Month: June 2023

In the Meme Time

Back again with another Leftist meme to ridicule and show off it’s falsehoods. Like most Leftist memes this one too has a hint of truth in it to fool those who can be fooled.

This little meme pops up every June sooner or later. An attempt to put a false idea in your head from the LGBTQ+ movements about their actions and sin.

Let’s look at it:

First of all the imagery is deliberate of course. A US flag to invoke feelings for America. And following the meme would then be patriotic. A pig dressed in a flag is still a pig. A lie with a flag background is still a lie.

The opening statement is true. Every human being that has ever existed, except for Christ Jesus, was born a sinner. The truth ends there however. As the meme goes on to state that the persons sin is mentioned in the Bible 25 times. But this is not true.

No where. And I mean in no place at all. Is left-handedness ever called a sin. In fact, no genetic trait is ever called a sin in Holy Scripture. All sins are actions a person takes that separates them from our Holy Creator. And the Bible does mention quite a few of them.

Doing something against the commands of God. Either deliberately or even in ignorance. Those are sins. Left-handedness is not a sin.

Yes indeed Left-handedness is mentioned in the Bible in a number of places. Yes, society has been cruel to it’s lefties for centuries before adapting change and understanding about those who are left-handed.

So again at the end. The meme is truthful again about society changing for the better when it comes to left-handed people.

The meme wants us to associate sin with left-handedness which society now accepts over all. And then associate other sins with things that society now accepts somewhat. This is due to the false narrative that like a left-handed person, they were born this way.

And lastly, another falsehood, the supposed author of the statement is an Educator. He is obviously not educated in Scripture.

Discord vs IRC

I’ve written about a few of these topics in the past and I’m sure they will be revisited again in the future. In our modern world connected as we are through the technology of the internet. There is still a need for text only based real time chatting between 2 or more people.

Text only based chatting has many advantages over both voice or video methods of communication. Far less bandwidth is needed is the biggest advantage. It can work on even the worst internet connections and the slowest of PCs.

In the days of Dial-up internet, were AOL was the king of providers, they had a multitude of chatrooms for many topics and communities across their membership. And outside of AOL and accessible to it, and all other providers were the many servers and networks of Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

During the height of IRC’s popularity it had over a million users signed in across the multitude of networks and servers. Today, with the rise of Social Media, this number has been reduced to a quarter of what it once was.

A vast majority of IRC users are now found on the Discord service. It has a number of similarities to IRC that allows users to feel “at home” there. However there are a lot of differences too between the 2 platforms.

Here are some of the similarities and differences:

Discord has a native “pretty” interface. Granted IRC does not but it’s totally depends on which IRC client one uses to access IRC.

Discard has audio and visual communications options. IRC does not have these functions at all. They are left to other services to provide them.

Discord has Avatars and Profiles. Although IRC at its base level does not. There are IRC clients that provide similar functions.

Both services have bots running on them in multiple channels performing a multitude of various tasks.

Discord requires registration in order to use it. IRC does not require registration, but many networks and servers have registration available and it’s recommended.

Discord has the ability to create channel threads. Topics that filter out of the main channel discussion into a sub-channel without leaving the channel. IRC does not have this unique ability. In IRC one would have to chat privately or form a separate channel with the smaller number of users.

Both services off the ability to chat privately between users.

IRC is independent. There are networks and stand alone servers. Each one is unique. Discord “servers” are all part of Discord and ran on the same equipment as all others.

This one fact can lead to a single point of failure for Discord. If the Discord service goes down. All of the Discord “servers” are done. Not true at all with IRC since each server and network are independent of one another.

And with the independence, IRC is individually owned. Where as Discord is corporately owned and could change any aspect of its service with a board member vote. Including making the entire service a paid service.

On Discord you can @mention another user of the “server” you are connected to and they would be notified of the mention. IRC doesn’t have this as a built-in function. However, like other functions that are built-in to Discord, many IRC clients have similar functions.

