Tag: internet culture

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although the Lexicon primarily features issues originating in the US of A (as opposed to Canada, which is the US of Eh), sometimes the subject matter crosses international boundaries. In this case, the origin of this week’s Lexicon starts in Jolly Old England (as opposed to Canada, which is Jolly Old Eh-gland.)

It starts with an online game called Pathways (think a cheerier version of “Depression Quest”) where the user navigates through a series of events in an attempt to dissuade him or her from falling for online extremist propaganda. Welllll…let’s just say it backfired. Instead of educating users (primarily teenagers) about the dangers of propaganda, it is propaganda in and of itself by painting anyone to the right of Josef Stalin as an extremist.

I could talk all day about propaganda (as my lovely wife will tell you), but the focus of this week’s Lexicon is on the concept of online extremism. I’ll be the first one to tell you the Interwebs is a hotbed of people nuttier than elephant shit, but does that make them extremists?

Depends on who you ask.

online extremism

What the Left thinks it means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt right wing beliefs and ideas

What it really means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt any wing’s beliefs and ideas

So, where do I begin? Well, let me just start by saying online extremism is not just a right wing issue. There is and always has been a section of online culture dominated by left wing thinking, but they’ve been mostly relegated to backwater channels with an echo chamber bigger than the Grand Canyon. Or, as it’s called today, Bluesky.

That in and of itself isn’t that big a deal to me. I’m a big fan of letting people say what’s on their minds, even if I disagree with it. For one, it fosters more and better communication than banning it out of turn. For another, it’s always a good way to see where the assholes are so you can avoid them. Unless you want to point and laugh, which is easier when they make themselves known. So, there are plenty of good reasons not to silence people.

Having said all that, there are people out there who have completely lost the fucking plot and say/advocate for the weirdest shit out there. And that’s just the diaper fur community. (Safety Tip from your buddy Tom: If you don’t know, don’t look for it. Only furry evil in diapers greets you there.) Up until recently, people have been able to ignore the fringe players because they’ve been woefully unequipped to do anything about it. I knew a Pat Buchanan supporter who talked a big game, but was so short he made Nick Fuentes look like Andre the Giant. Needless to say, he wasn’t considered much of a threat.

Nowadays, it’s that kind of freak that has the power of an echo chamber telling him/her what they’re doing is completely cool and not at all too extreme. And it’s shit like this that got Renee Good shot and killed. Somewhere in her mind, she thought “running over an ICE agent is totes normal, dude” and used that thought to spur action.

Now, who could have put that idea in her head? I mean, it’s not like the Left has painted ICE in a negative light by calling them Nazis or comparing them to secret police or the Gestapo, right?

Except for Governor TIMMAH!

And Governor Gavin Newsom.

And Governor JB Pritzker.

And Senator Jeff Merkley.

And Senator Mark Warner.

And Representative Eric Swalwell.

And Representative Rashida Tlaib.

Wow. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists pulling the “ICE is the secret police/Gestapo/fascist/Nazi” card.

So, maybe the Left has a hand in the escalation of rhetoric against ICE, which is inspiring Leftist extremists to act. But remember, kids, it’s the MAGA crowd that are the violent ones because January 6th.

All that IMAX-level projection aside, online extremism is a legitimate problem, one being stoked by people we shouldn’t want to hang out with at all, man. And they all have the same problem: a messiah complex that rivals Oprah’s. With that messiah complex comes a lot of gatekeeping so only the true believers can stick around.

Naturally, that means more sensible people saying “Yanno, you might not want to drive a truck into a bunch of protesters/ICE agents” will be excommunicated and turned into the enemy, even if their opinions align with everything else the self-professed leader believes. The odd thing about these leaders of cults of personality is they often don’t have one of their own, so they borrow from someone else. Even self-styled “free thinkers” may fall victim to the kind of extremism that meets them where their biases are.

Not that this happens to too many people, right? (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher.)

Those assholes can be dangerous, what what of the followers themselves? That’s a bit of a mixed bag. The more gung ho a follower is, the more extreme he or she (still 2 genders) is likely to be. As you get further and further away from the epicenter of extremism, the less likely it is you’re dealing with an extremist. Sure, there are some who will drink the Flavor-Ade because everybody else is doing it (gotta love that peer pressure), but you’re going to find some who see the folly of it all and aren’t as willing to go along to get along.

