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.
Tag: leftist lexicon
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Normally, I wouldn’t go to gun-grabber and utter dumbass David Hogg for information on what time it was, let alone anything else, but this week he gave me a topic I wanted to research in greater detail. In the aftermath of a shooting at Club Q, a gay bar in Colorado Springs, Hogg took to Twitter to complain about stochastic terrorism.
Although the Left has been using this phrase for a few months, they haven’t really defined, except to say it’s violence inspired by those evil right wingers. You know, the ones who said it was okay to loot, burn down buildings, and build oddly-named autonomous zones on city streets…oh, wait…
Since the Left isn’t going to give us an in-depth definition, I guess it’s up to me. Otherwise, you’d just be stuck with the Mastodon piece
I did this week.
stochastic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – politically-motivated violence designed to harass and hurt Democrats and left-leaning individuals and inspired by conservative leaders and media figures
What it really means – a combination of two words designed to make Leftists sound smart without them actually being smart
Since I’m a word guy, I want to split the term into its component parts as a means to try to understand the totality. Let’s not forget the Left loves to play with language and combine words that don’t go together that well, like climate justice, democratic socialism, and Leftist intellectual.
The word stochastic is a 25 cent word that adds an intellectual heft to the phrase by virtue of sounding impressive. Thanks to our good friends at Dictionary.com, we have the following definition:
of or relating to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
After a bit more research (and a bit of common sense), it occurred to me the heart of the word involves probability or random variables. Keep this in mind for a little later because it’s going to become important.
Once again, our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a solid definition of terrorism, but I want to focus on the primary definition:
the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives
The key word here is “unlawful.” Of course, I’m curious to find an example of a lawful use of violence or threats for coercive purposes, but that’s research for another time. The point here is terrorism is, by definition, illegal, as is inciting violent or criminal actions. Just ask Charlie Manson. Oh, wait, he’s dead.
So, when we put the parts of stochastic terrorism together, we get…a confusing mess. At best, we might be able to simplify the term to mean violence or threats involving probability. And that’s reaaaaaaaaallllllllly being generous to the Left here.
Then, I see how the Left applies the term, and that generosity goes the way of Keith Olbermann’s broadcast career. The way they use it is grossly inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. In other words, the way they usually use language. Relating to the Club Q shooting, Leftists blamed Republicans, Tucker Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Walsh, MAGA Republicans, LibsofTikTok, and I’m sure anybody to the right of Joseph Stalin by now. They’ve also started laying the groundwork for the idea the past year or so of “anti-trans rhetoric” is responsible for the Club Q shooting.
First, a bit of backstory the Left keeps “forgetting” to include in their rush to damnation…I mean judgment. What the Left is calling “anti-trans rhetoric” is a response to what LibsofTikTok has been posting showing…what pro-trans teachers, medical facilities, and events have been posting themselves. Now, I’m not talking posts about trans adults, mind you. I’m talking about pro-trans rhetoric and events aimed at children.
When the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives responded to what these pro-trans PR reps with power willingly posted on their own social media, these reactions got spun from “we have no problems with trans adults, but leave the kids out of this” to “ARGLEBARGLEREPUBLICANSWANTTOKILLALLTRANSPEOPLE!” And that’s just Cenk Uygur!
And it’s through this spin that the Left’s stochastic terrorism’s hat gets hung. Unfortunately for them, it’s also where the hat falls down, lands in a pile of shit, gets puked on by pledges trying to get into a fraternity, lit on fire, thrown into a toxic waste dump (no, not Twitter), and allowed to evolve into the new Senator-Elect of Pennsylvania. Or shipped to New Jersey.
Remember what I said about what stochastic meant? Well…it doesn’t exactly apply here, using the Left’s own logic and the actual definition of the word. What the Left is doing is drawing direct lines between the Right’s rhetoric and the Club Q shooting. Now, if something is based on probability, that would require at least some level of uncertainty, a chance the final result might not happen in spite of the calculations. By targeting the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives directly, that takes away the uncertainty, which undercuts the stochasticity of the situation.
