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

By the time you read this, it will be close to or the end of October, which means two things. One, the Detroit Lions are mathematically eliminated from the post season, and two, it’s almost the end of Election Season. And of the two, the latter is clearly more painful.

It’s also the start of what the Left hopes to be a major turning point in what is looking to be a political assbeating of Biblical proportions. They’re hoping to energize women voters using one of the major wedge issues of my lifetime, abortion. After the US Supreme Court did the unthinkable and made abortion a state issue, Leftists created the term Roevember.

And, thus, the month of my birth gets ruined, but for a completely different reason.

Roevember

What the Left thinks it means – a rallying cry for women to vote out Republicans to protect their reproductive rights

What it really means – a neat catchphrase for an issue that isn’t that important right now

It’s conventional political wisdom that the party that controls the Presidency loses Congressional seats during the midterms, and you can count on the one hand of the world’s worst butcher the number of times it hasn’t happened in recent history. That means, if conventional wisdom holds true this year, Democrats stand to lose at least some of their elections. That gives them a vested interest in keeping their base energized. And what better way to do that than to hype up the potential of losing abortion rights unless Democrats get elected/reelected?

I mean, aside from coming up with an actual platform.

Under normal conditions, this tactic might work. After all, a Gallup poll from earlier this year shows a majority of American adults consider themselves to be pro choice, with 61% of women identifying as such. Granted, I’m not a doctor, so I might be assuming the respondents’ genders, but I’m going to go with it for the purposes of this sketch.

Unfortunately for Democrats, these midterms aren’t normal, and I’m not just talking about the freaks Democrats have running in certain races. (And I apologize to all the freaks out there for comparing them to Democrats.) When it comes to issues Americans think are important, abortion is waaaaaaaaaay down the list. Why it’s almost as if people are more concerned with the ec0nomy than killing babies! The absolute nerve!

This begs the question of why Leftists would continue to push abortion rights as an issue when the more pressing issue is the flaming dumpster fire that is our economy. I’m glad you asked! I have an idea about why that is. It may not be original, so if someone else thought of this first, I’m sure someone will let me know in the comments.

Politics today revolved heavily around what each side of the aisle considers to be what’s wrong with the world. When the economy is flush, the Right turn inward to find inspiration for what changes they want to make and then try to turn that inner vision into outer action. When the economy sucks more than a million Dysons at the center of a black hole, the Right’s introspection doesn’t extend outside of their homes very often, except to commiserate with others in the same boat.

The Left, on the other hand, don’t diversify their opinions on what’s wrong with the world. The issues they felt were super-ultra-important in 1992 aren’t too different than they are in 2022. Even the various “new” issues they’ve raised are offshoots of issues they’ve been railing on for decades, just with a new coat of paint. And no matter what, good economy or bad, these issues will always be at the core of the Left’s campaigns.

Which means they are woefully out of touch with the electorate this year.

One of the Left’s big assumptions is the 167.5 million women in the United States will be coming out to vote in Roevember. Although we don’t have any official numbers for the 2022 midterms (because they haven’t happened yet), it’s normal for voter turnout to be lower for midterm elections as opposed to Presidential elections. Let’s assume the numbers FairVote provides in the aforementioned link are accurate and voter turnout is 40%. That means only 67 million women will be voting, and of those 40.87 million of them consider themselves to be pro choice. Not an insignificant number, but a lot lower than the 167.5 million the Left predict will take part in Roevember. And that assumes all of those 40.87 million are a) eligible to vote, and b) inspired to vote for Democrats. A lot of assumptions being made on an issue only 4% of Americans surveyed think is important.

I promise the rest of this piece won’t be so numbers-heavy.

