Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists can find a way to be outraged by just about anything, even sources that are outside of their usual frames of reference. This past week, we saw Leftists get their panties in a bunch over…get this…the death of a professional wrestler, or more specifically how some of the wrestler’s colleagues chose to honor his memory.

Jamin Pugh wrestled under the name Jay Briscoe for many years and recently died in a car crash. He was beloved by his peers, with some offering condolences using the phrase Rest In Power.

It was these three little words that made Leftists shit themselves in outrage. Of course, if they were in San Francisco, you wouldn’t notice a difference, but the use of those three words became a personal affront to them because…get this…Jamin Pugh was…a white man! And Rest In Power? That’s a black phrase.

Better sit down for this one. The stupid is going to fly!

Rest In Power

What the Left thinks it means – a phrase to honor deceased blacks that should never be used by white people

What it really means – a phrase to honor a human being that doesn’t belong to anyone

To dig further into this situation, I went to where all self-respecting scholars go, Urban Dictionary. They define the phrase thus:

Phrase meaning that a deceased cannot rest in peace until society changes due to the circumstances of a death.

Well, that explains the boom in zombie movies and TV shows…

Dictionary.com provides this definition:

A variation on rest in peace, rest in power is used, especially in Black and LGBTQ communities, to commemorate a person whose death is considered unjust or wrongful. In this way, rest in power is a call to continue the struggle for social justice and as a show of solidarity.

Rest in power is also used to pay respect to a person, especially a person of color, who made a difference in the lives of minority communities. It is sometimes used to note the death of a person felt to have died too soon or senselessly, or a person who was influential or meaningful to people more generally.

At the core of both of these definitions is Leftist ideology. Victims of an unjust system are saluted with a Rest In Power, but the presumed oppressors can’t even utter the words because…well, they’re still trying to figure that part out. And they’re not the only ones.

Seriously, though, the phrase is believed to have originated as a way to honor a street artist, but was popularized in the black community as a way to memorialize people killed by violence. Oh, and rappers. With the death of Michael Brown and the suicide of a teenaged trans girl, Leelah Alcorn, Rest In Power got put behind rhetorical red velvet ropes complete with a bouncer to make sure only the “right” people got to use it.

Then, it got co-opted by white people and everything went to hell. Ain’t that always the case?

Although I can respect the origins of the phrase, I have to call bullshit on its presumed limits on usage. Once a phrase enters the cultural lexicon, the ownership transfers to society at large. Take the word “cool” for example. It started off with black jazz musicians, but evolved to the point of being universal. Now, there are grandmas walking at the mall who say something is “cool.” I don’t know if they can scat to a jazz riff, but that’s not the point.

Language is one of the most fluid things we have as human beings that isn’t actual fluid. As such, there is a lot of cultural cross-pollenization through diverse sources from music to fashion to cartoons. It doesn’t always work (see the drop-off in the use of “wack” in the past 20 years), but when it works, it works well.

So, why is Rest In Power exempt? Because…reasons?

The real reason is because Leftists need to control the language, even within communities already sympathetic to Leftist causes. By limiting who can use it, the Left acts as gatekeepers in the spirit of elevating the oppressed. Not that doing this actually elevates anyone, mind you…

What good does limiting who can say “Rest In Power” do when it comes to the Left’s stated goal of dismantling the current power structure and making it more equitable? It’s a SBD fart in a hurricane. The needle doesn’t move at all, nor will it ever. But it makes Leftist voting blocs feel good, so…yay, I guess?

Within this strategy is another Leftist concept, equity. Note, equity is not the same as equality, even though they share many of the same letters. Equality means everyone gets the same treatment across the board, no matter what. Equity allows for a bit more leeway in treatment because it allows for different circumstances to affect the outcome. And guess who currently pulls the levers on equitable treatment.

Leftists. Either that or an amusement park ride operator.

Setting standards on who can use “Rest In Power” is the Left’s commitment to equity writ large. But the entire concept falls apart like a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house when you consider the Left’s adoption of Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King. Two white people who are considered black because they identify as black in spite of being as white as an Edgar Winter concert in the middle of a blizzard after a typing correction fluid explosion.

I take that back. The aforementioned concert would have far too much rhythm to be truly white. My bad.