On Discord, if you join a “server”, you are automatically in all the channels save for ones that are role restricted which can cause unwanted notifications of chats. One IRC when you connect to a server you only join the channels you want to join or none at all.

With IRC, anyone can create a new channel just by joining it. And that person gets admin rights in that channel automatically. If there is registration available and the user desires they can register the channel and make it permanent. But on Discord, only Admins can create new channels. It’s the same role given to create, destroy, or modify any channel so it’s not given out to everyone.

Discord has a history feature. Once you join a “server” and are in the channels you can infinitely scroll up to see what was previously said in that channel by anyone. On IRC, there is a +H mode that can be set on some servers or networks that allow a similar functionality but it’s usually not infinite.

Discord admins have the ability to delete chats in a channel. IRC doesn’t have this ability. Once the chat is there it’s there. But new users generally wont see it because of the lack of history available.

Bots are on both services as previously mentioned. And bots are very handy to have to provide functions and features that aren’t part of the system. With Discord, you have to have Dev permissions to create a bot. And that bot cannot run on a regular member’s account. Doing so would get the bot and user banned from Discord. On IRC however, there are a variety of scripting options available. Some are based on the client program use to connect to IRC and others are dependent on the bot being used. And you can run scripts from your own client as well.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing IRC and Discord. Just looking at this list the favor leans towards IRC over Discord despite some of its unique features. Many Discord features can be duplicated or simulated in IRC with a bit of scripting or simple options enabled on one’s client program.

I will always be an IRC enthusiast. After all I have ran my own IRC network/server for 25 years. And in this day and age of cancel culture, the freedom of an IRC server is just what is needed.

I am sad to say that I have lost a few IRC channels to Discord. And looking at those Discord “servers” I could have over a 1000 users on my IRC network if they stayed or came back.

But if you are looking for a place to have an online real-time text based chat. I’m happy to help you get setup on IRC. You can connect via a browser at https://web.communiti.chat or point you favorite IRC client program to irc.commuinit.chat and get setup to go.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In a move that surprised, well, no one, California Representative Adam Schiff was censured by the US House of Representatives for his role in perpetuating Russiagate. You remember Russiagate, don’t you kids? That investigation into whether Russia helped Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential election based on evidence flimsier than a balsa wood kitchen table?

Of course, Leftists were furious at the censure, but then coped by saying the censure would guarantee he would win a Senate seat, as well as it made him more powerful now than he was before.

And I wish I were making that last part up.

While Leftists were turning him into Obi Wan Kenobi, Schiff turned this censure into a fundraising effort because reasons. With all of the talk around the Representative, it seems fitting he should be the latest Lexicon entry.

Adam Schiff

What the Left thinks it means – an honest patriot standing up to Donald Trump and his minions

What it really means – a guy so full of shit he could fertilize Death Valley and the Sahara Desert several times over

During the Trump Administration, Adam Schiff went from a barely-there Congressional figure to a major player within Leftist circles, mainly because he had the balls to stand up to Donald Trump. And by balls, I mean eyeballs. And here I thought Mantenna was just an action figure from the She-Ra toy line, but here we are.

To say Schiff had a hate boner for Trump is an understatement of Rosie O’Donnell at an all you can eat buffet proportions. (I used Rosie here in celebration of Pride Month. You’re welcome, LBGTQIDUDIYRSVPUFOABCBBDCCRKISSELO+ community.) If anybody could make up…I mean uncover dirt on Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, Schiff would be like a bloodhound. A bloodhound with Marty Feldman-like eyes, but a bloodhound nonetheless.

There was one tiny problem, though: the allegations of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia were bullshit. But Schiff couldn’t let a little thing like a lack of actual proof stop him! After all, if he couldn’t produce the goods, he would be a liar, wouldn’t he? So, he did what any self-respecting Leftist would do and lied some more!

This next part has become the millstone around Schiff’s pencil neck. He claimed there was “ample evidence” of the collusion that was “in plain sight.” Yet, when pressed to provide this evidence, Schiff acted like the dog ate his homework. Even as one of the dipshits running the first Trump impeachment based around stuff even law clerks could argue their way out of in a court of law, Schiff maintained he had the proof.

