Granted, I’m a week late on this, but under the circumstances (namely me deciding to write about something else), I hope you’ll forgive me. And if not, well…I’ll pout.
Anyway, California is usually at the forefront of a lot of things, namely really bad ideas. Recently, San Francisco proposed a lump sum payment of $5 million to eligible blacks for reparations, among other proposals. Additionally, the state’s Reparation Task Force submitted a report to the California Legislature that Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to implement if the legislature doesn’t act.
As a result, I am stating for the record I now self-identify as a black resident of San Francisco. Please respect my privacy during my transition.
Seriously, reparations is a controversial subject to say the least, which means it’s perfect for your favorite blogger who writes a weekly series by this specific title to cover. Take that, “Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week” written by Jerry Funklemeyer!
reparations
What the Left thinks it means – monetary compensation given to blacks due to America’s slave history
What it really means – another way for white Leftists to blow through more of our money so they can feel good about themselves
The Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/The War the Movie “Glory” Was Based On was one of the most difficult and bloody times of our nation’s relatively young history. From 1861 to 1865, this country was more fractured than Jackie Chan’s body after doing his own stunts. But once the Union prevailed, the question was what to do next. Back then, they didn’t have Leftists to provide their sage advice about misogyny and trans rights in the former Confederacy, so it came down to a meeting between William T. Sherman and black ministers to create an attempt at reparations: 40 acres. (Mule, sold separately.)
And that attempt got scuttled by President Andrew Johnson, leaving the matter unresolved until recently.
There have been calls for reparations in recent history, but the idea really took off in 2020 thanks to the Democratic Primaries where there were…four black candidates out of 27. Five if you count Elizabeth Warren. And of those black candidates, none got the nomination, and only one (Kamala Harris) got to the White House as Puddin’ Head Joe’s Vice-President. Not too shabby for someone who I almost tied in the Iowa Caucuses and I didn’t even run.
Out of that and the shootings of blacks that occurred in 2019-2020, the idea of reparations gained new steam, which prompted California to create the aforementioned Reparations Task Force.
So, now that we’re back in the present, let’s start shitting on the reparations idea, shall we?
As a concept, reparations aren’t that hard to understand. We wronged an entire race of people by enslaving them and treating them worse than Ike treated Tina, so we want to try to balance the scales somehow. Admirable goal, but the logistical equivalent of an M.C. Escher drawing.
The biggest hurdle to the idea of reparations is the fact none of the people who are demanding it today were ever slaves. And it’s not like we can fire up the TARDIS, go back to 1865, drop off $5 million, and tell the slaves to invest heavily in Apple in 100+ years. Although time can be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, it’s still bound by fixed events that can be tracked. And with the passage of time comes the birth of generation after generation that are removed from slavery altogether, save by bloodline.
But does bloodline alone create a solid enough link to award $5 million? That creates another speed bump to payday: what about those who either didn’t own slaves or fought for the Union in the Civil War? If bloodline is enough to give away money, it should also be good enough to exempt people from being forced to contribute to this monetary transfer. I have two relatives who fought for the Union (who, by the way, fought at least in part to end slavery). Yet, I get the feeling I would be expected to open my wallet and give generously to the Give Non-Slaves $5 Million Because Fuck You That’s Why Foundation.
And don’t get me started on their telethons!
Then, there’s the question of mixed-race children. Back in the day, white slaveowners knocked boots with slaves, which resulted in the genes of both races coming together to form a new life. Would the families of such a sexual union have to pay up or receive reparations? Or maybe they would just get $2.5 million? Or would the white half have to pay the black half $5 million?
Regardless, the fact we can even ask some of these questions without the pro-reparations side coming up with answers is not a good sign. But wait, there’s more!
Dropping $5 million into anyone’s lap is going to be significant, and it opens up any number of opportunities. And if it’s bundled in hundred dollar bills, it’s going to make the males in the audience sing tenor for a few years. For most people, though, it’s life-changing money, but only if it’s used intelligently. This is where human nature comes into play. If we get any amount of money from $2 on a scratch-off ticket to millions of dollars, our first instinct is to spend it. If this sum comes with few strings attached, though, we can get pretty reckless with it because in our minds it’s “free money.”
But just as any breadwinner today can tell you, money can run out fast if you’re not careful. Or if you vote for Puddin’ Head Joe, which is pretty much the same thing as not being careful.