Although Leftists are great with catchy slogans, they’re piss-poor with timing. With the economy and inflation running rampant like Godzilla in a Japanese fishing village, they’ve chosen to make “let’s kill babies in the womb” their rallying cry. Then again, if my party was responsible for the Godzilla-esque trampling of the economy, I might want to try to divert attention to something else, too.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of the people reading this aren’t going to fall for the repackaging job the Left is doing with Roevember, but just know there are plenty outside of this group that will. If nothing else, just run down the numbers with them and let them know their passion for voting because of Roevember would be better suited for something far more productive.

Booing the Detroit Lions.

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.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

We have a lot on our plates these days, what with inflation making prices higher than Snoop Dogg on any day that ends with, well, “day,” a potential world war starting due to the Russia-Ukraine war, OPEC+ nations signalling they would cut production which would drive up gas prices, and a lot of other matters. Good thing we have an Administration willing to tackle the tough issues, like…equity.

In fact, between Vice President Kamala Harris talking about equity in fighting climate change as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announcing the Biden economic plan focusing on racial equity, the concept has gotten some much-needed attention. Which means it will get some much-needed mockery this week.

equity

What the Left thinks it means – a way to level the playing field and address past injustices against affected people

What it really means – a shift away from equality and towards disparate treatment done in the name of equality

Although equality and equity are often used interchangeably (often by Leftists to try to hide their agenda), there is a vital difference we have to address. Equality requires a level playing field for all by definition. Nobody gets preferential treatment or special dispensation to ask for and receive anything extra. Everybody is square (and from what I understand from Huey Lewis and the News, it’s hip to be that).

Equity, on the other hand, doesn’t require all parties winding up equal. It allows there to be exceptions to the rule, so someone who may have been wronged previously can get a bit more to make up for it. In fact, there are three ways to achieve equity: elevate a party, lower a party, or a combination of the two. Of these, only one gives the recipient a chance to succeed on a larger scale, which naturally means Leftists hate it. Instead, they prefer to destroy rather that build, and I’m not talking about “The Big Dig” either!

The problem with is approach is weakening the strong doesn’t make the weak strong by extension. It just makes everyone weaker. At least, that is until Leftists try to rig things so those they perceive as weak (i.e. anyone who can be made to believe they’ve been oppressed) can become more powerful. But wouldn’t that make it so the formerly weak have to give up what the Left gave them to the formerly powerful? Well, the Left hasn’t figured that out yet and when you ask them about it, they give it some thought and realize it’s folly.

Nah, I’m just fucking with ya! They will just call you a bigot and go about their days without a sense of irony or an answer.

Regardless of the adjective Leftists use to clarify what kind of equity they want, understand it’s designed to deceive people into accepting outcomes that will ultimately screw them over. With racial equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over previous racism they may or may not have been party to. With marriage equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over past mistreatment of gays and lesbians. With economic equity, it’s trying to get people to feel guilty about other people being poor while they are comfortable.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

By making us feel guilty, Leftists psychologically manipulate us by preying on our desire to be liked. Of course, for cynical assholes like me, it’s a lot harder to do, but the point remains. Plus, we want the fastest resolutions we can get so we stop feeling guilty. What better way for Leftists to get what they want than to provide the current political/ideological version of indulgences to remove people’s “sins”? I mean, it worked for Oprah.

It wasn’t that long ago that Leftists clamored for equality, but that’s not good enough for them anymore. They need there to be some level of inequality (that they control, of course) so they can maintain the scam…I mean…wait, I do mean scam. Never mind.

The key to overcoming Leftist calls for equity is to continue to fight for equality, not of outcome, but of treatment. If we treat everyone with the same respect we would ask for ourselves, and if we support each other becoming the best we can be, it will go a long way towards removing the power the Left has when pushing for equity.

Well, either that, or not feeling guilty over shit we didn’t do or advocate. Remove the source of their power, and you negate their power. Simple as that.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when Bill Maher was Leftist Jesus..you know if they actually believed in Jesus? During Republican Administrations, Maher would consistently rail against what he saw were Republican mistakes and idiocy, and Leftists cheered. Then, when Joe Biden became President and Maher started railing against what he saw were Democrat mistakes and idiocy, the Left no longer found him to be a voice of truth. But they did find him to be a traitor.