As of this writing, no such proof has ever been presented.

And this is the asshat the Left is calling an honest broker? Granted, it’s the same kind of defense they put up for Eric “I Slept With a Chinese Spy and All I Got Was Removed From House Committees” Swalwell.

Which brings us to an interesting problem for the Left: calling out liars. After years of demanding people call out Trump for lying (which is a 25/8 job because 24/7 just ain’t enough), the Left are suddenly okay with someone lying to Congress about the former President. Remember, kids, if Leftists didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all…not that you’d notice, mind you. As long as their team lies about the right people (i.e. anyone to the right of Ivan “I Have To Go” Trotsky), it’s for the right reasons. But lie about the wrong people (i.e. them) and Leftists will go at you like you abused their pet cat. They’ll throw the Library of Congress at you!

And most modern Republicans sit there and take it because they’re playing by a different set of rules, rules that neuter them politically to the point they’re so afraid of offending the electorate (who really aren’t paying that much attention to the details) that they will allow Leftists to lie about them constantly. How do you think Media Matters stays in business? I mean aside from generous donations from our buddy Uncle George.

It’s in this environment where Schiff is at his best. When he can lie with impunity because he’s on the winning side of Congressional elections, he goes full Super Sayan. But when he’s on the wrong end of the election cycle, he cries like a little boy who skinned his knee riding his bike. Seems he doesn’t like it when the shit he flings gets flung back at him.

It’s also in this environment where Leftists are the most vulnerable when it comes to Schiff. By going all in on his allegations, it becomes a “ride or die” situation. Either they keep pushing the narrative even after there are more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the crossfire of a gang war, or they throw Schiff to the wolves (which are mostly toothless lapdogs in bed with the Left, but the point remains the same). Since Schiff has built up such a cult of personality around himself, Leftists fear the backlash from the latter, so they go all in on Schiffamania.

Here’s where the vulnerability lies. All it takes is for House Republicans to call Schiff’s bluff. (A pipe dream these days, but a man can dream.) Demand he produce the evidence he claims to have. If he’s telling the truth and didn’t disclose this information during the January 6th Commission, he knowingly withheld evidence from an active investigation. If he’s lying (a safer bet), then he lied to Congress and the nation. And not just on the floor of the House, mind you. He repeated the lie on social media, on TV shows, and in print. Even though a Representative can’t be arrested for lying while conducting official duties, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say being on CNN isn’t really a Congressional duty. If anything, it might be considered torture.

In either case, Schiff is fucked, and not in the good way.

Not that the Left cares, mind you. They want Donald Trump punished by any means necessary, even if it undermines the rule of law in the process. But it’s this single-mindedness that will eventually backfire. At some point, the Left will not be able to control the narrative nor the legislative might to enforce it, which opens them up to a universe of hurt. Adam Schiff’s censure sets the precedent for it, and can be used against other Leftists, like Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty of others.

And the best part? The Left made it all possible through their political circle jerk to take down Donald Trump. Good job, Leftists!

As for Adam Schiff, he’s basically a fourth string quarterback put in the game because the first three QBs are all injured, the cheerleaders don’t know how to run the offense, and the coach hates furries, so the mascot’s out of the running. But since he’s the guy, his team has to support him and cheer every inch gained as though it were a touchdown. Then, after he fumbles, throws interceptions, and gets sacked more often than Idaho potatoes, he becomes more of a liability than an asset. Democrats should distance themselves from Schiff sooner rather than later.

And Schiff? He’s 3/5 of an asset, and the -et don’t count.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember the good old days when men were men, women were women, and nobody used science to prove otherwise? Well, as anyone who can lived through COVID-19 and is being honest about it can tell you, science has gotten a lot more political and a lot less like science.

Amid all the major stories over the past week (apparently a former President got indicted on the “buy one grand jury, get another one free” program), there was one that caught my eye because of its ties to one of the major controversies of the day. This comes from Johns Hopkins University, or more specifically their Diversity and Inclusion branch. In a recently-found glossary of terms, women aren’t women anymore; they’re, and I’m not making this up, “non-men.”