When we don’t know or care how we get the money, we have less of an incentive to be smart with it. And, no, this isn’t a racial thing, but rather a human thing. Economists have studied this phenomenon for decades and it always ends the same way: the further we are away from earning money, the easier it gets to spend. Hence, the reason so many big lottery winners end up blowing their winnings and winding up right back where they started.
Guess what I think will happen to the reparations money if it gets approved.
And it’s not like there isn’t precedent with this. Remember Hurricane Katrina (which, oddly or appropriately enough, was the last time Kanye West was relevant)? Well, some inventive (and ultimately dishonest) people found a way to turn tragedy into a windfall to the tune of an estimated $2 billion. Between recipients of the aid spending the money on non-essential items, including vacations and porn, and others getting relief funds for people who didn’t exist, Katrina proved to be a disaster of a natural disaster response.
But the Katrina failure was more federal, right? Nothing like that could happen on the state level, right? Wellllll…not really. Our good friends on the Left Coast racked up an estimated $20 billion in fraud related to the pandemic. Leftists bad with money? Why that’s…pretty normal, really.
Now, why would I bring up Katrina and COVID in a discussion about reparations? To underscore a point that will taint the idea: governments, especially large ones, don’t keep good tabs on who is getting the money. It’s more of a rubber-stamp process. Granted, the reparations initiative in San Francisco comes with some conditions, but I’m not sure the state government that racked up ten times the Katrina fraud is capable of making sure the conditions are met.
But then again, it’s not meant to be effective or efficient except in one area: easing the guilt white Leftists feel over slavery. And they’re willing to spend as much of your money as possible to make sure they feel better no matter how long it takes! When you consider the amount of guilt a Leftist could prevent brownouts in California if it could be converted into electricity, let’s just say you might as well give the government access to your bank accounts. I mean, if China doesn’t already have it, thanks to TikTok.
It’s at this point I need to remind the white Leftists…none of you fuckknuckles were alive during slavery. You can feel bad about what happened generations ago, but to make it a central part of your life is a bit extreme and at this point silly. Kinda like the Young Turks, but less comedic. You cannot change the past, nor can you expect any amount of money to ever make it right because there will always be people willing to prey on your guilt to get more money out of you. As long as the greedy and dishonest among us see Leftist largess as free money, the spigot will never turn completely off and there will be fraud aplenty.
The thing is the Left has made it amazingly easy to game the system, thanks to the rhetoric they’ve already presented as true. And eagle-eyed readers already know how. Remember, the Left maintains how you self-identify is as real as how you are. Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King both identify as black in spite of being whiter than a medical isolation room run by Mormon IBM executives. Yet, they were/are considered to be authentic voices on the black experience in America.
Well, shit. If they can do it, so can I. And I can think of 5 million reasons to do it!
And California can’t say shit about it. Well, they can, but they’ll look like hypocritical assholes doing it. So, win-win!
Category: Social Issues
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week, the word “woke” got a bit of a workout. I’m not talking Richard Simmons “Sweating With the Oldies” kind of workout, either. We’re talking The Rock on truck stop speed locked in a Gold’s Gym for a weekend kind of workout. And after that, I definitely don’t want to know what the Rock was cookin’.
After people on the Right started to adopt “woke” as a term of derision, Leftists haven’t been able to figure out a way to take it back. So, instead, they’re creating new rules. And with that, this week’s Lexicon will delve into the wonderfully wide weird world of woke.
woke
What the Left thinks it means – either a word of pride or derision, depending on who uses it
What it really means – a term that needs to go the way of the dodo and Carrot Top’s movie career
Remember the 90s when Political Correctness was all the rage? People bent over backwards to use the “correct” (and often nonsensical) words. Then, it grew to the point where even the most PC of PC people got caught using non-PC terms because the term changed without warning from one week to the next. It was like playing hot potato with a live hand grenade while blindfolded. It’s only a matter of time before you’re getting shrapnel.
Well, thanks to the “woke” warriors out there, we get to relive one of my least favorite times of my adult life. Fortunately, I’m older and I give even less of a fuck than I did back then. The only difference? The current woke environment makes the PC movement of the 90s look like an Amish barn raising, complete with beards. Although with the woke folks, the beards might be connected to men who claim to be women.