Welcome to the party, Bill. Go grab some punch and a cookie.

The reason I brought up Bill Maher (something I try not to do much for the sake of my sanity) is he recently introduced a Leftist term I hadn’t heard before: presentism. Apparently, Leftists are applying this whenever they discuss history, and it may be coming to a history discussion near you.

presentism

What the Left thinks it means – framing historical figures and events with modern sensibilities

What it really means – holding the past up to present standards to establish modern superiority

There’s an old saying, “History is written by the victors.” Although, these days, it could be written by the Victor/Victorias, but that’s not important right now. The saying refers to how some aspects of history get ignored or forgotten because people tend only to think in terms of winners and losers. Leftists have seized upon this tendency to push for what they call a more comprehensive view of history, i.e. downplaying the “white” view of history in favor of the histories of marginalized people.

And that’s how we get Post-Modern Native American Albino Lesbian Literary History degrees.

It’s all a part of the Left’s intellectual (stop laughing!) approach to all academic fields called intersectionality. Although this could be a Leftist Lexicon entry in and of itself, the long and the short of it is every form of oppression overlaps with others, like racism and sexism. By recognizing it, Leftists hope to undo the damage by…well, they haven’t figured that part out yet, but it has lead to some interesting discussions on who is considered more oppressed in a country where they’re allowed to drive, vote, and dress like Miley Cyrus during a performance at a strip club. Or, as she calls it, Tuesday.

By framing everything in terms of oppression, the Left has created a hellscape where just about everyone is oppressed to some degree. Unless, of course, you’re a straight white male. Then, you’re everybody’s asshole. Of course, I already have a lot of Leftists think I’m an asshole, so it’s nothing new.

Presentism plays into this framework by allowing Leftists to dictate the standards by which figures of the past (i.e. straight white males) are to be held without those figures even knowing it. Because, you know, they’re dead. That gives the Left all the power to frame the past with none of the piddly little details that add a little something the Left has a love/hate relationship with called context.

When I was in college back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, Leftists at the time were up in arms over Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because of the book’s use of the n-word. I won’t give the whole word for a number of reasons, not the least of which being I want to save Chris the headache of having to answer more angry emails about me than he usually gets. In their attempt to virtue signal before such a thing was a thing, they ignored a lot of context, namely the historical backdrop for the story and how Huck became the voice of those who wanted to treat blacks like everyone else. If it weren’t for people who actually read the book for comprehension rather than to find naughty words, there might be a generation that wouldn’t even know who Huck Finn was long before YouTube turned their brains into tapioca pudding.

On the other hand, it prepared them in case they ever got elected to be President of the United States.

The same attitude the Left used over Huck Finn is the same drawback presentism faces today: the lack of context. I’ll be the first one to admit human history is rife with events and attitudes that elicit shame and disappointment (like when Gary Cherone took over singing duties in Van Halen). Having said that, the people then didn’t have the advantage we have of being able to look back at the historical record. In more than a few of these dark periods of history, what happened was unprecedented because it had literally never happened before with the circumstances they had to work with. It’s like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle in the dark blindfolded while strapped to a ticking time bomb. You’re going to make mistakes, and the results won’t always be good.

Then, there’s human nature to consider. Contrary to Leftist belief, yet completely consistent with their actions and thoughts concerning others who disagree with them, humans are assholes. We will consistently choose evil over good for whatever reason we can justify in our own heads. Hatred, lust, greed, convenience, having to listen to “Baby Shark” on repeat because your child loves it, and so on. It is only through work, thought, and determination that we overcome our base nature to be better, and you can’t regulate your way to that end.

Can you say “War on Drugs,” kids? I knew you could.