Welcome to the era of female erasure. And welcome to this week’s Lexicon entry!

female erasure

What the Left thinks it means – an overblown and unfounded reaction to recognizing trans women as real women

What it really means – another example of Leftist misogyny, this time disguised as support for trans rights

For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a man. In a lot of people’s minds, that automatically invalidates my opinions on women’s issues and opens me up to criticisms of “manplaining.” Well, half of my chromosomes came from a woman, so at the very least half of my opinions are worth considering. Plus, I’m so in touch with my feminine side, I’m suing myself for sexual harassment.

Having said all that, I recognize the importance women have on human history and the strides they’ve made to be seen as equals to men by at least a majority of Americans. And for a lot of years, Leftists seemed on board with that, and for the purposes of fundraising and politics, they still are. And since women make up over half of Americans as of 2021, that’s a pretty good reason not to piss them off.

Enter trans right activists. Within the past couple of years, they’ve advanced the idea that men who transition into women are actual women and anyone who says differently (i.e. someone who stayed awake in biology class) is a bigot who hates trans people. And with that, women became a subjective term instead of a scientifically established certainty that even kindergarteners could explain.

And for those who are wondering? Still two genders. I’ll break in with updates as warranted.

Meanwhile back at the main point, Leftists have found a way to both court and offend women by insisting a man who says he’s a woman is no different than a woman who has been a woman all her life. Aside from the biological differences, I can attest from being married to a woman for 10 years now men and women do not have the same experiences. Contrary to what trans women tell you, they don’t get periods or menstrual cramps, which means they don’t know what it’s like to go through it for the first time and all the emotional and hormonal elements that come along with it. To suggest otherwise is like an Amy Schumer joke: stolen. Oh, and bad.

For proof of this, we can look no further than the poster child of modern trans women, Dylan Mulvaney. Due to a year-long publicity stunt called “365 Days of Girlhood”, Mulvaney got a lot of positive attention, which given his past antics to gain attention, is exactly what he/she wanted. Content Warning: do not watch these videos if you’re easily offended by over-the-top acting, easily influenced by social media, or generally skeeved out by Dylan.

At this point, I have to clarify something. Although Mulvaney goes by she/her pronouns, I don’t think she/her is actually trans. Case in point: “normalize the bulge.” Women can have bulges, just not where their dicks would be if they had them in the first place. And as of this writing, Mulvaney has yet to fully transition, which means his normalized bulge is still a dick and balls. Hence, I use his/her and him/her to describe the insanity that is Dylan Mulvaney.

If Mulvaney were the only person doing this, we could write it off as an anomaly. (Come to think of it, we still can, but that’s beside the point.) Unfortunately for women, he/she isn’t. Trans women are finding new footholds in women’s spaces, ranging from competitive sports to combat sports, even to beauty salons catering to women’s genital waxing and to changing rooms. At this point, it’s no longer about acceptance. Trans women are trying to insert themselves (if you’ll pardon the double entendre) into spaces reserved for biological women and expecting women to knuckle under.

You know, just like abusive men?

This is another fundamental difference between men and women that the trans community doesn’t want us to know: men are more aggressive than women generally. Granted, you aren’t likely to get throttled to a pulp by a Leftist man in skinny jeans and a man bun, but the potential is still there. Combine this with the differences in musculature between the genders (checking…still 2), and you have an individual who has the tools and the mentality to physically assault women. And Leftists want these folks to be in the presence of their potential victims because reasons?

Maybe Ben Shapiro has opinions on this.

And make no mistake, it’s trans women (i.e. men) who are forcing the issue with the help of their Leftist enablers. With each trans woman who enters the female space, a little bit of the female experience gets erased and replaced with someone who has yet to truly experience it. In other words, the Left is replacing women with biological men and showing favoritism towards the latter.

Say, isn’t there a term for something like that? Mis…something or other? I’m sure some Leftist will fill in the blanks for me.