Anyway, “woke” has gone from a funny term used by white Leftists so much you think they’re getting paid to use it to an entire culture. But only the first 4/7 of the word.
When the Right started using the word “woke” like an insult or a derogatory term, the Left lost its collectivist mind. After all, to them being woke is the end all and be all of existence. So, when people started making fun of it, it became an affront to them and their cause and they were forced to act!
By adding more context to its use.
But first, a slight aside. Woke actually began in the black community where it was used to raise awareness to racism and discrimination. Over time, the perspective grew to encompass more and more social justice ideas to the point white Leftists adopted it and made it mainstream. After all, the only way blacks can get ahead is if white Leftists speak for them, amirite kids?
Yeah, no.
Over the past week, the Left has expanded the definition even more. For Leftists, woke is still a good thing, but it’s also become a way to claim moral and intellectual superiority over everyone. Or in other words, Tuesday. John Stewart said being woke was “being good at history.” Molly Knight (who is whiter than a mayonnaise sandwich on Wonder Bread) echoes this sentiment by throwing in slavery.
Then, there’s the virtue signaling. And when I say virtue signaling, I mean virtue signaling!
Now, for the other side. Leftists love to use the Right’s use of the word to state their opposition is based on being stupid. And being the worst people on Earth. And being triggered. Oh, and when the Right uses it, it’s racist! And, of course, the Left thinks the Right can’t define it.
The Left thinks woke is a positive. The Right thinks woke is a negative. I think woke is the past tense form of wake.
As much as both sides love to throw around the term, it’s gotten to the point of ridiculousness, mostly because adherents keep pushing the envelope like a postal worker only getting paid commission. Seriously, folks. How exactly does allowing kids to be exposed to drag shows where performers are exposing themselves bring about a better world? And, no, my conservative friends, not that scenario isn’t an example of society getting too woke. It’s an example of people being fucking narcissists and demanding the rest of us go along with their fantasy world.
Right now woke isn’t anything but a meaningless term that keeps changing definitions more frequently than models at a fashion show. And, to me, when you have trouble nailing down a definition that doesn’t come without an exceptions list longer than an Apple Terms of Service Agreement, the problem isn’t the definition; it’s the word. Whenever you have a word that can be used in multiple ways and is solely dependent upon who is using it as far as whether it’s the “right” or “wrong” definition, you create the ambiguity necessary for the word to be used in whatever way people want.
Guess what, kids. “Woke” is no longer a simple word that means only one thing. It’s expanded and is not the Left’s word anymore. It belongs to the people now, and it will continue to be used until it’s burnt out.
Now, how would I define woke? Aside from being the past tense version of wake, in the modern sense of the word I define it as Political Correctness 2.0. Or Political Correctness on PCP. Sayyyyyyyy!
Either way, I’m not a fan of the term, nor am I a fan of how it’s being used to further divide us. Instead of woke, let me offer a slightly longer, but a far more universal concept.
Being a decent human being, respectful of others and not being a fucking asshole.
That’s not too much of an ask, is it?
Editor’s Note: This next section was added after Thomas went to the grocery store.
Fuck that last thing I wrote. The SMOD can’t come soon enough.
New Words, Who Dis?
As faithful readers know, I’m a word guy. I am fascinated by the interplay of words put together to form everything from poetry and screenplays to Twitter posts, mainly for the number of times people confuse “to” and “too” and even “two.”
As part of my passion, I’ve learned to study how words are used and compare them to the time period. There are some words, like “cool,” that never seem to fall out of favor, while others like “extreme” or “Pauly Shore comedy” come and go with the passage of time. And every so often, our societal lexicon (not to be confused with the Leftist Lexicon) needs to get expanded to reflect the zeitgeist of the age.
In other words, here are some new words I came up with. Enjoy!
Algoreaphobia – the fear of climate change
selfietality – when someone dies while doing something stupid to try to get views on social media
entitlemental – a form of insanity that arises when someone believes they are owed something
reminiscinging – when you find yourself singing songs from your youth because today’s music fucking sucks
noledge – the “facts” most people use in Twitter arguments
Mandatorian – when someone tells you that you “have to watch” the latest popular streaming series
prenouns – the pronouns you are expected to know before talking to a Leftist
insoyfurable – when someone insists on telling you his or her dietary/lifestyle choices without anyone else asking them to do it
showflake – the person who makes a big deal about being offended, i.e. any Karen/Kevin
gender disphonya – a condition where a person claims to be a different gender, but doesn’t bother to actually transition
in-app-propriate – when you spend too much on microtransactions
NFTease – the pitch scammers use to get you to invest in NFTs
That’s all I have for now. If you liked this, let me know and I can do more. If you didn’t, then you might be disappointed if I decide to do another one. I’m good either way!