In spite of those dark periods, there are points of light that Leftists will likely overlook or disregard because of the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the ones responsible for them. Take William Wilberforce, for example. During the British slave trade, Wilberforce worked to end it at great personal expense and against the prevailing attitudes of the time. But given the Left’s current prevailing attitudes towards white men (especially Christian white men like Wilberforce), I’m guessing he’s going to be mentioned well after someone like Cardi B.

Which is to say probably never because, well, Cardi B.

The big issue with presentism for me is how easily it can be manipulated for ideological gain. And by “can be” I mean “will be.” With Leftists controlling academia, they have all the power and, since they’re around other Leftists, none of the accountability. Combine the two and you have the perfect storm of academic and historical malpractice through the revision of history in real time. It will be like Wikipedia, but with more academics signing off on it.

Of course, nothing bad will come from academics signing off on bad ideas just to fit in, right? That reminds me, how is Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” holding up these days?

The worst thing we can do right now is to overlook how far-reaching presentism is. We’ve seen how Common Core has fucked up math and English, and presentism will wind up no differently from where I sit. And as George Santayana once wrote, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Or was it my high school history teacher threatening summer school if I didn’t get my grades up?

Either way, we will have to be on our toes and make sure what is being presented as historical fact meshes with actual historical facts. Yes, that will require us to be honest about our past, even the dingy corners of it, because that is the only way we will have the intellectual high ground. Opting for a version of history that just so happens to fit our beliefs doesn’t achieve this. We have to be above board because we know the Left won’t be.

So, Bill Maher was good for at least one thing. Yay…I guess?




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The latest battleground for the fight over illegal immigration is a lot further north than you might expect. I’m talking about the Leftist haven, Martha’s Vineyard. It turns out Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decided to fly several immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard to show them a better life. You know, Leftist utopias where everyone is super educated and live incredibly well? Away from conservative hellholes where racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are rampant and the people are uneducated rubes?

Well, let’s just say Leftists aren’t greeting their new immigrant neighbors with open arms. In fact, Leftists are circulating the idea the aforementioned Governors with brass balls the size of, say, Pluto are guilty of human trafficking. And by circulating, I mean repeating the same squawking points with steadily increasing volume and frequency. As we’re about to find out, the squawking point has a deeper origin than even the Left has considered.

human trafficking

What the Left thinks it means – Republican Governors sending asylum seekers to other parts of the country against their will

What it really means – Leftists not understanding the issue, like, at all

Illegal immigration has a number of facets that often get glossed over in the debate on what to do with the immigrants we catch, and human trafficking is one such facet. And it’s not a once-in-a-while problem, either. The 2021 numbers show a stark picture of the scope of the human trafficking problem, but those are just the cases we know about. Government agencies from ICE to Customs and Border Protection and non-government organizations like the ACLU are sounding the alarm and efforts to reach as many people as possible are evident to anyone who’s used a convenience store bathroom can tell.

Good thing Leftists aren’t trying to demonize and/or eliminate ICE and the Border Patrol, right? Oh, wait…

So, what exactly is human trafficking? There are a number of definitions floating around there, but the general consensus involves the exploitation of people for sex, work, or services through coercion, deception, or force. For the purposes of this discussion, though, I want to use the definition provided by the United Nations:

Human trafficking involves the recruitment, movement or harbouring of people for the purpose of exploitation – such as sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal. Victims can be children or adults, boys, girls, men or women, and are trafficked by the use of improper means such as the threat or use of force, fraudulent schemes, deception, or abuse of power. It can occur within a country or across borders. Human trafficking is therefore characterized by an act (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of people), specific means (threats or use of force, deception, fraud, abuse of power, or abusing someone’s vulnerable condition) for the purpose of exploitation (for example sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal).

To the Left, what DeSantis and Abbott are doing fits the UN’s definition of human trafficking perfectly because, as they frame it, they are exploiting the immigrants for political points. And since they’re being flown to different parts of the country, it’s a slam dunk, right?