To add more sodium chloride to the wound, Leftists deny any of this is going on, in spite of Leftist women calling it out. And how do many Leftists respond? By calling them Nazis. In fact, any woman who doesn’t agree with biological men taking over women’s spots gets treated the same way. Just ask J. K. Rowling, who has been the epitome of evil for Leftists because she…dared to say trans women weren’t actually women. And who has been consistent in not backing down to the trans mob?

J. K. Fucking Rowling.

Although it’s disheartening to see how few women are standing up to the Left in their attempts to slowly eliminate female accomplishments, I see that tide turning. With more women of all political stripes speaking up, it gets harder for Leftists to discount female erasure. Oh, they will, make no mistake. But you can only call someone a Nazi so many times before he or she tells you to go fuck yourself.

But don’t fret, trans women. Most of you have the equipment to do just that.

And this just in…still two genders!







Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To hear the Left talk (and for God’s sake why would you), white supremacy is everywhere. From members of Congress (all Republican, by the way) to math, you can’t swing a cat without hitting something or someone not touched by white supremacy.

Including Moms for Liberty.

This past week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC to the kids) called Moms for Liberty a right wing extremist group with ties to…drum roll please…white supremacy! And why? Because they didn’t want radical Leftist ideas intermingled with history, math, and other subjects. Those bitches!

While we’ve tackled white supremacy before, we haven’t delved into the Southern Poverty Law Center (save for the occasional semi-humorous jape at their expense). Are they the gold standard of finding and combating extremism, or are they pyrite?

Southern Poverty Law Center

What the Left thinks it means – the definitive source on hate and extremist groups in America

What it really means – a Leftist echo chamber regurgitating whatever bullshit the Left needs to push to make the Right look bad

The SPLC describes itself as:

a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.

On the surface, this makes the SPLC sound like pretty much every dumb Leftist group out there, complete with nonsensical buzzwords. Rest assured, dear reader, it’s much, much stupider.

It starts with their reason for existing, that being tracking extremist groups. According to their own figures, the SPLC tracked 1225 such groups active in 2022. This begs the question of what gets a group on the list. From what I gathered from the link I just posted, it’s a pretty short list of qualifications.

1. Be to the right of Josef Stalin

2. Want government out of our lives as much as possible

Now, there was a time when the SPLC tracked hate groups and anti-government groups separately, but that doesn’t raise as much attention (i.e. make Chicken Little look reasonable). So, surprise surprise, they decided to combine the two, starting in 2021! Their reason? Because hate groups and anti-government groups got together and became a mass of hate!

At this point, I have to admit there is some overlap between anti-government and pro-hate groups, mainly because of the nature of humanity. But it’s far from a single circle as the SPLC would have us believe.

Take me, for instance. I don’t hate anyone, including Leftists, because it’s no fun. Where the real fun lies is in pointing and laughing, which always makes me feel good. And I’m not anti-government so much as I am anti-stupid government. I don’t want to overthrow the government or participate in a violent coup for the same reason I don’t hate Leftists: it’s not fun. LARPing as a Founding Father just isn’t my thing, although I do have the gams to pull off the pantaloons…

And that would put me on the SPLC’s radar because they lack the ability to recognize nuance. Granted, this is a trait of any extremist, but it’s particularly damaging because the Left gives the SPLC a megaphone to spread the idea hatred and extremism are around every corner, under every rock, and in every medium known to Man.

And Leftist asshats think Joe McCarthy was a nutjob!

Even so, the SPLC has to resort to some tricky accounting that would make Arthur Andersen proud. I decided to see what kind of evil hateful meaniehead groups they found in my home state of Iowa. Among the groups that made the list were the Constitution Party of Iowa (anti-government group), Iowa Parents Involved in Education (anti-government group), and We the People for Constitutional Sheriffs (anti-government group). Sure, there are some notable names, like the John Birch Society and the National Alliance, but it seems like most of the groups on the list don’t belong there.

And certainly not multiple times like Moms for Liberty are.