Irreconcilable Differences
It was bound to happen, kids. Marjorie Taylor Greene said something that almost made my head explode with the sheer stupidity of it. Recently she came out and said we need a “national divorce” between red and blue states. As much fun as it would be to have America turned into a sitcom trope, I think this is a bad idea. Why?
For one, because the idea started from a 2004 meme.
But more importantly, because it’s going to lead to civil war, no matter what MTG says. Right now, ideological rifts are wider than Steven Tyler’s mouth at a dental appointment. People on the Left and the Right wake up and choose violence, hatred, and half-witted squawking points from their shit-flingers of choice.
At the core of this strife is a fundamental difference, not just of ideas, but of reality itself. Take gender, for example. Right now, Leftists believe there are more genders than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors (dining tip: avoid the Gender Fluid Fudge Ripple), while the Right believes there are only two. Now, I’m not a biologist or a Supreme Court nominee for that matter, but if we’re going to fight over something that hasn’t become an issue until the past few years and isn’t rooted in the age-old conflict of reality versus feefees, something tells me splitting up the country will end badly.
Just think about the sheer logistics of such an enterprise. Although there are clear red and blue states, there are a number of purple states, such as my home state of Iowa. Sometimes, we vote for Democrats, and other times we vote for Republicans. Where exactly would we fit? Would it turn into a custody battle between California and Texas where we spend two weekends a month with one state and the other two weekends with the other? And what if one state lets us stay up past our bedtimes and buys us all the toys, games, and gadgets we want in an attempt to appear to be the “cool state”? Then, there would be getting used to our new “step-states” and trying to fit in.
These are the kind of questions people gung ho for a national divorce haven’t considered yet, if they’ve considered them at all.
The sad part is, having said all that, I don’t see any way out of it. There are too many differences for us to try to work on as a nation, and when we can’t even agree on how many genders there are, it’s pretty much destined to fail. There is no reimagined version of the Yalta Conference coming soon to a TV screen near you. America is, to put it bluntly, stuck in a swamp of our own creation. And I’m not talking about Washington, DC.
And don’t expect our national leaders to lend a hand. Not only do they get off on us being at each other’s throats like a Nosferatu fistfight, but the strife helps them get away with more underhanded shit. The wallet-busting multi-trillion dollar Omnibus Spending Bill from a few weeks ago proved that. And as long as the Left and the Right continue to let us bicker, the wheels of the country get further and further sucked into the marsh, making it harder for us to get out.
So, what do we do? First off, we should reject the idea of a national divorce, no matter who agrees with it, because the eventual conclusion of such an idea will be bloody, messy, and possibly fracture the country even more than it already is. Besides, we’ve already done this. Remember that little thing the kids like to call the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/That Thing We Have Totally Forgotten About or Never Learned in the First Place Because Racism? Yeah, Gettysburg is gonna look like a Buddhist picnic compared ot what we have in store.
Beyond that…I got nothing. No, wait, I do have something: look past the differences we have and look for the similarities. At the end of the day, we’re all Americans (unless you’re reading this in a different country…but I can put in a good word for you and make sure you get the Honorary American tour package). It doesn’t matter if you’re a Trump-loving Republican named Roy or a non-binary genderfluid person named Magnolia with more pronouns than college majors, there are still some things that can bring us all together.
You know, like thinking Michael Bay should never make another movie ever?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, this past week on Capitol Hill was more explosive than a Chipotle restaurant on the Hindenburg. Our favorite member of the Squad, the Socialist Socialite, went on the warpath attacking popular online figure LibsofTikTok for…sharing videos that Leftists upload themselves that ultimately make them look like amoral fuckknuckles. Well, the Socialist Socialite accused LibsofTikTok of inspiring bomb threats at the Boston Children’s Hospital for performing gender affirming surgery on teenagers as young as 15.