And guess what? That’s a joke comedians of all colors have been telling for decades, and yet no one has tried to limit who can tell it. Sure, the wording will be different, but the concept remains the same, and it has no one trying to gatekeep.

I never thought I’d be putting “cool” and “whites have no rhythm” on the same level, but here I am killing it!

And let me also point out the limits Leftists put on “Rest In Power” are completely arbitrary and, thus, rooted in logic shakier than the Biden White House’s response to why classified documents were found within 500 feet of Hunter. After all, whites make up the largest section of the LGBTQWTFFUBARLMFAO community. So, that means whites can use “Rest In Power” but only if they’re gay, lesbian, bi, trans, queer, etc.

How’s that dicking feel, straight white Leftists?

It’s these kinds of rules that make Calvinball look like Candyland. Yet, it’s the insanity of these rules that makes the best argument against this rhetorical version of Affirmative Action. If no one knows the rules, they are impossible to enforce, and even when you try to enforce them, they can easily be circumvented. Why, it’s almost better not to have any rules on who can say “Rest In Power” in the first place!

Yes. Yes it is.

And that’s the point. People should feel free to use whatever wording they want in honor of a fallen friend, a late family member, or even a respected figure in the community. Yes, there are still going to be consequences if somebody takes it the wrong way, but that’s the risk you run when you say anything. You could post on Twitter that you like chocolate, and some asshat with a checkmark will take it that you hate vanilla and try to troll you back to the Stone Age. (In computer terms, that’s 1980.) But does that mean you can’t or shouldn’t say you like chocolate? Not at all!

There is a reason we have free speech in America, and it’s because even loudmouth assholes should be able to speak their minds, if only to make it easier for us to figure out who to stay away from in the future. Limiting speech, especially as innocuous as “Rest In Power,” doesn’t help anyone, literally and, well, literally. Oh, I almost forgot. Some of the people posting “Rest In Power” to the late Jay Briscoe happen to be members of the groups Leftists say get to use the phrase in the first place.

Checkmate, motherfuckers.



What a Bunch of Gasholes!

As jaded as I’ve become in my later years, there are still some things that make me shake my head in a “Are you fucking kidding me” way. Usually, this comes from the federal government, online culture warriors, or media types, but recently, we had the perfect storm of fuckery, thanks to a federal agency.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it was considering banning natural gas stoves, citing health concerns because of course. Recent peer-reviewed research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found an alleged link between the use of gas stoves and childhood asthma, a danger further underscored by co-author Brady Seals of the Rocky Mountain Institute. More on this later.

Once this news became public knowledge, online culture warriors went to work to amplify the CPSC suggestion, which promptly made the media go into “Republicans Pounce” mode. At first, the CPSC tried to deny what the commissioner, Richard Trumka Jr., clearly said, which as we all know makes everything instantly better! Then, Trumka, who made the initial statement “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” issued a tweet “clarifying” his statement, saying they weren’t coming after gas stoves after all, and any new regulations would only apply to new products.

It got so bad that CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric had to issue further clarification, and stated the organization was evaluating the health risks in light of the aforementioned research. Furthermore, Hoehn-Saric said no new regulations were on the table right now.

Meaning, they’re still on the table, but they’re being hidden behind the boiled radishes that nobody wants to eat until they can be reintroduced as though nothing had happened.

And believe me they will.

This is because the Left and its government stooges (but I repeat myself) love to have as much power over us as possible. Controlling how we cook our food, as meaningless as it is in the grand scheme of things, is exactly the kind of shit they’d do if given the chance…or if they take the chance.

But then they fucked up by not only giving away the plot, but by assuming the opponents wouldn’t have receipts. Oh, but they did. Lots of receipts. They even got the Socialist Socialite to defend her use of gas stoves while simultaneously doubling down on the science.

And just what was the science, you ask? Remember the peer-reviewed study I referenced earlier co-authored by Brady Seals? Well, turns out she might have a vested interest in the outcome, given her association with the Rocky Mountain Institute. If you look at the Board of Trustees, you’ll notice a few different themes and some familiar names in Leftist circles. Of course, none of this is ever discussed in the news pieces citing the paper Seals co-authored. After all, why let a little thing like complete transparency get in the way of a good scare piece?