The problem is neither side wants to separate the reasonable from the batshit insane. That would take too much effort, after all, and we don’t want people to think we’re not down for the cause because we happen to think not engaging in stupid shit is the correct path forward.

This is the time when we have to determine whether the loudest voices are the leaders or just so loud they drown out the actual leaders. I’ve seen this with the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement, the pro choice and pro life movements, the Religious Right, and so many others. And when you’re faced with the loudest voices, it gets really easy to slide into groupthink and become one of the masses, minus the “m.”

But that’s where being able to determine the difference comes in handy. If someone is loud, it doesn’t make him or her right; it just makes them harder to ignore. But is also makes them easier to mock for being loud and annoying, so there’s that.

How this applies to extremism is we have to separate the ring leaders from the ring followers because they are not always the same people. A militant trans rights activist may talk a big game, but wuss out at the first signs of it being go time. These are the ones who probably won’t decide to shoot up a Christian school, but they still have the ability to give those who do have a propensity towards violence to think the only way to fix things is to pull a “Death Wish.” They’re extremists of a sort, but more extremist-adjacent.

Think Charlie Manson versus the Manson Family members who murdered Sharon Tate, among others. The members committed the crimes, but they wouldn’t have happened without ole Charlie.

“But, Thomas,” you might be saying, “are you literally comparing trans activists to Charles Manson?” No. What I’m saying is there are some people who can inspire others to take action they might not otherwise take by instilling them with destructive thoughts. And we’re not just talking about Leftists here, folks. There are plenty of hair-triggers on the Right who would love nothing more than to start shit so they can pretend to be badasses, all from the safety of their double-wides, while others are doing the actual shit.

And all from the behind protection of a computer or phone screen.

There is a term from the Interwebs that describe these people perfectly: keyboard warriors. Now, there are some willing to put the emphasis on the latter rather than the former, which makes for a really awkward time all the way around when the fit hits the shan. (Hat tip to Larry Elder for that one.)

What Pathways gets wrong is it tries to water down the definition of extremism to an absurd degree. Even someone saying “we should be proud of being British” gets looped in with anyone who wants to put every immigrant into a chipper shredder, when that’s simply not the case. There may be some overlap between the two, but not enough to lump the former in with the latter.

Unless, of course, you’re being intellectually dishonest, which Pathways is being. The “right” course of action according to the game isn’t always the most logical. In one part of the game, you are given a choice to ignore what they deem inflammatory rhetoric, look for more information, or go from 0 to extremist by joining in the inflammatory fun. In the game, the only viable option is to ignore the rhetoric. Anything else gets you branded an extremist.

Put another way, the game punishes you for trying to be well-informed.

Which makes you more susceptible to extremist positions.

Which defeats the purpose of the game.

Unless, of course, the purpose of the game is to enable certain extremist positions…

Saaaaaaaaay! I think I’ve stumbled upon the real reason this game exists! And considering it’s targeting teenagers (who cling to popularity and clout like Hunter Biden hangs onto his crack dealer’s number), the goal is to get them to accept a set of ideas so they’ll be popular, cool, and have social clout, all without having to do anything but listen and believe.

Hmmmm…that’s a catchy little saying. I hope nobody unscrupulous ever latches onto it.

Meanwhile, what we can do to avoid being sucked in by online extremism, or extremism in general, is apply a little common sense. If you wouldn’t allow someone else to do it to you, don’t do it to other people. And if someone you know is rushing headlong towards extremism, try to pull them back. If they don’t want to come back from the edge, let them go. It may hurt, but it hurts a lot less than being buggered night after night in federal pound you in the ass prison.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…







Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There’s a popular saying on the Right: the Left can’t meme. Mainly because…they can’t meme. Hey, there’s actual science behind it, so we have to Trust the Science, right?

This week, I was introduced to another example of this, that being the Left’s latest attempt to get one over on President Donald Trump. In an attempt to draw attention to the tariff situation, they created an acronym, TACO, which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” And when one Leftist comes up with an idea, it’s a surprise, but it also gets spread around as the funniest thing ever.

So, let’s just say this week’s Lexicon has me hungry for Mexican food.