The concept of gender affirming surgery is a relatively new one, but it’s one the Left has been trying to protect under any and all circumstances. And since we don’t have a Chinese balloon to hold our attention this week, we might as well discuss it.
gender affirming surgery
What the Left thinks it means – necessary surgery for trans people to feel more like the gender they feel they are
What it really means – Leftists preying on young people being stupid
Being a teenager is rough. Not only are you dealing with hormonal changes with the frequency of a bad news day for Hunter Biden, but you’re caught between being a child and an adult. You’re still very impressionable, but you’re also gaining new responsibilities and expectations that come with maturity. Even under the best of circumstances, being a teenager is Ground Zero for fuck-ups.
Now, imagine being confused about your gender on top of all that. All you want to do is fit in, and being trans is still seen as alternative. As a society, we’re still getting used to the idea of the transgender community, so Mom and Dad may not be able to help you like they might be able to help you with your homework (provided it’s not “New Math”).
It is in this wasteland of physical and emotional distress that the Left operates. And by “operates” I mean “referring impressionable young people to doctors to get operations.” The Left offers not only the environment, but also the simple cure: if you don’t feel like you’re in the right body, it’s okay! Just change clothes and we will support you every step of the way! And if that doesn’t work, there’s surgery so you can look like you feel! It’s perfect!
Except…it’s not.
Gender affirming surgery is a nicer way of saying gender reassignment surgery. Instead of giving potential patients the feeling this surgery is serious and requires a lot of thoughts about the pros and cons, gender affirming surgery sounds lighter, breezier, a lot less taxing on the patient. In other words, the change of one word has taken all the gravitas out of the decision and makes it seem like trying out a new hairdo.
But unlike the hairdo, when the professional starts cutting, your genitals don’t grow back. That shit is permanent. If you regret your decision a few years later, there is no addadictomy that will get your penis back. Ditto with the labia. Once the doctor turns your love canal into a dick, you’re stuck with that decision for the rest of your life.
And remember, kids, Leftists are okay with letting teenagers make this kind of decision. The same teenagers who are going through one of the roughest stretches of life any person has to endure while feeling like they’re alone. How do I know this?
No, I’m not trans, but I was a teenager once. Granted, it was back in the days when we would look at cave drawings to get our local news, but I do remember how I was back then. And I was a fuck-up. It took me several years to “grow” into my body from a mental and emotional perspective, and throwing on a very adult decision on me at that time would have crushed me.
That’s the main issue I have with the Left’s push for gender affirming surgery: it’s not being taken as seriously as it needs to be. But the Left doesn’t care. They see the issue as a way to gain money and power over vulnerable people by offering solutions that have more strings attached than a tampon factory.
Or as Leftists call it, Tuesday.
But here’s where shit really goes sideways. Leftists have a…well, confusing approach to gender. As it turns out, they have as many positions on gender as they have genders, which is to say a metric fuckton. Here are a few of them.
– Gender is a social construct.
– Sex is a biological designation, while gender is more psychological/emotional,
– Gender is assigned at birth.
– Gender is developed over time.
– Sex and gender are different.
– Gender is a spectrum.
Granted, these positions have evolved over time, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the contradictions and Marquis de Sade-level of tortured thinking involved here. For now, let’s focus on that last one because it has a direct relationship to gender affirmation.
Some members of the medical community laid out 16 genders in 2022. Others have gone as high as 72, while still others put the number at 81. Go to some online forums (the source of all great thought), and you’re liable to find multiple variations on the same theme, only a lot less grounded in science or, well, reality.
Meanwhile, most of us believe there are…let me check my notes here…two fucking genders. No more, no less. Two. And before the Leftists try to confuse the issue, let me ask a simple question.
If gender is a spectrum, how come the gender affirmation surgery is currently either male-to-female or female-to-male?
This is because God, nature, science, William Shatner, or whatever authority you believe/worship/tolerate have already figured that shit out. Even if you believe sex and gender are different, there are only two choices on the menu, chocolate or vanilla, chicken or fish, Godzilla or Mothra. Leftists can’t bullshit their way out of the simple fact there are only two genders being affirmed with the surgery they say is necessary for trans people to feel like they belong.
But they can bullshit people into thinking they actually care about trans people. What they actually care about is creating more trans people who the Left can use to their ends without improving the trans community one iota. And why is that? Because it’s a lot easier to stoke fear than it is to fix stuff.