Not so much. One of the aspects of the UN’s definition is recruitment. Both Abbott and DeSantis have been vocal in their efforts to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration, with Abbott taking specific action to enforce immigration law which the federal government doesn’t seem to want to do. And considering Florida and Texas are two of the top 3 states of reported human trafficking cases, I’m thinking DeSantis and Abbott might just have a vested interest in not encouraging any activity that would make those numbers worse.

In fact, it’s not Republicans who are rolling out the red carpet for illegal immigration. It’s the Democrats. By framing every immigrant as either escaping horrible conditions or wanting to make a better life here, they have done to illegal immigration what Glamour Shots did for housewives in the 80s and 90s: using tricks to hide or soften the imperfections and give a beautiful, albeit distorted, view of the subject.

Now, consider what impact that has on human trafficking. The Left makes no distinction between Raul who crosses the border illegally to find work and Pedro who crosses the border illegally to make money by exploiting people of all ages to fill the needs and wants of his clients. Maybe it’s me, but I think there’s a huge fucking difference here. Both are breaking the law, but only one of them drags other people with him into exploitation.

No wonder the Left wants people to think DeSantis and Abbott are the evil ones here. Well, that, and the fact they’re both Republicans who aren’t afraid of Leftists not liking them. If Leftists admit there are bad actors (and I’m not talking about Brie Larson) mixed in with the “good guys” coming across the border…illegally, it would not only ruin the rosy picture they’ve been painting for decades, but it would lend credence to what DeSantis and Abbott have been saying. And Lord knows Leftists hate to admit they were wrong.

There’s another reason the Left is freaking out about illegal immigrants heading to Martha’s Vineyard: DeSantis and Abbott are forcing Leftists to live by their own ideas. Remember when Leftist communities were fighting each other to get attention for being “sanctuary cities”? Well, it’s easy to make such proclamations when you aren’t dealing with a steady influx of illegal immigrants. You know, like Martha’s Vineyard? Once the immigrants start arriving, the Leftist welcome mats start disappearing, along with the signs saying “No person is illegal.”

The late comedian George Carlin made an observation about homelessness that has some application here in the form of the abbreviation NIMBY, which means Not In My Back Yard. Leftists talk a great game when it comes to helping people (usually in the form of more government), but they don’t always walk the walk when presented with the opportunity, as the citizens of Martha’s Vineyard have now.

Annnnnnnd they decided to ship their new neighbors to a military complex because…reasons?

Your compassion is underwhelming, Leftists.

When it comes to human trafficking, though, we need much more than words and stickers on bathroom mirrors. Yet, I’m not sure America is quite ready for the discussion and action needed to make real change. Both sides of the political spectrum have a vested interest in keeping the illegal immigration and subsequently the human trafficking issues alive to retain power over their respective voting blocs. But we’re dealing with human lives here, and there shouldn’t be an ideological divide. Yet, here we are.

And the Left isn’t helping matters any by throwing around accusations of human trafficking against two of the Republican Governors who have given the the most fits in the past few years. At the rate it’s going now, Leftists are going to wear out the “human trafficking” label like they’ve worn out the “fascist” label by overusing it to the point of irrelevance.

Then again, if you had as horrible a record on human trafficking as the Left does, you’d want to bring everyone else down to your level, too.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you think about it (and I have because I don’t have a life), the Internet is a once-in-a-lifetime invention, and it has radically changed the way the world does things. Sorry, Paul Krugman.

Among the many elements of modern life affected by Al Gore’s invention, the way we communicate has changed. Not only do we have the ability to send images and videos around the world (which is useful to the Internet porn industry…not that I know anything about that, mind you), but it’s created a culture where its users share aspects of their lives, whether it be major events or the BLT you had for lunch.

And, as with anything that gets shared, some people aren’t going to like what is being shared. Enter one of the relatively new players in global Internet culture, LibsOfTikTok. Within the past few weeks, this one Internet account has been linked to anti-gay, anti-trans, and pro-Russia sentiments according to the Left. Are they right…errr correct? Let’s find out!