But before you damn me for guilt by association, let me also point out one other tiny problem with the paper: it’s fundamentally flawed. What’s more, the problems raised in Seals’ paper and in the subsequent media stories can be addressed somewhat by using a range hood. So, banning or even adding new regulations for the use of gas stoves isn’t even necessary.

But it is necessary if you’re trying to persuade people to adopt an alternative to what we currently used.

Surely, electric stoves are better for the environment, right? Oooooh, sor-ray. Turns out it takes more energy for an electric stove to do what a gas stove does. And since most of our energy production comes from fossil fuels, that means to use the allegedly safer technology, we have to create more pollution. Brilliant!

Oh, and the best part? Natural gas is cleaner than fossil fuels. Even Leftist eco-nuts (again, I repeat myself) admit that, but they always love to throw in the “but X” to explain why natural gas isn’t the good deal it’s made out to be.

“But the study was peer-reviewed!” some might say. My response is that peer review is only as good as the intellectual rigor used by the peer reviewing it. As we’ve seen, peer review has its flaws and scandals that have tarnished its reputation for being, well, reputable. And the fact it keeps happening year after year after year doesn’t help make the case why a peer reviewed paper is more valid and truthful than a paper a puppy pees on.

But the Left needs people to ignore the problems and “trust the science” because it plays into one of their favorite logical fallacies, appeal to authority. If you are impressed by the credentials and don’t look into the facts, you can be persuaded to adopt an idea as true basely solely on who says it. But titles in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean the person with them should be listened to on a given subject. Remember, Neil deGrasse Tyson says some stupid shit.

But the Left count on people being ignorant enough to listen and believe and not listen and mock mercilessly. However, the online culture warriors unwittingly give the Left ammunition (which is ironic given how the Left hates guns) to dismiss all criticism. Although the critics were mostly right factually, the way they presented the facts made it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory. And remember the media love to do the “Republicans Pounce” thing to cover the Republicans’ response to a Leftist scandal instead of the scandal itself. This rhetorical slight-of-hand takes attention away from the actual story to get people to pay attention to the distraction.

Even so, the culture warriors don’t seem to get this. Oh, they’ll mock/complain about the “Republicans Pounce” tactic, but their passion turns into the distraction the Left needs to escape responsibility for being utter fuck-ups.

Almost.

Once you see the bait and switch the media pull (see the recent scandal related to Puddin’ Head Joe and classified documents for evidence), you can’t unsee it. Like a Micheal Moore porn video. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9-11 Inches” or “Balling for Columbine” you don’t need brain bleach, therapy, and a Men In Black memory wipe to function after witnessing it.

The moral of this story is to be skeptical of a gut reaction given amplification by people with a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind, even if you agree with them. A little information can go a long way towards finding the truth, often found in between the extremes. But there are still some pretty good rules of thumb that are easy to follow.

Whenever the Socialist Socialite talks about anything other than, well, herself, believe the exact opposite because she’s a fucking idiot.

Hmmmm…maybe there’s something to the science saying gas stoves affect cognitive ability after all…





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Ever see the movie “Catch Me If You Can“? If not, it’s a movie about a real person, Frank Abagnale Jr., who made a name for himself by scamming people. Well, recently Republicans found their own Frank Abagnale in the form of George Santos, incoming Republican Congressman from New York. Seems he lied, like, a lot.

In other words, he was well-qualified for the job.

Leftists, never known for being honest or consistent, have jumped on the controversy to try to demand he resign and start state and federal investigations into his campaign. Although I really don’t have a problem with any of that, the Left’s reaction is a bit of a tell, as we’ll see in a bit.

George Santos

What the Left thinks it means – a Republican politician who should not be allowed to represent anyone because he lied about his past

What it really means – a man being held to a different standard by the Left to hide the real reason they want him gone

This is going to come to a shock to some of you, but politicians lie. I’ll give you all a moment to compose yourselves after such a revelation.

Okay, that’s long enough.

What makes Santos a different breed of cat, according to the Left, is the extent of his lies. He’s claimed to be Jewish, gay, a financial advisor to Goldman Sachs, and any number of things, both about himself and his family. Hmm…that sounds a lot like a former Vice President, but I can’t remember who…

Oh, well. Guess I’ll have some pudding.