TACO

What the Left thinks it means – a clever acronym that shows Trump always backs down from his tariff threats

What it really means – a damn stupid acronym that failed to make a meaningful impact

To understand TACO, we must understand the underlying issue, that being tariffs. As I’ve written previously, tariffs can be used as a negotiation tactic, which is what President Trump has tried to do. Sometimes it’s worked, sometimes it hasn’t. Overall, we’re still making our way through the uncertain waters post-Tariff-A-Palooza.

One of the problems the Trump Administration faces is the President flip-flops on the matter more than John Kerry cooking pancakes at an IHOP working straight commission. That has given the Left ammunition (which is funny considering they hate guns, but love violence) to mock the President. Hence, the idea Trump always chickens out when it comes to making tariffs more than empty threats.

Unfortunately for the Left, that idea is based on a lie. There have been some notable successes that extend beyond merely funding the government, not the least of which being former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigning.

You’re welcome, Canada.

Meanwhile, the Left thinks TACO is not only a factual statement, but a winning strategy. They went so far as to rent a taco truck to give away tacos in front of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC. Now, I’m not one to pass up free food, but apparently I’m in the minority in our nation’s capital because that taco truck stunt resulted in the truck leaving early and Leftists getting mocked on social media.

And now, they’re getting mocked in a blog post. I’m sure they’ll recover somehow.

The truth of the matter is it was a fucking stupid idea to begin with, and it’s only getting worse with the Left a) defending the message, and b) doubling down on it. It did have one success, that being making Trump mad. Great work, kids. You’ve really shown us. Now what will do you for an encore? Come up with another lame acronym that spells out something stupid at a total own of the Orange Man?

Scratch that. It was stupid the first time, and the law of diminishing returns is a thing.

There is another Leftist assumption at work here. Due to their warped (and Jasmine Crockett-level stupid) perception of Trump’s immigration policies, the Left thinks Trump hates Hispanic people. At least, that’s what they keep saying over and over again because, well, unoriginal thinkers. The truth is a little muddier than that. Yes, Trump has called out Mexico repeatedly, but there’s some context the Left doesn’t want you to consider.

Leftists are pro-illegal immigration. Full fucking stop.

As simple as this is, I still feel an explanation is in order. The Left’s approach to immigration relates directly to their ability to gain and retain power. If a tighter border benefits them, they’ll support it, but more often than not, a border looser than the morals at an all you can eat brothel (and I’m not talking about an endless buffet, kids) works in their favor. To them, immigrants are a means to an end. However, not everybody who crosses our border is looking for a better life and an honest day’s work.

Hence, the Left plays on our emotions by painting all immigrants as just poor people who need our help. And if a few bad apples come across, that’s acceptable because the majority aren’t bad people.

Laken Riley was unavailable for comment.

There’s a vast difference between following the existing process to come to America and the shitshow the Left has allowed to happen, but opposing illegal immigration isn’t hate in and of itself. By conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, the Left has created a ready-made excuse for any Tomas, Ricardo, and Julio who sneaks into the country. And with that excuse comes benefits ranging from luxury hotel rooms to culturally-sensitive food.

So, naturally, the Left wants people to think anyone who doesn’t appreciate the largesse extended to people who jumped the line must hate all Hispanics.

Now, what does this have to do with TACO? I may be off in left field on this, but I don’t think the acronym was a coincidence. Leftists understand how Trump acts emotionally (mainly because they trigger him), so they find ways to get under his skin to get the emotional outbursts they want. And what better way to reinforce their opinion that Trump hates Hispanics than to get him to react negatively to the TACO acronym?

Then again, these are the same idiots who thought online influencers could help Queen Kamala the Appointed become President, so it might just be a coincidence after all.

Regardless, the way the Left was pushing TACO made it seem as inorganic as a fast food burger made from microplastics and AstroTurf. They were like stand up comedians who knew a joke bombed, but would go back to the joke time and time again hoping the second, third, or even the four-hundred-ninety-eighth time would make the audience laugh.

Basically, like my blog posts, but on stage.

By trying to make TACO a thing, the Left wound up making it…well, nothing, really. It lacked the core of any online movement, social media fad, or viral YouTube video: it has to at least feel real, if not completely accidental. That’s how you get actual reach in the online space. You can’t create an audience out of thin air. These days, you have to buy it.

Seriously, though, the best the Left could hope for with TACO was it would make their sycophants…I mean followers giggle and share it with their network, comprised of, you guessed it, other Leftists! Mission accomplished, dudes/dudettes/other derivations of the word “dude” that apply.

