Scenes From a Midterm – 2022 Edition

After what seemed to be an eternity, the 2022 midterm elections have come and gone. Joe Biden saw his shadow, which means only six more weeks until the 2024 Presidential elections get underway.

Since everyone else is offering their hot, warm, tepid, and cold takes on the midterm elections, I figure I’d throw my two cents in there because I’m an unoriginal bastard. Anyway, here’s what I saw.

Neither major party seemed motivated to win. Oh, sure, Democrats and Republicans gave the impression they were in it to win it, but the feeling I got was they didn’t have their hearts (or their donors’ hearts) in it this year. When you look back at the political ads, and I did because I have no real life, they were…lazy. Republicans talked about the Biden economy and wanting to fight inflation (without any clear plans on how to do it aside from “cutting spending”) and Democrats talked about abortion, health care, and education (without any clear plans on what to do with them aside from “Republicans bad”). Oh, I heard so many uses of the word “extreme” I could have sworn we fell through a wormhole and landed back in the 1990s. Way to get out the vote, kids!

Nevada and Arizona still can’t get their shit together. As of this blog post (please check local listings for temporal references near you), both Nevada and Arizona are still counting ballots. Given the elderly population in Arizona, I can understand delays, but I refuse to believe a state where gambling and prostitution are cottage industries are having this much trouble with numbers. Something is up, and I think it’s time we take a long hard look at what these states are doing and figure out how they’re fucking up this bad.

Both major parties came out as winners, kinda. Sure, Republicans seem to have control of the House of Representatives, barring Nevada and Arizona taking over any other states’ recounts, so that’s a win for the GOP. Democrats will retain control of the Senate and didn’t lose as many House seats as recent history would have us expect, so that’s a win for the Dems. Whether you’re a “red tsunami” or “Vote Blue No Matter Who” backer, you have to feel a little disappointed your team underperformed in the clutch.

Joe Biden’s argument for reelection begins in January 2023. With the legislative branch split, the likelihood of gridlock is greater than the rate of inflation. Which is bad why exactly? Oh, wait, I’m going off topic. Anyway, if Joe Biden wants to make the case for reelection in 2 years (and if he’s even on the ticket then), a divided Congress is an opportunity to actually prove he can reach across the aisle. You know, as he claimed he could do when he ran in 2020? If he can do that, Republicans are going to have a rougher time running against him. And speaking of Republicans…

The GOP is Ron DeSantis’s party now, not Donald Trump’s. When you look at the numbers, most of the candidates Trump endorsed won election (with a couple of notable exceptions that we’ll be talking about later). Beyond that, though, there is a chunk of the Republican Party who would love to get past Trump, and the man who can do just that is Ron DeSantis. His 2024 Presidential aspirations may still be up in the air, but DeSantis has solidified his position as Trump’s heir apparent, but with fewer Twitter tirades and stupid policy and staffing decisions. How do I know? Because the Left has focused their venom on DeSantis more than Trump in recent weeks. Leftists see DeSantis as a threat, which he is, so they’re trying to undercut him as much as they can. You know, like they did with Trump in 2016. How’d that work out for ya?

The Left still obsessively hates Trump. Aside from the repetitive squawking points I mentioned earlier, I noticed a lot of campaign ads for Democrat candidates invoked Donald Trump’s name as a means to paint their opponents as evil mean nasty poopyheads. Here’s a news flash: Trump wasn’t on the ballot anywhere, but he took up so much space in Leftists’ minds he’s opening up a new Trump Casino. Even though they’re adding Ron DeSantis as a target, the Left is still full-blown Brokeback Mountain with Trump.

The Right still can’t get out of its own way. Even though the “red tsunami” was more of a light sprinkle, there was a lot of dumbfuckery afoot that hurt the party as a whole. I mean, a Trump-backed candidate lost to a stroke victim who has more hoodies than Kevin Smith. How does that happen? Herschel Walker didn’t exactly lose, but he’s heading for a runoff against Raphael Warnock, who could have been defeated with a stronger candidate. And if what I’ve been hearing is true, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spent tons of money on non-Trump candidates while leaving some Republican candidates out in the cold. I can understand party leaders (and McConnell for that matter) wanting to get past Trump, but the kind of strategy employed in 2022 shows me the Republicans keep stepping on their own dicks and have no intention of stopping, even if it means losing winnable elections.

Beto O’Rourke and Stacey Abrams are still losers. ‘Nuff said.