While the lies themselves are troubling, what’s more troubling is the underlying reason for the Left’s reaction. No, they haven’t decided to turn over a new leaf and become truth seekers. Instead, their reaction is based on something more…base. And if Meghan Trainor taught us anything, it’s that it’s all about that base….

For more context, let’s take a trip to New York. See, Mr. (or Doctor or Monsignor or whatever title he’s given himself) Santos committed a mortal sin in Leftists’ minds: he beat a Democrat. What’s more, it was a seat formerly held by a Democrat, meaning it flipped with Santos’ election. That alone would make Santos a target for Leftist hate, but the over embellishment of his resume gives them a legitimate hook on which to hang their disdain and hide their real agenda.

Of course, getting Santos to either resign or have House Republicans not seat him won’t affect the fact Republicans will still hold a slight majority. But that’s not the point. The point is to make Republicans live up to their own standards, as our good friend Saul Alinsky taught in Rules for Radicals. And knowing how many House Republicans have spines of Jello, there’s a good chance this strategy will work.

Provided, of course, some House Republicans don’t use the Santos situation to expose the Left’s hypocrisy, that is. And it’s not like they will have to do a lot of legwork because conservative commenters on Twitter have already done it. It is just a matter of playing the Left’s game better than they do. Make them defend their silence/defense of Puddin’ Head Joe’s multiple lies, and don’t let them off the hook. After all, these are the same fucknuckles who said former President Donald Trump lied over 30,000 times and said it was unbecoming of a President.

Of course, the Left will call this “whataboutism” (mainly because they can’t refute Puddin’ Head Joe’s lies), which to some extent it is. My counter to this is simple: lying is never good for leaders to do, even if it’s infrequent. Whether it’s 30,000 lies or just 30, each time a political leader pulls a Tommy Flannagan it undermines public trust. Or at least that’s what my wife, Morgan Fairchild, says.

But a key for this to work is consistency. Republicans need to hold Santos to the same standard as Biden, and not quietly in either case. And, while we’re at it, let’s follow the Left’s logic a bit more. Santos should be punished, whether it be by the House Leadership or by his constituents, and so should Puddin’ Head Joe. Then, sweeten the pot by pointing out how Leftist darlings Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, and others should be held to the same standard the Left wants to apply to Santos.

Then, when Leftists point out Republican liars, say, “Sure. Throw them out, too.”

Then, grab a bottle of water as the Leftists run off in a cloud of dust that would make the Road Runner look like a sleeping sloth. But enough about Jerrold Nadler.

Let’s face it, George Santos gives the GOP a black eye (or if you’re politically correct, an African-American eye). The fact he got this far without someone at the RNC giving him the side-eye at all the red flags that came up means the party needs to seriously revamp their vetting process. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is backed by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Susan Collins, Republicans need to do a much better job in 2024 to avoid embarrassments like Santos.

After all, we wouldn’t want someone like that to be President, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

First, we had homophobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of gay people (according to the Left). Next, we had transphobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of trans people (also according to the Left). Now, thanks to the people at GLAAD, we have…dragphobia.

According to the…well, I repeat myself.

The latest phobia has roots in a group affiliated with the LGBTQPXBNOTHATISADIFFERENTBAFEWMORELETTERSADDEDEVERYWEEKCHECKBACKDAILYFORUPDATES community and a trend that seems to keep popping up: drag aficionados appearing in what some people consider inappropriate locations in front of all ages. Namely, where there are children congregating. And, well, some people don’t take too kindly to that.

Congratulations, kids. You got another phobia!

And I got another Lexicon entry!

dragphobia

What the Left thinks it means – the irrational fear or hatred of people in drag

What it really means – the real fear and hatred of Leftists trying to warp the younger generations into supporting the Left

If the Left is to be believed (and at this point, it’s a pretty safe bet they shouldn’t), hate speech of all kinds is on the rise, not just on Twitter, but in America. Gays, lesbians, trans people, bisexuals, queer, and now people in drag are all victims of this hate, and, dammit, we need to do something about it.

Like…Tweeting about it?

Or at least podcast about it like GLAAD did. Because as we all know the only way to fight hate is to put it on blast on social media! No need to even put on a pair of pants, or in some cases a garter belt that matches your wig and eye shadow as you prepare for Drag Finger Painting Day at the local preschool.