Look, I don’t care if an adult gets gender affirming surgery because it’s none of my business. Just don’t be an asshole about it. Now, the operative word in that first sentence is “adult.” If you’re not old enough to vote in an election, you’re too young to elect to get this surgery. In fact, research suggests the human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25 (please check local listings for brain maturity ages in your area). By then, you have a better idea of who you are as a person, usually because you’ve graduated school or served in the military and have had to make a living.
So, why should we permit gender affirming surgery for someone well below the age when we get our shit together? The short answer is we shouldn’t. The longer answer is we shouldn’t because it’s a recipe for disaster. Leftists are willing to create more victims to advance their own agenda. Even if the patient is emotionally mature at 15, it doesn’t mean he or she has the wherewithal to know whether they’re actually trans or just trying to fit in by dressing up with clothes from a Boy George or Tilda Swinton garage sale.
The Left has one thing right about trans people, though. Trans people, and teenagers in general, need to feel loved and accepted for who they are. Even if you think it odd, there is still a human being underneath, someone who could use a shoulder to cry on or a supportive word. Don’t shut them out because their vision of the world doesn’t match yours. This is how we can make real positive change in this country.
And you don’t have to lop off a dick or pair of tits to do it!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the Republicans taking control the House of Representatives at the beginning of this year, there were bound to be some changes, not the least of which to committee positions. Well, let’s just say the same folks who complained about Donald Trump not accepting the results of an election have their collectivist panties in a bunch over who is being removed from some committees.
Enter Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who just happens to be black, Muslim, and a member of the Squad. For those of you unfamiliar with the Squad, they’re like the women on “The View” but with the power to spend your money and make new laws they’ll exempt themselves from at their earliest convenience. Prior to the Red Ripple this past November, Omar was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but was kicked out by Speaker of the House Kevin “No Relation to Joe” McCarthy.
Let’s just say she and her fellow Leftists didn’t take this well, even by Leftist standards. Several colleagues, including fellow ousted Democrat Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell and fellow Squad member Rashida “Not Cool Enough to Have a Nickname” Tlaib took to the floor of the House to protest Omar’s removal. And by “protest” I mean “bitching and moaning.” But the pièce de résistance (which is French for “We surrender! Do not burn the Louvre!”) was when Omar’s media supporters (but I repeat myself) called the decision to yank her from the Foreign Affairs Committee Islamophoba.
Hoo boy. Get ready for a trip into the stupid.
Islamophobia
What the Left thinks it means – the irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims
What it really means – the modern ideological equivalent of the word “literally”
It pains me to say this in 2023 when we were supposed to have flying cars and were building towards a future that would make “Star Trek” look like a Rob Zombie hellscape, but to be perfectly clear, I have nothing against most Muslims. This is because the ones I’ve met personally have been nice, hard-working people with the same needs, wants, and hang-ups as the rest of us. They only difference is their faith. And I’m willing to bet most of the Muslims you meet are the same way.
Having said that, there are some fucking nutjobs out there who just happen to be Muslim. Granted, there are some fucking nutjobs out there who just happen to be Christian, but there’s a big difference in how Muslims and Christians are treated. If you call out a Christian extremist (real or imagined), you’re “speaking truth to power.” If you call out a Muslim extremist (real or blown up), you’re branded as Islamophobic regardless of whether said extremist is literally saying “I want to kill all Americans.”
That brings us back to the real definition of Islamophobia, literally. It seems the term gets tossed around with the frequency of Vox posting something stupid. In some cases, it’s appropriate, but in most cases…it’s less appropriate than letting Hunter Biden guard your crack cocaine stash. Yet, if we call out the inappropriate use of Islamophobia, we get called Islamophobic. And if we don’t obey what the Left tells us is acceptable behavior towards Muslims…you guessed it, we’re Islamophobes!
Welcome to the Kobiashi Maru of Salem Witch Trials. You’re guilty until proven guiltier. And there’s no way to beat it.
The reason for this is because people aren’t conditioned to try to offend or push away people. Well, except for my Uncle Jim-Bob who smelled of old cheese curds, Pabst Blue Ribbon, and skunk, but that’s not important right now. Psychologically, humans have a need to be socially accepted, which can be used to condition us to act, speak, and think a certain way.