See? Told you it would be important.
Then, there’s the terrorism angle to consider. Remember, terrorism is an unlawful act. If trans people truly feel threatened by what right wing pundits and online accounts are saying, where are the reports to authorities? To my knowledge, none of the people who claim Republicans/conservatives are engaged in stochastic terrorism have filed charges, sought legal counsel, or taken any of the necessary steps to protect themselves within the law.
Now, why would that be? I’m just some old white guy in Iowa, but something tells me the trans people and their supporters know they can’t meet the legal requirements to get an investigation started. At least, without the police or federal agents laughing hysterically for 10 straight minutes over what amounts to hurt fee-fees over social media self-owns.
And to be honest, the lack of legal action is the smart play here, especially considering filing a false police report is pretty much a big no-no. Plus, it opens up a lot of problems for Leftists like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty more whose rhetoric comes a lot closer to stochastic terrorism than anything Tucker Carlson has said. But if Froggy wants to jump, I say jump. Fuck all of the around and find all of the out.
Before, I close this out, I feel I need to make something crystal clear. Not all trans people and their allies are in favor of what some members of their community are doing in the name of trans visibility. In our efforts to root out the bad actors, we need to ensure we’re not catching the good ones in the “OK Groomer” net. If we don’t, we’re going to wind up doing more damage in the long run and play into the Left’s narrative about us.
In the meantime, call out the Left’s bullshit by asking for receipts. Demand they show us what Tucker Carlson or LibsofTikTok said or did that rose to the level of terrorism. Or if you really want to embarrass them, ask them to define stochastic. Make sure to have your phone or web browser handy to show them the actual definition.
And tell them David Hogg sent ya.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Black Friday Edition!
To get us all in the holiday shopping move, I decided to whip up a special Lexicon edition! And, no, I don’t have the receipt, so you can’t return it.
With Elon Musk making massive changes at Twitter, Leftists have been of two minds: one, Twitter is dead, and two, there has to be an alternative to Twitter that will be better. Of course, this makes as much sense as a death ray invented for peaceful purposes, but this is the Left we’re dealing with here.
Well, the Left has been promoting Mastodon as just such an alternative. Now, if you’ve never heard of it, don’t be surprised. It’s only been around since 2016, but now Leftists are starting to get the ban hammer for shit they’ve been getting away with for years, they’re looking for any USB port in a storm. Will they find safe harbor there? Will it become as big or bigger than Twitter? Will the Detroit Lions ever win another Thanksgiving Day football game? We’ll find these answers and more!
Mastodon
What the Left thinks it means – a better version of Twitter, post-Musk
What it really means – social media for Leftists who prefer pre-Musk Twitter where they do whatever they want
Whenever there’s a new cultural phenomenon, Leftists tend to do one of two things: co-opt it so it can be turned into a propaganda arm, or try to copy what the Right is doing. As the Left has discovered, it’s easier to do the former than the latter because all the heavy lifting of actually producing something has already been done. All they have to do is show up and find their ways into key positions to drive the propaganda. This has been pretty successful, considering when they’ve tried to imitate the Right (i.e. Err…I mean Air America) they’ve managed to fuck it all up.
This is how the Left got to hold so much power at Twitter and other social media sites like Facebook and YouTube. With the combination of tech-savvy true believers and sympathetic (or just pathetic) corporate leadership, Leftist enjoyed free reign without fear of consequences. After all, as long as they were on the right side of issues (i.e. so far Left it makes Karl Marx look like Milton Friedman), they weren’t doing anything wrong.
I mean, aside from targeted harassment, doxxing people, death threats, and censoring of stories that broke the Leftist narrative, of course.