Okay, so that was a bit excessive. Drag queens haven’t held finger painting day at a preschool, mainly because the paint could get on their sequined dresses and ruin their nails. But if current trends continue, we are not that far away from this becoming a thing.

“But, Thomas, how do you know this is going to happen?” you might be asking. Others might be asking, “Why do you care about drag queens so much?” Still others might be asking, “Would you like fries with that?” Trust me, gentle reader, all will become evident in time.

The first question is easy to answer: it’s been done before successfully. The Left have a standard framework when they want to indoctrinate…I mean educate people.

1. Swing for the fences. Push for exactly what you want and see if you can get it. If not, move to step 2.

2. Find out which groups agree with you and work on a strategy to get more of that group to agree.

3. Introduce a step towards the primary goal that would appeal to that particular group and make it sound like it’s perfectly normal and right to agree.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until enough people agree to sway public opinion (perceived or actual) towards normalizing the idea introduced in step 2.

5. Introduce the next step towards the final goal and repeat steps 1-4.

6. Repeat until you get what you want.

The Left did this with homosexuality and with the idea gender is fluid. Today, anyone who isn’t on board with gay men and women or think there are only two genders can get you “on the wrong side of history” as the Left likes to say. The Left is still in the early stages of getting trans people accepted as just one of the guys…or gals…or something, and it’s having some success.

Since this process works so well, why wouldn’t Leftists try it with drag?

To answer the second question, I really don’t care about drag queens on the whole. I don’t dig it, but I don’t judge anyone who does. Those who do drag and do it well are talented and often can fool the untrained eye. That’s how I met my first girlfriend, Tyrone.

But just like how drag artists use makeup and costuming to tone down elements that ruin the look, there are a number of people using drag as a cover for what they really want, which is apparently as many young boys as they can get their well-manicured hands on. These are the bad apples that are turning an adult activity into a poisonous applesauce.

I have known people who like to dress in drag, and underneath the make-up and clothing, they’re human beings. For that reason alone, I can’t cast a wide net as some. After all, there is Lady MAGA, a drag artist who was and may still be unabashedly a fan of Donald Trump. Granted, Lady MAGA is an exception rather than the rule, but there are bound to be others who quietly support Trump and the GOP or who don’t say anything because of what would happen to them if anyone found out they weren’t Leftists.

Only in Leftist America can someone be supported if they come out as gay, but be reviled for coming out as conservative.

Now, for the part that may get me some hate mail. Drag performances in and of themselves aren’t necessarily sexual in nature. They can be adult in nature, but that doesn’t make them sexual. Even when they get sexual in nature, that’s not automatically bad…when the target audience is fellow adults. When the target audience skews more towards eating boogers than eating caviar, that’s when members of the drag community crosses the line.

Take Drag Queen Story Hour, for example. Supporters say drag artists reading to children is a way to spark their imaginations and get them interested in reading. This approach has some merit, as children (and even some adults, like your humble correspondent) enjoy seeing colorful characters they recognize or like hanging out with them. Detractors say drag artists are trying to groom children into getting into drag, pedophilia, homosexuality, and other adult subjects they’re not intellectually or emotionally ready to understand yet. This approach also has merit, as children are impressionable and may try to imitate what they see and experience.

While both sides have points in their favors, there are still enough niggling points that I can’t support either. If a drag artist is reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar, it’s not necessarily an attempt to get your child into becoming the next RuPaul. If a drag artist is reading How To Get a Gerbil Out of Your Ass, that’s a different story altogether. For one, different creatures. But more importantly, different subject matter that wouldn’t be appropriate for m0st adults, let alone children.

Ah, there’s the vital concept: age-appropriate. Drag by its very nature is not age-appropriate for children because it requires a level of sophistication to understand and appreciate. Having it appear at events geared towards children is going to piss people off instead of fostering the aforementioned understanding and appreciation. Even if your goal really was just to get kids into reading, someone has to understand how it might be a shitty way of going about it.