Once or twice, maybe it’s an oversight. But five fucking times? That’s a decision. And it’s a decision that the SPLC made over and over again across all 50 states.

Now, consider a group like, oh I don’t know, Antifa. They’ve shown a significant amount of hatred and they’re pretty anti-government. Surely they’re on the SPLC’s radar as either or both, right?

Nope.

Color me…not all that surprised, really. After all, if the number of hate group goes down (which it has been according to the SPLC’s own numbers), the purpose of the group is weakened. Yes, only in the Leftist mind is successfully getting rid of hate groups a bad thing.

And that’s because the SPLC’s entire existence is built on fighting hate groups in America. As such, they have a vested interest in making it seem hate groups are more prevalent than bad pop music today. Or, in other words, pop music today. So, they have to keep playing fast and loose with what constitutes a hate group and an anti-government group while outwardly pretending it’s all hate groups.

The problem is when everything you don’t like becomes a hate group, you water down the concept so actual hate groups gain a bit of plausible deniability. After all, if a group that has to lie about the number of hate groups and what groups are considered hate groups, how can we trust them on the basic shit?

Of course, most hate groups are too stupid to realize this, but hey. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be hate groups, right?

Which brings us back to the designations. Moms for Liberty got on the list because members made they allegedly made violent threats. I say allegedly for multiple reasons, but primarily because of the source, i.e. the SPLC itself.

Plus, the standard they use doesn’t make any sense. The Constitution Party is listed as anti-government, even though its name and general principles come from a document used to guide our government (at least in theory). It’s like saying a car club is anti-truck in spite of it literally being a club about cars. And even then, the club members may not be anti-truck, per se. The devil, or in this case the SPLC’s overinflated numbers, are in the details.

With actual hate groups, it’s much more cut and dried, as there’s very few ways spouting hate can be seen as anything but, well, spouting hate. Even then, the SPLC will go out of its way to run interference for Leftist hate (see Antifa) while using the comment of a mother upset at Critical Race Theory being taught to her children in elementary school (and, yes, Leftists, this does happen) to paint a group as anti-government is all but guaranteed.

Then again, the SPLC handling Antifa with kid gloves might have something to do with Antifa members being on staff…

Regardless, it’s clear the Southern Poverty Law Center is as reliable as Puddin’ Head Joe staying on message. Which makes it that much more important to push back when they come out with bullshit like the Moms for Liberty being a hate group. The more they go unchallenged, the more they are seen as legitimate, and the more they’re used in conjunction with government agencies to find and categorize people and groups as dangerous.

But the tide might be turning, due in part to legal proceedings and whisteblowers. By exposing the SPLC’s long con, the organization’s flaws become evident, but I want to take it a step further. If the SPLC are focused on taking on hate groups, what are the results of their efforts?

Jack. Shit.

I’m sure they’ll have some sort of bullshit excuse, but the fact remains they’re failures being given credibility by the Left for ideological purposes. You know, like Kamala Harris. But not even a Leftist circle jerk can overcome pointing out how impotent the SPLC has been. You literally have one fucking job, and you can’t even do that right?

Keep that up and you could become President of the United States.




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week, we delve into the world of comedy, for which some readers are saying “Finally!” Fortunately for you, it’s not my jokes this time.

Instead, we can look to Twitter and Leftists for the humor. Seems our favorite Socialist Socialite got her collectivist panties in a wad over a Twitter account parodying her. And as one might expect of someone dumber than a bag of hammers, the Socialist Socialite tweeted out a warning advising fans of the account. Because as we all know the best way to make a problem go away is to draw as much attention to it as humanly possible.

Needless to say, this didn’t work well. Which prompted fans of the Socialist Socialite to call for Twitter to ban the parody account, AOCpress. This gives us the perfect opening to discuss the wonders of parody.

parody

What the Left thinks it means – a potentially dangerous threat to valid communication between politicians and their constituents

What it really means – a way to mock the Left protected by the First Amendment

Our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a great definition of “parody” that will serve us nicely:

1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.

2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.

3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.