And with that, there’s nothing more to be said!



The Most Important Election…Part 25

In case you haven’t heard, the midterm elections are THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR HISTORY! And you can tell I’m serious because I typed it caps, italics, and bold. But you don’t have to take it from me. Leftists have been hyping this election cycle more than Don King, or Don Lemon for that matter.

From suggesting this year’s elections may be the last free and fair ones in America to being the last chance to remove the Trump influence from the country, the Left can’t be accused of underselling how important they think this election cycle is. After all, democracy is on the ballot, right? If Republicans win, women will lose the right to choose what to do with their bodies, Joe Biden will face impeachment, and blacks will be put back in chains.

Oh, wait. That last one was something Joe Biden said in 2012.

Anyway, the Left has done a great job in building up the midterms, but there’s one tiny problem: they’re not the most important election in our lifetimes. In fact, it’s going to be like any other election in our lifetimes. There will be winners and losers, close calls and blowouts, and just as much division as we had before Election Day. It’ll just be a new bunch of idiots to fuck things up.

And the thing is I’ve heard this song and dance before. It always seems as though one major party or the other trots out the same “most important election of our lifetimes” bullshit when they’re about to get bitch-slapped by the voting public. It’s a cynical way to drum up last-minute support. If you can whip potential voters into a fear-fueled frenzy that if the other party wins a portal to Hell will open up, it might be enough to get them to show up and vote. And with midterm voter turnout being significantly lower than during Presidential election years, every vote counts, so the fear gets turned up to 12 (because turning it up to 11 just isn’t good enough).

And people wonder why I’m so cynical about politicians.

It’s funny to me that the same ideology that gave us “Hope and Change” in 2008 is giving us “No Hope and Don’t Change” not even a generation later. To put it bluntly, I think Donald Trump really fucked up the Left by not being Hillary Clinton’s bitch like they thought he would be. (However, they did get Hillary being a bitch, so I guess they kinda got what they wanted?)

Thus, the 2020 Presidential election was “the most important election in our history.” The Left had to defeat Donald Trump to avoid sliding into a fascist totalitarian regime that denied science and would be the laughing stock of the world. Good thing we voted Trump out of office so none of that could happen, right?

For the Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.

But I’m not being sarcastic when I say the Left and the Right need to lay off the “most important election in our lifetime” bullshit. If you want to get people to vote for your candidates, give us a reason to vote for them, not vote against the opposition.

And while you’re at it, field some candidates that are worth a damn. I find it hard to believe the best candidates Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans could field are a stroke victim with clear cognitive issues and a doctor made famous thanks to a connection to Oprah Winfrey. If ever there was an argument to be made for allowing third parties equal footing in elections, this is it.

So, whatever your reason for voting this year (and in the future), go out and vote, not because you want to make history or because you’re afraid of the future under an opposing party’s rule, but because you want to do your civic duty.

By writing in the names of cartoon characters when the choices you’re given suck more than a lot lizard trying to make bail money.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I decided to step away from the midterm elections this week to focus on a story that caught my eye, and not in a good way. Emily Oster wrote a piece for our good fiends…I mean friends at The Atlantic with the title “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty.” Although Ms. Oster’s body of work on COVID-19 has been much more towards following the science (not that science, the real science), the main point of her piece was an attempt to bring us together again and have an honest discussion about where to go from here.

Yeah, and I’m in the running to be the next Pope.

Although the Left has critiqued her work by citing she gets funding from “right wing think tanks,” I haven’t seen anybody on the Left say anything supporting or rejecting it, which means…they’re probably waiting on the polling data to come up with a position.

Still, it’s worth looking into, if only to fill my weekly requirement of text-based snark.

pandemic amnesty

What the Left thinks it means – ummm…we’ll get back to you on that

What the Right things it means – a move to absolve Leftists from their multitude of bad decisions and examples of government overreach

What it really means – pissing into the wind and hoping we don’t get too much splashback

In my lifetime, there have been few issues that have divided the country as much as COVID-19. The Cola Wars of the 80s came pretty close, mind you. (#TeamPepsi) In the midst of the chaos over the severity of the sickness and what to do, we were all looking for something to cling to in order to keep our sanity. For the Left, it was government and science. Not the Trump Administration, mind you, as the current President and Vice-President both expressed doubts about the COVID-19 vaccines developed under Trump. But once he was out of office, everything was cool! The vaccines were totes safe, people!