Then, there are the “all ages” or “family friendly” drag shows. Both sides are guilty of mischaracterizing what goes on at drag shows. The anti-groomers want to make it sound like a significant number of these events actually involve children based on video footage of some of the more egregious examples. The pro-drag side want to make it sound like these events are family friendly and put the responsibility of children appearing at them on the parents. For those well-publicized events where drag artists are barely dressed around or actively encouraging lewd behavior from children in attendance, the only family friendly activities are those of the Mansons.

That quip would surely get me labeled as dragphobic and I would deeply care about how to respond to that…if I gave a fuck about what the GLAAD dipshits think about me. I neither fear nor hate drag artists, but I fear for their futures if the Left continues to sacrifice them to advance an ideological goal.

One of my Immutable Truths is “A movement’s worst enemy is the movement itself.” Right now, the worst enemies of the drag scene are the members who are using drag as a way to get close to children for sexual gratification. These are the ones getting all the attention and, thus, shaping the public image of what drag artists are like. Bad publicity may still be publicity, but it’s a letting-Joe-Biden-work-without-a-teleprompter level of horrible idea if the end goal is to get people not to care about drag.

And true to their core, GLAAD isn’t helping matters any by creating the dragphobia label. Drag artists, along with gays, lesbians, and trans people, don’t need GLAAD to help them gain acceptance. They need good PR, and GLAAD ain’t interested in that. They have an agenda to push like a drug dealer working straight commission, and they don’t care who gets hurt along the way, even if those being hurt are the people the organization are allegedly trying to help.

The truth is there are very few people who actually hate and/or fear drag. Most people on both sides of this issue are operating on a lack of knowledge, which is used to gin up an abundance of fear. Under those conditions, there can’t be understanding since there is no real trust between the sides. They are automatically conditioned to believe the worst in the other side because of what misinformation is getting released. To break this cycle, we need people to understand the issues and facts and then reach out with a genuine intent to fix the problems together. A pipe dream, perhaps, but it’s the only one that makes sense to me.

Oh, and as for that third question, I do want fries with that, and I hope you find use for your gender studies degree soon.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After a week full of surprise twists (the #TwitterFiles exposing a lot more than anticipated), not-so-surprise twists (Leftists being wrong again about Twitter being dead), and some disappointing-but-not-surprising twists (Herschel Walker couldn’t cross the goal line to win the Georgia Senate runoff election against Raphael Warnock), we finally have a story worth discussing that doesn’t involve Elon Musk.

Brittney Griner is coming home!

Now, if you’re like me (and if you are I’m so very sorry), you have little or no idea who Brittney Griner is. I will admit I had to do a bit of digging to get the facts behind why her release is such a big deal, and I agree it is. Just not for the reason the Left wants us to believe it is.

Brittney Griner

What the Left thinks it means – a brave woman freed after being imprisoned in Russia for no reason

What it really means – a prisoner released solely due to the social justice hierarchy

When Joe Biden took over as President, I knew there would be some bad decisions coming down the pike. I mean, he picked Kamala Harris as Vice-President, a woman so unpopular with Democrats that I got the same number of delegates she did and I didn’t even run. Sure enough, there were no supply chain issues with Puddin’ Head Joe’s bad decisions, as they kept coming in like a LGBQT+ wrecking ball.

Even with incredibly low expectations, I knew somehow the Biden Administration would find a way to limbo under them with room to spare. And that’s exactly what we got with the Griner release.

Brittney Griner is a WNBA player who played in Russia during the off season (which is not that different from the regular WNBA season) and was detained after a search found vape cartridges with hash oil in them. Although what she had was legal in Arizona where Griner plays, it isn’t legal in Russia. As a result, she was sentenced to nine years in prison. Griner appealed the verdict, but was denied. Now, less than a year after she was arrested, Griner is free. A feel good story, right?

Yeaaaaah…not so much.

The terms of Griner’s release included a prisoner exchange for Viktor Bout, who just happens to be an arms dealer with the cute little nickname “the Merchant of Death.” Aside from the laundry list of activities for which he became infamous, he was also the inspiration for a Nicholas Cage movie. That alone should have kept him locked up indefinitely.

Then came Puddin’ Head Joe, who thought it was a good idea to trade Bout for Griner with the hopes of getting another American prisoner detained in Russia, former Marine Paul Whelan. Whelan has been detained since 2018 amid allegations of espionage. Although the charges seem a bit shaky, America has let him sit in a prison camp for far longer than Griner.