And now, it’s become a punchline not even two weeks into it. It’s so bad Vice President JD Vance called you “the lamest opposition in American history.” And it’s hard to argue against that, really. If this is the Left’s A game, it’s coming off more like an Meh game. And it only gets worse when you consider you’ve just made JD Vance look like a mature, serious-minded adult. This shit is going to backfire on you come 2028 when Vance throws his hat into the ring against…whatever Frankenstein’s monster ticket you’ll come up with to oppose him.

Might as well get used to saying “President Vance” for 8 years, kids.










An Open Letter to Taylor Lorenz

Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.

We need to talk. Seriously.

Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.

You’re not doing it right.

Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.

Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.

Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.

The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!

The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.

But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?

The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.

Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.

Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.

In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.

Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.

Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.

Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when I shake my head in disbelief at what the Left takes seriously. This is one of those times.

It starts with New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz taking her role to new depths by attempting to publicly shame a conservative mother online through bullying her daughter. Rightly, Lorenz has been called out for this behavior. Then, she started complaining about online harassment she’s received, which caused many a Leftist to ignore the utter garbage she did to warrant the attention. Thanks to Tucker Carlson naming Lorenz and using a photo of her available on the Times website, the victimhood meter got turned up to 11 through the invocation of a magical phrase the Left has been using for the past few years, “online violence.”

Let’s demystify this term, shall we?

online violence

What the Left thinks it means – mistreatment of minorities and women online, including taunts, insults, and trolling

What it really means – a made-up controversy with real-life inspiration

With the advent of the World Wide Web (thank you, Al Gore…not!), American society changed forever. Even though we were able to chat with people around the world, our worlds shrank inward. Things we wouldn’t say to people in public were said online, often with our real names attached to them. And don’t get me started on Rule 34. If you don’t know what that is, please don’t ask. You really don’t want to know.

Out of that change came troll culture, which then turned into American culture. And as exchanges got more heated, egos got more fragile. People on social media go from bully to victim in a matter of keystrokes. Hell, I’ve been shit-talked by 12 year olds playing Call of Duty.

Does it cross lines of civilized society? Absolutely. Should we be trying to do better than throwing more shade at people than Rosie O’Donnell sunbathing? No doubt. Is it violence? In a word, no. In two words, fuck no.

Words, by definition, cannot be violence because they lack the ability to be physical. When spoken, they are the expulsion of air through the mouth combine with muscular actions. Even a literal tongue lashing doesn’t involve actual lashing of the tongue. Words can inspire violence (i.e. fighting words), but the words themselves don’t commit the violence.

Now, let’s add in the online element. This may come as a shock to many people, but online life isn’t real life. Even if you believe words are violence (which just confirms you’re a dumbass), the fact the words occurred in the cyber-ether renders your opinion more useless than Eric Swalwell’s security clearance.

So, why are so any people convinced online violence is really? One, online life has made people dumber than a bag of hammers. More importantly, though, it’s a clever play on words the Left uses to convince people it’s a serious problem by playing to their emotions through the negative implications of violence. Let’s be honest. There are very few positive aspects to violence, and those that are positive usually cost at least an extra $50…not that I’d know about that, mind you…

Where was I again? Oh yeah, Leftist word play. By invoking the concept of violence, the Left counts on us to fill in the blanks and assume the worst. Adding the word “online” makes it seem widespread and a direct threat to us personally because everybody and their Grandmother is online these days. Although I get a chuckle imagining an octogenarian trolling a 20 year old over his or her taste in anime, the desired effect is to get us afraid of what could happen.

And by creating that fear, the Left can take your voice, equating legitimate criticism with the modern equivalent of an elementary school taunt, only with more vulgarity. As with other times the Left attempts to manipulate us through creative wording, the key to countering it is to recognize it for what it is and call it out. What Taylor Lorenz and her enablers are trying to do is to escape responsibility for being reprehensible to someone with less power than they have. With Tucker Carlson calling her out, the shoe is on the other foot and now Lorenz is getting a taste of karmic justice.

Let’s just say she’s not a fan. Which makes it all the funnier to me. So, win-win!

Meanwhile, don’t fall prey to the emotional manipulation the Left is using here. They want you to avoid using your brain and simply believe, just like one of the Left’s online darlings Anita Sarkeesian says: Listen and Believe. But when what you’re being told to believe is absurd on its face, you have my blessing not to listen.