LibsOfTikTok

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous Internet presence that has become a new weapon against the Left

What it really means – a dangerous Internet account to the Left because it exposes them and what they believe when they think no one is watching

Politicians in general, but Leftists especially, operate in secrecy as much as they can to prevent others from finding out how the ideological sausage is made. Before the advent of the Internet, it was a lot easier to show a public face and a private face. To her credit, Hillary Clinton is a master of this, and Leftists justify it no matter how dishonest it makes her look.

With the Internet and the way it’s affected how we interact with each other, it’s a lot more difficult because there are cameras everywhere (and I’m not just talking about the NSA’s cameras, either). All it takes is someone with a cell phone and an opportunity and a politician can look like the two-faced rat bastard he or she truly is.

But that same principle applies to other non-political figures, like public school teachers. With Leftists dominating the education system like the Harlem Globetrotters dominate the Washington Generals, the classroom has become the new ideological battleground where they have the high ground, the low ground, the middle ground, and pretty much any ground that isn’t already owned by the federal government. With that nigh-uniformity comes a sense of invincibility, which leads to a level of confidence and comfort that only the best hugboxes provide.

But I’m sure oversharing online while feeling untouchable would never end badly, right?

Enter Chaya Raichik, former real estate professional and current Leftist boogieman…errrr boogiewoman…errr boogieperson? Fuck it! We’re going with boogieman just to piss off the Left even more than they already are. Raichik started sharing videos Leftists made and put on social media willingly, but would make them look like raging assholes to anyone outside the Leftist hivemind. Whether it was teachers attempting to indoctrinate students to be more accepting of gay and trans people (a decent enough goal, but one that the parents should at least be in on) or quoting what hospital employees say about giving “gender affirming” medical procedures to children, she kicked a hornets’ nest, leaving Leftists to spin events so much the estate of Enrico Fermi is consulting lawyers to see what their legal options are.

With the Leftist dominance of social media, it wasn’t too long before platforms started to a) be filled with Leftist outrage over being exposed as creeps, and b) find ways to try to limit access to Raichik’s accounts. Why, it’s almost as though they had something to hide…

Missing in all of the outrage is a bit of perspective. Well, that, and self-respect, shame, and common sense, but you get the picture. Raichik wasn’t posting videos edited in a way to make the subjects look bad. She left that to the mainstream media since they’ve had much more experience. All she did was find the videos and post them.

And, not to put too fine a point on this, these videos Raichik posted were put up by the people themselves. Voluntarily. As in they made a conscious decision to post these videos. All she did was expand the reach through circulating them (and providing commentary at times so no one could doubt where she stood on the shit being posted).

For that, LibsofTikTok became public enemy number one with Leftists. Although they’ve succeeded in getting her social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram suspended, usually it’s been temporary. (Funny how these things seem to happen to conservatives primarily…oh, well. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.) This, of course, pisses off Leftists to no end. How can they attempt to subvert America with everybody pulling up a lawn chair and watching?

If there’s anyone who can identify closely with what Raichik is going through it’s James O’Keefe of Project Veritas. O’Keefe has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous Leftist propaganda for doing what LibsofTikTok is doing. Granted, O’Keefe has shot himself in the foot a couple of times, which helps the Left paint him as untrustworthy, but far more often than not he has the goods. That makes him effective, which is why the Left have to try to destroy him however they can.