So, why are we getting excited over a WNBA player getting released in exchange for an arms dealer? A lot of it has to do with Griner’s identity. Not only is she a basketball player (that maybe 0.00000000001% of the population knew prior to her arrest), but she is black and a lesbian. In social justice terms, that’s practically a “Get Out of Gulag Free” Card! Throw in the fact she lobbied the WNBA to not play the National Anthem during the 2019 season to protest police brutality, and you might as well make her a Leftist Saint. You know, if they believed in that sort of thing.

Even if you strip away all of that, anybody with a lick of sense can see trading an arms dealer for a basketball player while leaving a retired Marine on the table is a bad idea. For one, it’s a fucking arms dealer! For another, it shows the world just what America values these days. If you’re an albino transsexual paraplegic Inuit midget with AIDS, you’ll get the Biden Administration working around the clock to get you home. If you’re a white guy, well…let’s just say you’re going to have to wait a while.

Like, say, the 43rd of Never.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Bout is also a Russian fucking arms dealer! Now, who are we currently in c0nflict with on the world states? If you said Russia, congratulations! You’ve been paying attention. And if you’ve been paying attention, you can also see where this is going, but for you Leftists reading this, let me spell it out for you: Joe Biden just gave Vladimir Putin an arms dealer, all while funneling money to Ukraine…who is currently fighting Putin and Russia.

Either Griner is one hell of a basketball player, or Puddin’ Head Joe got played. And I think you know which way I’m leaning on that one.

Regardless of how you feel about Griner’s detainment (I think it’s bullshit) and release (it’s great she’s coming back home), the fact the only way it makes sense is through the lens of social justice should be concerning. We should not be making these kinds of major decisions through social justice because of the way social justice operates.

Leftists have devised a hierarchy of oppression through which they view different scenarios to determine how to react. Put another way, it’s a checklist to see how oppressed you are based on superficial factors like gender or race. Check enough boxes and, voila, you’re oppressed! But wait! There’s more! Not only will the hierarchy of oppression tell you if you’re oppressed, but it will show you how oppressed you are! And if your oppression score is lower than someone else’s, the other person gets the support because…oppression!

This makes Calvinball look like chess.

Needless to say, when you prioritize oppression by who allegedly has more of it, some people are still going to feel oppressed which doesn’t help the situation any. Then again, if Leftists were critical thinkers, we might not have Puddin’ Head Joe as President.

As it stands, Brittney Griner is coming home to a hero’s welcome while Russia gets a fucking arms dealer back and a former Marine remains in custody. Even before now, the Left has been writing pieces damning America for various aspects of our prison system or why our government should be supporting Griner because patriotism or what it says about America’s current social issues or how black women are treated in prison. Expect this trend to continue with more frequency and ever higher decibel levels.

But always keep in the back of your mind the Leftists cheering at Griner’s freedom have given zero fucks about Paul Whelan, as evidenced by a) how they haven’t talked about him before now, and b) how slowly the Biden Administration has been working towards getting him home. But when social justice overrules geopolitics and common sense, you’re bound to find yourselves in situations where the obvious answer gets rejected in favor of a worse deal than the Minnesota Vikings trading for Hershel Walker.

Oh, and one last thing. Viktor Bout is a fucking arms dealer.

Damn. Now I need some of the good eggnog…


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.



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.






Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every election cycle has its share of controversies and the 2022 midterm elections are no different. In the race for an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania, we have Republican Dr. Mehmet “Dr. Oz” Oz and Democrat John “I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One in My Parents’ Basement” Fetterman. Now, I don’t have a dog in this race (mainly because a) I don’t live in Pennsylvania, and b) I don’t care for either candidate), but there was something interesting that came up after a recent interview with Fetterman.