And who couldn’t trust two people who flip-flopped more than John Kerry working as an IHOP cook for commission only?

Meanwhile, the Right tended to apply a bit more scrutiny to the claims being made from the Left, so they did their own research. Which caused them to get mocked as unintelligent conspiracy theorists that were hurting the real research efforts. Furthermore, the scrutiny was being painted as being anti-vaccination, which opened up the door for other denigrating accusations from the skeptics being anti-science to wanting children to die. And anyone who was anti-vax who died from COVID? Well, they deserved it and don’t deserve any pity, according to the loving, mature Left.

Guess what, bitches? The Right was, well, right with their skepticism a good chunk of the time. From COVID deaths being overcounted to COVID-19 possibly being manmade to Dr. Anthony Fauci lying to Congress about gain-of-function research out of Wuhan, China, where COVID is alleged to have originated. And as we learn more, the more the “conspiracy theories” that got dismissed by the people claiming to “follow the science” get revisited and often vindicated.

But not by the people requesting amnesty.

See, the Left has a lot at stake in maintaining the perceived validity of their COVID narrative, namely in the realms of power. Political, social, financial, it didn’t matter, COVID opened a lot of doors for a lot of politicians to enact laws and rules for everyone else but themselves. Even in the throes of COVID, that shit didn’t go unnoticed. Making matters worse was their nigh-draconian approach to lockdowns. Let’s just say Australia had nothing on Michigan Governor Gretchen “Witless” Whitmer and her Box Wine Brigade. Viral videos of mothers, fathers, and children getting yelled at by grown adults acting like hall monitors for not wearing masks, playing outside, and any number of activities with low-to-no risk to the people complaining. Remember, kids, COVID struck the elderly the hardest, not a little girl playing on the swing set on a nice spring day.

For all of their “science” following, the Left’s biggest threat is actual science. As we’re finding out, lockdowns didn’t work, masks weren’t all that effective, and we did a ton of psychological damage across the board, all because some Leftists decided a global pandemic was the perfect time to ram totalitarianism in a paper mask down our collective throats.

And these are the fucknuggets who want amnesty?

In a word, no.

In two words, fuck no.

In three words, fuckity fuck no.

In four words…I think you get the picture.

While most people are focused on rejecting the pandemic amnesty idea, we have to ask why it’s being offered now. For that, we can look to actions from this year. In January, the US Supreme Court ruled OSHA didn’t have the regulatory power to mandate “vaccine or test” rules for private companies with 100 or more employees. The New York Supreme Court for Richmond County recently ruled workers who were fired for being unvaccinated were to be reinstated. Massachusetts also rehired workers fired for not getting the jab, albeit without back pay and some benefits.

What does this mean? The tide is turning against those who pushed the COVID overreach for years, only to now think pandemic amnesty is a realistic possibility. It’s not, but it’s a nice dream to hold onto as Karma comes knocking on your doors, right?

The fact the courts and even Left-leaning states like Massachusetts have started pushing back against the Left threatens the narrative, and the power structures Leftists built because of COVID. With that, the Left have a choice to make: swallow their pride and admit they were wrong, double down on their discredited bullshit, or try to find a way to weasel out of admitting they were wrong while looking contrite in the process.

Right now the jury’s still out on what the Left will do, but I get the feeling the pandemic amnesty issue may be what they ultimately decide upon so they can straddle the line between accepting and rejecting responsibility, all while betting we forget what they made happen.

We won’t, of course, because we’re still dealing with the aftermath of the Left’s overreach. But Karma may be visiting the Left sooner than they think, with the midterm elections being a couple of days away (Please check local listings for the Election Day near you.) Although it’s not a lock, the party out of the White House tends to pick up seats during the midterms.

And with the economy, inflation, and energy woes weighing on voters’ minds (and pocketbooks), Leftists are on track to get stomped like grapes at a wine-making festival. While Leftists try to write excuses for their losses, they only need look at what they’ve done since 2020 for the answer as to why they lost and will continue to lose.

Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you.

Regardless of where you stand on the past couple of years, it’s clear pandemic amnesty should be a non-starter. Those who supported the government’s position on how to address COVID should man up (but, then again, I’m not a doctor) and say, “Yeah, we fucked up, and we’re going to make amends.” What they will do, however, remains to be seen, but I get the feeling they’ll pretend like nothing was wrong.

Which will make it easier for Republicans to win in 2024. So, win-win, I guess?