Once Musk started asking questions, Leftists started circling the wagons to deny what had been a given on both sides of the aisle, and it wasn’t even a secret it was going on. Don’t believe what has been documented numerous times! Believe the narrative (which has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the middle of gangland shootout)!
Yeah. I’m not even on Twitter and I know the official stance pre-Musk was bullshit. It’s not even a mystery why Leftists and their media pals (redundant, I know) started saying Twitter was turning into a cesspool after Musk took over. It even inspired the idea Twitter would be dead within a week, as predicted by a (now possibly former) employee.
Yeah, that didn’t happen.
So, what does any of this have to do with Mastodon? Aside from the Left’s snowflake (emphasis on flake) attitudes about having to share their sandbox with those icky right wingers, it shows they’re willing to try to ruin another social media platform so they don’t have to share. Just with Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Mastodon saw a boom in users, and judging from the positive press gushing over it, they were mostly Leftists.
Yet, with growing popularity comes increased scrutiny of the tech security and ideological varieties. I won’t go into the tech side of it because a) that’s more Chris’ wheelhouse, and b) I can’t say as I understand the ins and outs well enough to discuss it. From my interpretation of the articles I read, Mastodon’s security may be as effective as Kanye West’s advisor on Jewish affairs.
But on the ideological side? I am so there.
It seems the ban-hammer harpies that used to infest Twitter have already infested Mastodon. In the short time since Leftists fled there, there has been a Ban-A-Palooza against…Leftists! Yep! They’ve started eating their own over there, including noted Leftist Wil Wheaton, apparently for not being woke enough. The irony? Wil loved to block people on Twitter for saying “Shut up, Wesley” on his account. Now, Mastodon has literally shut him up.
Another user was allegedly banned from the site for, get this, being a capitalist. I would be hesitant to run with this story because I haven’t been able to verify it independently. I add it here as a possible example of just how far Mastodon has gone in just a short time.
In thinking about how the Mastodon influx has unfolded (mainly since I can’t watch my Baltimore Ravens on Sundays with any degree of certainty or without having to fork over my immortal soul), I came across an interesting hypothesis, and with everything I’ve found and relayed to you, I have a hard time ignoring it.
Mastodon is a long-term troll against the Left.
Granted, some of these ideas are out there like the Hubble, but let me lay out the case for you.
First, think about how you say the word “Mastodon.” Most people would pronounce the first “o” with an “a” sound, so “Mastadon” instead of “Mastodon.” Now, put a little vocal comma between the second syllable “sto” and the third syllable “don.” Put it all together and you have “Masta Don.” As in “Master Donald Trump.”
Holy Own Goal, Batman!
Then, there’s the bans I mentioned earlier. Not only are they on-brand for Leftists, but they are so on-brand as to throw up red flags that it might be a long game for someone who wants to fuck with the Left, a la Titania McGrath. I’ve always felt one of the best ways to mock Leftists is to hold a mirror up to how they act and crank up the absurdity to 11 (because it’s one higher). If I’m right about Mastodon, they have mastered this so sublimely as to be virtually indistinguishable from the authentic Leftist.
However, I could be wrong and Mastodon is really trying to be a successful competitor to Twitter. If so, I have no qualms about it. Competition tends to make a product or service better, so even if Mastodon is as competitive with Twitter as the Detroit Lions is to, well, just about any other NFL team, there might be enough incentive for Elon Musk to make changes to improve the overall quality of the app. Then again, the Leftist exodus from Twitter has already done that, so well done, sir!
If Mastodon wants to be around longer than a TikTok video, I have a suggestion. Start up other social media alternatives and name them after other prehistoric animals. You know, like…oh, let me spitball here, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, Saber Tooth Tiger, and Tyrannosaurus. Then, merge them all into a single company called Megazord Inc. Maybe include room for a Dragonzord in there, too.
You’re welcome.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After every election, political leaders, pundits, and squawking heads try to figure out why the two major parties performed the way they did. Leftists, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, came down hard against one factor they feel helped Republicans retake the House of Representatives: redistricting.