Now, who do we know that would use our psychological needs to obtain political and personal power? I mean, aside from Disney. I’m speaking of Leftists, of course! They will play with our emotions to get what they want, but unlike Disney, we don’t get much entertainment out of it.
Islamophobia is one of those emotionally-charged terms that is designed to get us to adopt a position we may not necessarily agree with just to go along with the crowd. What started with homophobia (another term that’s been overused like a Kardashian) has become a cottage industry specializing in outrage and offense. And business is booming.
And our current salesperson of the year is Ilhan Omar. But much like her attempts to explain away her previous statements against Israel, her use of Islamophobia to complain about getting kicked off the Foreign Affairs Committee is weak. I’m Sheldon Cooper handshake weak here.
Omar has a bit of a history with making inflammatory statements about Israel. Considering the US and Israel have pretty close ties, having someone like Omar dealing with foreign affairs is a recipe for disaster. Even though the President sets the foreign policy agenda, a loudmouth with a penchant for pissing people off makes that job a lot harder.
Oh, and openly criticizing the guy who hands out committee positions? Fastest way to get kicked off any major committee and busted down to the Get the Speaker of the House’s Coffee Committee. Or in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s case, vodka.
Now for the really fun part. Pelosi’s actions with the previous session of Congress kicking off Republican committee members and rejecting McCarthy’s suggestions for members of the January 6th Commission made Omar’s rejection a thing. She was warned this was a bad idea, and she went ahead with it anyway.
Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it, Leftists?
If anything, Pelosi’s actions had more to do with Omar getting the boot than any ill will McCarthy had against Omar’s religion. It’s true he hasn’t exactly been a friend to Muslims, but with the mitigating factors I’ve mentioned, it’s hard to say Islamophobia is as much of a factor as Leftists want us to believe.
In this way, Leftists use Muslims like they use any minority on their side: like bunting on a parade float. The sole purpose Leftists trot out people like Omar is to tell the world “Look at how diverse and caring we are!” Yet, what exactly have Leftists done for Muslims that help them in any meaningful way?
If you guessed nothing, you’d be right. And if you bet the under, go see the cashier to pick up your winnings.
Minorities of all stripes within Leftist ranks are treated equally…bad. (But, hey, at least it’s equally bad!) By adopting the “do what we say or you’re an Islamophobe” approach, Leftists make it harder for Muslims to be treated as anything other than a mystery, an “other” if you will. Even if you won’t, it’s a recipe for disaster to continue thinking that way.
Even though I don’t fancy being killed by Muslims who hate my guts, I’ve found it’s easier to build bridges when you treat people different than you the way you would want to be treated. (Offer void for anyone who are really into the Marquis de Sade.) By ignoring our differences and seeing each other as human beings, it gets a lot harder to “otherize” each other since we have an established relationship, i.e. we know the people behind what we see.
So, Representative Omar, I reject your assertion of Islamophobia and insert a reality of my own. Namely, the reality the bullshit you’re pushing to explain away why you were kicked to the Congressional curb for being a loudmouth asshat doesn’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. But since you’re a reliable Leftist who checks off a number of spaces on the Oppression Bingo Card, nobody on your side will call you out, and everybody on your side will call me Islamophobic. See if I give a fuck.
Oh, wait, I lost all my fucks investing in cryptocurrency. Now what? You’re gonna call me an Islamophobe again? Still no fucks to be given.
That’s what undercuts Leftists like Ilhan Omar. If you don’t care what they call you, they hold no power over you, and that gives you power over them. But remember, Omar isn’t representative of the average Muslim. She’s barely representative of a higher mammal. I’ve been insulted worse by better people.
So, Representative Omar, take your Islamophobia and shove it up your…turban. Which is on top of your head, which is shoved so far up your ass you can taste what you had for lunch.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I cover a lot of topics for the Lexicon, but there are some that I shy away from most of the time. One of these topics is abortion. My reasons are simple: 1) it’s such an emotional issue that it’s impossible to discuss without someone getting pissed off, and 2) much like a Hannah Gadsby comedy special, there’s not much funny there. Even some of the periphery topics can get people mad.
Well, this is your warning that some of you reading beyond this point are gonna get pissed because we’re going into abortion.