Thus, we have the gameplan going forward with LibsofTikTok. The thing that LibsofTikTok has in her favor, though, is the current state of communication these days. The Internet is the ultimate grapevine where you can hear gossip, news, and people complaining about gossip and news. While the Left holds onto social media tighter than Al Gore’s asshole, people of like minds still have a way to make their thoughts known using the very tools the Left controls. Email is still a thing, too, but it’s supplemented by YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and any number of means. Hell, even TikTok is reaching people. After all, there wouldn’t be a LibsofTikTok account without there being a TikTok to begin with. Now if only I could get my LibsofAmericaOnLine idea off the ground…

Regardless of how you feel about the person behind the account, it’s pretty fucked up to go after a person for posting what other people say online, and it’s being done with the express purpose of silencing dissent. I guess dissent is only patriotic when the Left is out of power. And to make matters worse, these folks are playing the victim when they advocate for bizarre and potentially deviant behavior and get caught. So, it’s okay to suggest adult/child sex isn’t wrong, but don’t you dare call attention to it because…reasons?

It would be a stretch to call what LibsofTikTok does as investigative journalism, mainly because I wouldn’t want to taint her with the connection to journalism right now. But the spirit is still there, and just like in the days when reporters would track down a story and be relentless in finding the truth, the powerful want to silence her. Ironically, it’s the nature of social media that makes those silencing attempts not only futile, but amplified to the point of saturation. And far be of me to disagree with the opinions of the journalistic giant that is Vice, but LibsofTikTok isn’t a threat to anyone except Leftists who want to keep their deeds kept undercover.

However, I have an idea that will get the Left to either bugger off or make their heads explode (so, a win-win). Just say LibsofTikTok identifies as Media Matters.

In the Meme Time

I know this is one of Chris’ features, but I figured I’d give it a try. And boy do I have a doozy!

Leftists have been circulating the following meme to attack Republicans who opposed President Biden’s Executive Order to forgive $10,000 of student loan debt.


On the surface, this looks like a slam dunk for the Left, but as you might expect, there’s a little more context to the situation.

Due to a little thing the kids like to call COVID-19, businesses were hurting with many struggling to meet payroll for their employees. As a result, the government passed the Paycheck Protection Program which offered loans for business owners to keep their doors open and hire back employees. Built into this program was a way for these loans to be forgiven, provided certain criteria were met. Keep this in mind because it will become very important later.

Now, for the list. I’ve done a bit of research into the names and figures and found some…interesting facts the meme doesn’t mention. I apologize in advance for some of the Leftist sources I had to link for information.

Matt Gaetz – I was unable to locate where he received a PPP loan, but a business his father is involved with received between $350,000 and $1 million in PPP loans. The only connection is the fact the Congressman owns stocks in the company.

Marjorie Taylor Greene – Taylor Greene did receive a PPP loan…for a construction company her husband and she own.

Greg Pence – Pence received a PPP loan…for a family business.

Vern Buchanan – Buchanan received a PPP loan…for three car dealerships he owns.

Kevin Hern – Hern received a PPP loan…for a company held in a family trust that controls 5 McDonalds franchises.

Roger Williams – Williams received a PPP loan…for a car dealership he owns.

Brett Guthrie – Guthrie was a director of a manufacturing company that received a PPP loan.

Ralph Norman – I don’t have firm data on this, but it’s my belief Norman received a PPP loan for a family business where he was a real estate developer.

Ralph Abraham – Abraham received a PPP loan…for two businesses he owns.

Mike Kelly – Kelly received a PPP loan…also for car dealerships.

Vicki Hartzler – Hartzler received a PPP loan…for farms and equipment supplier businesses her family own.

Markwayne Mullin – Mullin received a PPP loan…for plumbing and contracting firms he was tied to.

Carol Miller – Miller’s husband received a PPP loan for, you guessed it, car dealerships.

Although these Republicans or their family members had PPP loans forgiven, they voluntarily requested the loans and received them. Now, remember when I said earlier that PPP loans could be forgiven if certain criteria were met? Well, there’s a problem with the logic suggesting the aforementioned Republicans are hypocrites.

Federal student loans typically don’t come with forgiveness terms. The only exceptions to this prior to President Biden’s Executive Order were death or disablement. Granted, willingly going after a degree in some of the shit Leftist students major in these days would make a pretty convincing argument they are disabled, but I’m not sure the federal government would sign off on it.