Oh, they still talk about gerrymandering (and still get it wrong when they do), but this time they’re really drilling down on the fact Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis got favorable results from redistricting, i.e. Democrats going down like the New York Yankees in this year’s Major League Baseball postseason. But unlike Leftists, the Bronx Bombers can’t blame DeSantis for a poor performance. Then again, it might just work…
In either case, the Left is trying to get us to believe redistricting has negative connotations, so naturally it’s up to us to uncover real reason Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden.
redistricting
What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by Republicans to draw favorable Congressional Districts so more of their candidates win
What it means – a process that is not only legal, but done by both major parties so more of their respective candidates win
Every 10 years, the US government conducts a census, which helps give it a better idea of demographic trends in certain areas. This information gets parlayed into a number of other decisions, including how to draw Congressional Districts. As population surges and ebbs, the shape of each District can change depending on who gets to determine how each District gets to be drawn. Although it varies from state-to-state, the majority of states allow the party in power at the state level to draw the Districts, and it’s supposed to be done in a non-partisan manner.
Yeah, and I have some cryptocurrency in FTX that’s worth billions.
Instead of drawing logical and appropriate Districts, politicians tend to draw them like a drunk Lindsay Lohan with an Etch-A-Sketch. (For you Leftists out there reading this, the link I just posted provides examples of actual gerrymandering, so you can finally figure out what it means. You’re welcome.) And when the party in power controls how the sausage gets made, the Congressional Districts are going to look like a fever-dream combination of Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher, and Pablo Picasso after an LSD bender with Jim Morrison.
Or in simpler terms, like the hosts on “The View” but more logical.
Because of the way most states handle redistricting, control of state legislatures and gubernatorial positions becomes essential. Although the 2022 elections brought the gubernatorial numbers close to even, Republicans still control the majority of state legislatures. In other words, Republicans still have the power to draw districts or Democrats flip more states, whichever comes first before the next census in 2030.
If trends continue, that means 8 more years of Leftist seething over Republicans having any control over elections whatsoever. Provided our good friend Uncle George Soros doesn’t decide to pull more shenanigans to rig who counts the votes, of course…
Thus, we’ve arrived at the real reason why Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden. Even in the states where they have the ability to affect change, they lack the control in the entire country to enact their ideological goals. And it means they have to deal with…REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS! The horror!
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want people to be in control of who they elect…unless it’s one of their approved candidates! But I’m sure that’s not true. Only a bunch of emotionally stunted insecure adult-babies would think that way, right?
So, how do we address the problem of drawing Congressional Districts the shape of Olive Oyl with a bad case of scoliosis? Some states have non-partisan committees that meet to agree upon redistricting, and some states even allow the committee’s recommendations to be vetoed. Simple, easy, and fair, right? In theory, yes, but when politics gets involved, the practice may not always follow the theory.
Let’s take one of the hot spots from the midterms, Arizona. Under the state guidelines, there are 25 seats available, with 10 going to Democrats, 10 to Republicans, and 5 to unaffiliated citizens. If the 20 politically-affiliated members are deadlocked, logic would suggest all decisions would come down to which side persuaded the 5 unaffiliated members.
That would work…except the GOP tends not to be so monolithic in approach. Yes, the state that gave us conservative stalwart J. D. Hayworth also gave us John McCain, which means the Arizona GOP can have more identities than Sybil. That tends to work in favor of Democrats, whose hivemind approach makes ganging up…I mean carefully considering the drawing of district boundaries a lot easier on them.
Even if you’re not sold on the partisanship angle, here is the most recent finalized redistricting map the commission put together. If this is the best a crack team of officials can come up with, maybe we should assume they’re all on crack and move on from there.