An NBC reporter had a one-on-one interview with Fetterman and video footage showed the candidate having clear problems answering questions. Not like the usual politician, mind you. Actual problems understanding and responding to questions. Granted, Fetterman had a stroke which affected his hearing and speech, so this isn’t unusual. However, the Left found a way to attack the reporter and the interview as “ableist” because both made Fetterman look incapable to handle the rigors of being a Senator. In Fetterman’s defense, I’ve had more rigorous naps than what a Senator has to deal with, but I wanted to touch on the ableist topic for a bit, if for no other reason than to expose some of the hidden truths behind the Left’s outrage in this case.

ableism

What the Left thinks it means – discriminating in favor of people who appear to be more capable at the expense of those who are less so

What it really means – another way for Leftists to generate resentment for conditions that may not be controllable

Human beings can be incredibly superficial, as anyone who has followed the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery professions can attest. It’s easy to overlook the potential contributions someone with disabilities can make if we just look at the surface. It’s a matter of finding where they can have the best impact. In a scientific lecture, I would listen to Dr. Stephen Hawking in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t want him to play center for the Los Angeles Lakers, mainly because, well, he’s dead. Then again, given the Lakers’ recent post-season history, it might be an improvement.

Leftists typically don’t think much beyond the surface level of such a population because to do so would mean they would have to consider a smarter, more inclusive approach. Instead, it’s one-size-fits-all! If you’re black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, disabled/handicapped, or whatever else, you’re automatically oppressed! And if you happen to be a black Hispanic gay lesbian female disabled/handicapped person, you could be the next White House Press Secretary under Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the “oppressors” (i.e. the “ableists”) are stuck in a Faustian deal when interacting with those who have disabilities. For as selfish and superficial as people can be, there are still quite a few of us out there with genuine concern and compassion. Although we may just want to help, we sometimes overcorrect and wind up treating the handicapped as the incapable, which makes us look ableist. And if we don’t even make an overture to help, we’re branded as ableist anyway because, according to the Left, we’re horrified by those different than us.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Of course, I’ll be damned if I let Leftists define what I am. (See what I did there?) The fact the Left has taken up this cause at this point for a Senate candidate, while not doing the same for a Republican candidate who had a stroke, says a lot about them, and not a lot of it good. I’m sure they’ll try to pass it off as a change of heart, raised consciousness, or trying to make it sound like it’s no big deal, blaming the reporter for the furor over the story, or comparing him to the aforementioned Dr. Hawking. You know, the usual post-fuck-up protocol for Leftists.

In the meantime, the matter of ableism is still on the table. Although I will concede there are people who will treat people with disabilities as though they were less than human, most people fall into the category is “we have no fucking clue of what to do, so it’s gonna be awkward.” We’re just trying to figure it out without offending anyone. Of course, with Leftists involved, that’s impossible because they’re always offended at something. And when they get offended, they get pissed off and willing to cut a bitch on your behalf.

Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s nothing good on TV), is actually diminishing the people Leftists believe they’re supporting. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s still nothing good on TV), is pretty much on-brand for the Left. They need there to be victims so they have someone to fight for, thus fulfilling their psychological needs. As far as the people they’re fighting for are concerned, fuck ’em! It’s the Leftists’ feelings and goals that really matter!

And it’s this attitude that drives the entire ableism idea. You’re not trying to fix anything; you’re just trying to find a way to make yourselves feel less awkward about people with disabilities. Instead of treating each person like a human being, Leftists have to see the handicapped as broken, mainly because Leftists tend to be broken people themselves. And Leftists believe only they can fix anything just by caring enough.

That’s why I never hire Leftist plumbers.

The key to overcoming ableism, or at least what the Leftists feel is ableism, is taking the time to recognize what everyone brings to the table. Sure, you might not want to get in a car with a blind Uber driver, but getting someone to translate Braille? Top of the fucking list. But Leftists are of the attitude that unless you have a blind Uber driver, you’re somehow diminishing the driver’s self-worth, which is bullshit. By trying to shoehorn a person into a position he or she isn’t capable of doing, you’re only hurting the person you’ve attempted to elevate.

Your Honor, I present Exhibits A and B, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Whomever wins the Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Left will accuse people of ableism. If John Fetterman loses, it’ll be because people didn’t look past his mental lapses to see his potential. If he wins, any criticism of his performance will be chalked up as ableism. It’s a no-win situation, but it’s one that can be overcome by not playing at all. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated and pay attention to the needs and wants of the disabled. At worst, you’ll make a new friend or gain a better understanding of what they go through, which will make future interactions…well, still awkward, but less so. But in embracing the awkwardness, we can do something the Left can never do: get past our prejudices.

Oh, and bathe.