In their post-Roe Handmaids Tale pseudo reality, Leftists are pushing an idea that women now will be required to take babies to term. In a double doozy of dumbassery, former Secretary of Labor and current member of the Lollipop Guild Robert Reich tweeted the following:
Forced birth in a country that refuses to protect its people from being shot down in a mass shooting.
That’s right, kids. Forced birth is apparently a thing, at least according to Leftists, which means it’s a subject that’s right in the Lexicon wheelhouse.
Damn you, Leftists.
forced birth
What the Left thinks it means – a condition created by Republicans where women are legally required to give birth under any and all circumstances
What it really means – a scary-sounding phrase without any connection to reality
For almost as long as I’ve been alive, Roe v Wade was the law of the land, making abortion a legal activity, as well as a coin of the Leftist realm. When the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, Leftists not only lost their shit, but started to make up new shit to replace it. Enter “forced birth.” All the usual culprits weighed in on the subject (using the same terminology and scare tactics, I might add). Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and even the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee weighed in, offering the most tepid of hot takes. Let me give you the short version.
Abortion good. Limits to abortion bad. Oh, and limits to abortion equals forced birth.
As with most terms used in the abortion debate, forced birth is a charged term, and it’s designed to be. Leftists love to combine words that don’t necessary go together, like climate justice or House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff. This is done to evoke emotions in line with what Leftists want us to feel or think (or feel instead of think).
In this case, they start with a word that is intended to make us feel bad, “forced.” This shocks us because people like freedom. If we’re forced to do something, our natural instinct is to resist.
Then, we come across “birth.” (Or at least the father did at conception.) Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, life is a pretty important subject. We understand it on a fundamental level and revere it to one extent or another. Even the most strident pro-choicer gets the importance of life; they just don’t feel bad at killing a baby in the womb because…reasons.
So, did the Dobbs decision force women to give birth? Nope! It affirmed there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and it left the decision to either the states or Congress. While the decision didn’t outright ban abortion, Leftists made it sound like it did, if only to continue its Handmaids Tale cosplay.
Although I’m not a lawyer since I have morals and a soul, the Dobbs decision made a lot of sense to me because it was based on simple logic and attention to details. Even though the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the Left argued it was an extension of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Samuel Alito referenced in his majority opinion:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The right to abortion does not fall within this category…. Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”
The TL:DL (Too Long: Didn’t Litigate) version: abortion isn’t a right at all, and the two major decisions related to it (Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey for those of you playing along at home) weren’t consistent with the Constitution as written. Hence, states can set whatever limits they want on abortion thanks to a little thing the hip kids like to call the Tenth Amendment.
But that takes away the Left’s best weapon in favor of abortion: judicial fiat. Since that’s not on the table anymore, Leftists resort to their fallback plan, that being openly lying to people to get them outraged at the Supreme Court and Republicans deciding a baby’s life is worth as much as the mother’s. Those bastards!
But out of chaos came some ingenuity, which is shocking for Leftists considering they’re usually dimmer than a burnt out light bulb in a goth kid’s bedroom. Leftists started volunteering to take women to states where abortions are legal if they live in a state where it isn’t. Oh, and to donate money towards that end because, let’s face it, schlepping caramel macchiatos at Starbucks doesn’t pay well enough to fund it themselves.
Now imagine if these same Leftists understood economics in the same way they understand interstate travel to kill a baby. But that’s a blog post for another time…
Meanwhile back at the main point, the truth is no one is forced to give birth in this country. Some states make it more difficult to get one, but that’s not the same thing as making women give birth. What it does do is create an incentive to plan a pregnancy and take steps to prevent it before doing the horizontal mambo under the sheets if you’re not ready to be a parent. Of course, this is beyond the pale for Leftists, who treat abortion like it’s Pez. After all, showing any amount of foresight, planning, and dare I say it responsibility might…make you become a Republican!
Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s clear that Robert Reich and anyone else who is pushing the forced birth bullshit aren’t helping the matter any. If we’re going to come to a functional, albeit tenuous, agreement on the topic, we need to be honest with each other. Both sides have legitimate concerns that can only be addressed with dialogue instead of diatribes. Granted, that seems less likely than Michael Bay making a good movie, but I can hope.
And to Mr. Reich, I’m sorry your attempt to push the forced birth lie came up a little short.
I’ll see myself out…
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.
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
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.