Having said that, I’m not completely down on the idea of the non-partisan committee drawing up Congressional Districts. I just think the idea needs to be tweaked a bit. For example, do we really need 25 people to make a decision like this? Fuck no! Pick one person at random from the active and eligible voting base in each District, or in the cases of states that only have one District, 3 to 5. Since it’s random, the political fuckery will be lessened.
From there, each member has to review the existing map and be able to speak to why it is the way it is. The more these members learn about the districts, the more likely they’re going to find out where the bullshit is. After a certain amount of time (say, a week), they convene to discuss what they’ve found and how to redraw the Districts if needed. When there are disputes arising from practical concerns, the committee as a whole votes on it with majority rule. In case of a tie (because this is going to happen), the Districts in question stay the way they are.
In the case of ideological concerns causing redistricting trouble, though, those will automatically be non-starters. We’re trying to draw Congressional Districts, not play a live action game of Risk here.
I will admit there are bound to be flaws in my idea (and I’m sure people will let me know how much of a dumbass I am for even thinking up the idea), but compared to what we have now, it’s bound to be better.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Now that the midterm elections are over…mostly, we can now turn our attentions back to one of the most important issues of the modern world.
Blue checkmarks on Twitter.
Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, Leftists have been losing their hivemind adjusting to the new boss not being the same as the old boss. From wanting to layoff 75% of the workforce (a good start) to suspending Kathy Griffin’s account for impersonating Musk in spite of requests to not do it (an excellent middle), the straw that broke the camel’s back was Musk introducing a fee to get a blue checkmark. The original suggested price for this was $20, but after interacting with horror author and general fuckwit Stephen King, Musk dropped it down to $8.
You would have thought you voted for Donald Trump the way the Left reacted. Even our favorite Congresscritter the Socialist Socialite got involved, sending multiple tweets about issues ranging from technical issues she blamed on Musk (that were later proven to be user error) to Twitter no longer being a good platform to talk to actual journalists and politicians to the irony of having to pay $8 for free speech (which is not only not ironic, but also not accurate).
All of this over a stupid blue checkmark.
But, as you might expect, there’s a lot more under the surface driving the Left’s outrage.
Twitter blue checkmark
What the Left thinks it means – a vital tool to combating impersonation and ensuring people know they’re getting information directly from the source
What it really means – a status symbol that was abused by those wanting to control the flow of information and who was seen as credible
It’s said the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the same applies to the information superhighway. What Twitter attempted to do was to curtail the number of people impersonating famous people, which isn’t bad in and of itself. As with tools or Congresscritters (but I repeat myself), it’s all in how they’re used that determine the ultimate outcome.
In the case of the blue checkmark, the tool became used to separate the valued from the unwashed masses, the elite from the normies, and the credible from the Weekly World News-esque information brokers. Now, if the process to getting one was the same across the board, it wouldn’t be an issue. However, pre-Musk Twitter made it an issue. Although official Twitter guidelines state there are no minimum membership requirements, they have a number of requirements that have to be met to be considered for verification.
Such as being famous.
And people wonder why I think Twitter is the Hannah Gadsby of social media: painfully unfunny, yet mind-bogglingly popular with certain parts of the population.
Let’s call the pre-Musk blue checkmark what it was: a participation trophy for people whose actual accomplishments make me look like, well, Elon Musk. The fact it got handed out to users in a scattershot manner (with many Leftists getting the checkmark without fail) made it valuable, but only to those looking for clout. Try paying your mortgage with a blue checkmark sometime. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it doesn’t end well unless you enjoy living in your car.
The best part about it? You could get your verification removed for any reasons without prior warning. And who got to decide that? Why, Twitter employees who lean so far Left they’re parallel to the ground. That’s how Leftists like Tara Dublin (aka the woman who flipped off a Trump supporter, called him names, and attempted to play the victim) has a verified account, but so many Right-leaning people or even neutral people have to jump through flaming hoops just to get denied.