Put simply, the expectation prior to the Executive Order was students taking out federal student loans was…they paid them back. There was no “pay it back unless an elderly President decides he needs votes to help his party during the midterm elections” clause in the loan documents that would make it okay. You either paid it back or you didn’t.

As a result, comparing PPP loans to federal student loans is like comparing horse shit to dog shit. Yes, they’re both piles of animal shit, but that’s where the similarities begin and end. To try to equate the two on the basis of one point of commonality is an example of intellectual dishonesty that has become the norm with political memes like the one I posted at the beginning of this piece.

And now you know, and as any kid of the 80s will tell you, knowing is half the battle.

So, How’s That Sanctuary City Thing Working Out?

Remember when Leftists were all about setting up “sanctuary cities” to let illegal immigrants know they would be safe there? It became a race to see which communities would be the next to proudly proclaim “We don’t care if you broke the law to come here because we won’t enforce the law!” And for a while, it worked. It was a quick way to earn woke points and to use a souped-up Wagner Power Painter to paint anyone who disagreed with it as racist, xenophobic, insensitive, kid-haters who wanted these poor souls to die.

That worked pretty well for communities that were pretty far away from the US/Mexican border, but Texas Governor Greg Abbott had an idea: help the illegal immigrants get to the sanctuary cities. In a pure “fuck around and find out” move, Abbott started busing migrants to Washington, DC, and New York City. I mean, since those two cities are known sanctuary cities, Leftists should be thrilled that Abbott was adding to their diversity!

Not so much.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was the first to feel the brunt of the move, resulting in her requesting assistance from the National Guard to deal with the influx. And in a completely expected move, the Department of Defense denied her request.

Then there’s New York Mayor Eric Adams. Apparently he’s not too happy at Abbott busing immigrants to his sanctuary city. Even Leftists are calling out Adams’ reaction to the situation, albeit while spitting venom at Abbott and Arizona Governor Doug Ducey for sending immigrants to sanctuary cities.

Which is odd, given how Leftists have rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants. You would think they would be thrilled to live up to their word. Ahhhh, that’s the problem. Leftists love setting up rules for themselves and different rules for everyone else. While January 6th protesters get the Library of Congress thrown at them for trespassing, illegal immigrants get treated with kid gloves for doing pretty much the same thing, albeit with fewer federal agents…I mean “concerned citizens.”

Although the potential overwhelming of sanctuary cities was enough to get Leftists to get pissed, there is an underlying cause I don’t think even they want to admit. And it all stems from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Although a few of his ideas would apply here, the one I find is the crux of the Leftist freakout is Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. This not only exposes the hypocrisy of the opposing entity, but it opens up opportunities for ridicule and criticism that the entity cannot legitimately counter.

Guess what Abbott did, kids.

By sending immigrants to sanctuary cities, Abbott has effectively showing the Left’s commitment to the concept to be a light year long and a micron deep, which to be honest was always the case. Leftists don’t want actual solutions to the illegal immigration problem since they benefit too much from the problem’s existence. But they can’t really come out and say that because doing so would expose the scam they’ve been running for decades. The advent of sanctuary cities is just the new selling point to get people to circumvent federal law and live off the generosity of American taxpayers.

And before you Leftists say “but they pay taxes, too,” there’s a bit of a difference between paying sales tax and income tax, namely the enforcement arm of the latter being a lot less nice about those who don’t pay up. Oh, and the fact they could be packing heat. More on that another time.

Say what you will about Greg Abbott (and, believe me, Leftists have), but you have to admit his solution to the illegal immigration problem was clever on a political level. Although his intended purpose was to alleviate the real border issues he faces on a daily basis, the impact of exposing Leftists as massive hypocrites, the utter destruction of the myth of sanctuary cities, and allowing cities too far away from the epicenter to get a taste of what Texas deals with was a calculated risk, one that is still paying dividends in the form of Leftist heads exploding.