4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

If you’re an observant reader, and I know you are, you’ll notice a pattern. If you’re not or a Leftist (which means you’re not observant by definition), the pattern is humor. Leftists love to tell us they’re funnier than conservatives, but yet they’re redefining humor to take the funny out of comedy and turn it into more of a monologue where the pseudo-comedian throws out Leftist talking points in lieu of jokes. But don’t worry. There are plenty of set-ups, chief of which being the audience being set up that they’ll be entertained, but there are a decided lack of straight men. Or women.

And as a side note, Dave Chappelle was right about Hannah Gadsby.

Anyway, the Left doesn’t have a mirth monopoly by any stretch. Granted, much of the humor they provide is unintentional (i.e. Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris going off script), but it’s humor nonetheless. Where the Right has the edge in humor is online, especially in the area of satire. With The Onion being as funny as its namesake these days, sites like The Babylon Bee and any number of Twitter handles have picked up the slack by…actually being funny. What a concept!

And a good amount of the time, it’s the Left getting skewered with the Right’s humor. Guess how that goes over with the Left.

As with other things that bug them and that they can’t control, Leftists moan more than a porn actress being paid by the orgasm. And where do they moan the most? On Twitter! After all, if you complain on Twitter about something and tag Elon Musk it actually does something important!

Guess how that turned out. And I’m guessing you’re seeing a pattern here.

See, Leftists hate being mocked, especially when it’s in the form of parody because it’s not just mocking them, but it’s mocking them directly.

Remember the young girl who did a parody of the Socialist Socialite? Well, she got death threats from Leftists. You know, the tolerate, loving, and totes free speech defending Left? (Yeah, I laughed hard when I typed that, too.)

That should tell you two things. First, Leftists take themselves way too seriously. And second, the jokes about their lack of a sense of humor are based in fact. Oh, and Leftists are shitty people when they get butthurt at being the butt of jokes. (See what I did there?)

But here’s the thing. Parody is protected under the First Amendment as free speech. And what’s even more delicious? It’s because of Larry Flynt, a loud and proud Leftist. (On a side note, how do Leftist feminists reconcile Flynt’s treatment and attitudes towards women with feminist ideology? Oh, right, they fucking ignore it.)

Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from making the case the AOCpress account should be removed because they claim it’s imitating the Socialist Socialist. Hoo boy. So much to unpack here, but let’s start with the easy one.

Twitter rules are quite clear on parody accounts being allowed so long as they clearly proclaim they are parody accounts. And Leftists should remember this, especially after many of them did Elon Musk parodies on their Twitter accounts.
In other words, it’s perfectly fine when they do it, but no one else can do it, especially to them.

Now, there’s the whole imitation angle. What AOCpress posts may look and sound like what the Socialist Socialite says, but at no time does the account owner say he/she is AOC. Just because it’s indistinguishable from what the Socialist Socialite really says doesn’t mean it’s someone trying to impersonate her. Although, it might be evidence the Twitter account wants to date her…

Now, for the best part of all of this. There are people getting fooled by the AOCpress account, even with the parody tag on it. How fucking stupid do you have to be to get fooled by a parody account that labels itself as parody? I know social media is a “Tweet first, ask questions later” environment, but fuck! You have to be a special kind of window licker to get fooled.

Which says a lot about the people who stan for the Socialist Socialist, doesn’t it?

The proper response to parody isn’t to try to get it removed from the marketplace of ideas, but rather to take it for what it is: an attempt at humor. You don’t have to get it for it to be a joke, and you don’t have to laugh for it to be protected. That’s why Dane Cook has never been arrested for doing his stand-up (although an argument could be made for him being arrested for impersonating a stand-up comedian, but that’s a blog post for another time). That means Leftists are going to have to put up with a lot more mocking from people, myself included.

And that’s going to piss off Leftists.

The AOCpress account exposes how thin-skinned Leftists can be, while at the same time showing how gullible and stupid they can be when they put their minds to it. Like it or not, though, parody is as valid a Socialist Socialite speech, only parody is intentionally funny.