By the way, I’m going to have to ask for hazard pay for looking at Dublin’s Twitter account. I think $10 will cover it because, well, ten bucks is ten bucks, eh.
Now that everybody with $8 can get verified, the Leftist elites aren’t so elite anymore, which pisses them off to no end. Before Musk got involved, they had free reign to do what they wanted without repercussions, even if their actions went against Twitter’s Terms of Service. But that’s what made Twitter the social media Love Canal that it was. Even a slight correction to remove the toxicity is enough for Leftists to lose their shit. Fortunately for them, there’s plenty more on the streets of San Francisco.
What is that saying Leftists always bring up these days? Something about equality feeling like oppression to a certain group…
Oh, well. I’m sure there’s no other current event where this is being proven in a way the Left didn’t expect.
Of course, the best part about this is Twitter sued Musk so his offer to buy Twitter would go through. And Leftists openly pushed for this to happen, citing legal precedent. To paraphrase a famous line from “Pawn Stars,” congratulations, Leftists. You just fucked yourselves sideways with a rototiller.
The reason for the current outrage goes beyond the Left losing a meaningless status. Instead, it goes straight to a loss of power and the potential for Big Tech comeuppance, which will further erode the Left’s power within the tech industry. If Musk is even remotely successful in turning Twitter around and being profitable doing it, there will be a seismic shift in how Big Tech does business. After all, you can’t base a successful business model around people not known for being gainfully employed. Just ask Air America…oh, wait…
The $8 for a blue checkmark stings in another way. Back in the day when conservatives would complain about Twitter unfairly applying the TOS, Leftists would respond with, “Twitter is a private company and can set whatever rules they want.” Which is true, but a piss-poor justification for one-sided enforcement of rules. Now, they’re not so keen on the idea Twitter can do what it wants because it’s a private company. Instead, they want to be special and hold it over everyone else’s head, but Musk isn’t having it.
Now that the salt’s been poured in the wound, would you like some tequila and a lime to go along with it?
I’ve never had a Twitter account (mainly because there are too many twits on it), and I still don’t intend to get one because I don’t see the need to get into a social media dick measuring contest with people I wouldn’t let in my house, let alone my Twitter space. But I have seen this very scenario play out before, so I know how it ends.
Back in the day, America Online was the hot spot for anybody who was anybody. And, yes, it had a problem with biased enforcement of the Terms of Service, mainly in favor of Leftists who could impersonate other chatters, swear, lie, post private information of others, and generally be assholes. Not only was I the victim of such Leftist asshattery, but for a time I was a member of the enforcement arm, monitoring a political chatroom for anyone who violated the rules. While I did my best to be fair (and judging from the number of times Leftists and Rightists complained about my performance, I think I was), others weren’t so honest.
Soon, AOL’s chatrooms, particularly the political ones, were nuclear wastelands without the charm. Instead of nipping the clear bias problems in the bud, the powers that be decided to let it slide. And it slid…right off the edge of a cliff. Now, AOL is regarded in the same way CompuServe was regarded back when AOL was popular. Is it because of the bias? Maybe, but it’s definitely more due to bad management of which biased TOS enforcement is a part.
Pre-Musk Twitter was going down the same road AOL did, right down to the impending irrelevancy. With other social media sites like TikTok and Instagram coming onto the scene, Twitter’s popularity among younger generations has been dropping like Kanye West’s corporate sponsors. Any businessman or woman worth his/her salt could see this and try to make changes as a means to preserve the platform.
And that meant ripping the bandage off the gaping chest wound and addressing the problems without considering Leftist fee-fees, or at least asking they pay fee-fees for their electronic superiority complex. And if they don’t…Twitter is still free to use, just like it is for everyone else who doesn’t feel the need to spend $8. It’s not the end of the world, free flow of information, free speech, access to journalists and celebrities, and everything the Left wants us to believe is coming due to the proposed changes to the Twitter blue checkmark program. Ultimately, it’s Leftists getting pissed off because their blue checkmark doesn’t make them special anymore. It just means they are dumb or egotistical enough to pay to get their Tweets about politics, news, and selfies noticed.
In short, they want to feel like celebrities without the body of work to support it. (Hey, it worked for Paris Hilton!)
I welcome the changes Elon Musk will be making to Twitter down the road, if only to see Leftists’ heads explode. And if the blue checkmark changes are any indication, smart investors will go in heavy on tarps, ponchos, and rubber boots very, very soon.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I decided to step away from the midterm elections this week to focus on a story that caught my eye, and not in a good way. Emily Oster wrote a piece for our good fiends…I mean friends at The Atlantic with the title “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty.” Although Ms. Oster’s body of work on COVID-19 has been much more towards following the science (not that science, the real science), the main point of her piece was an attempt to bring us together again and have an honest discussion about where to go from here.
Yeah, and I’m in the running to be the next Pope.
Although the Left has critiqued her work by citing she gets funding from “right wing think tanks,” I haven’t seen anybody on the Left say anything supporting or rejecting it, which means…they’re probably waiting on the polling data to come up with a position.
Still, it’s worth looking into, if only to fill my weekly requirement of text-based snark.
pandemic amnesty
What the Left thinks it means – ummm…we’ll get back to you on that
What the Right things it means – a move to absolve Leftists from their multitude of bad decisions and examples of government overreach
What it really means – pissing into the wind and hoping we don’t get too much splashback
In my lifetime, there have been few issues that have divided the country as much as COVID-19. The Cola Wars of the 80s came pretty close, mind you. (#TeamPepsi) In the midst of the chaos over the severity of the sickness and what to do, we were all looking for something to cling to in order to keep our sanity. For the Left, it was government and science. Not the Trump Administration, mind you, as the current President and Vice-President both expressed doubts about the COVID-19 vaccines developed under Trump. But once he was out of office, everything was cool! The vaccines were totes safe, people!
And who couldn’t trust two people who flip-flopped more than John Kerry working as an IHOP cook for commission only?
Meanwhile, the Right tended to apply a bit more scrutiny to the claims being made from the Left, so they did their own research. Which caused them to get mocked as unintelligent conspiracy theorists that were hurting the real research efforts. Furthermore, the scrutiny was being painted as being anti-vaccination, which opened up the door for other denigrating accusations from the skeptics being anti-science to wanting children to die. And anyone who was anti-vax who died from COVID? Well, they deserved it and don’t deserve any pity, according to the loving, mature Left.
Guess what, bitches? The Right was, well, right with their skepticism a good chunk of the time. From COVID deaths being overcounted to COVID-19 possibly being manmade to Dr. Anthony Fauci lying to Congress about gain-of-function research out of Wuhan, China, where COVID is alleged to have originated. And as we learn more, the more the “conspiracy theories” that got dismissed by the people claiming to “follow the science” get revisited and often vindicated.
But not by the people requesting amnesty.
See, the Left has a lot at stake in maintaining the perceived validity of their COVID narrative, namely in the realms of power. Political, social, financial, it didn’t matter, COVID opened a lot of doors for a lot of politicians to enact laws and rules for everyone else but themselves. Even in the throes of COVID, that shit didn’t go unnoticed. Making matters worse was their nigh-draconian approach to lockdowns. Let’s just say Australia had nothing on Michigan Governor Gretchen “Witless” Whitmer and her Box Wine Brigade. Viral videos of mothers, fathers, and children getting yelled at by grown adults acting like hall monitors for not wearing masks, playing outside, and any number of activities with low-to-no risk to the people complaining. Remember, kids, COVID struck the elderly the hardest, not a little girl playing on the swing set on a nice spring day.
For all of their “science” following, the Left’s biggest threat is actual science. As we’re finding out, lockdowns didn’t work, masks weren’t all that effective, and we did a ton of psychological damage across the board, all because some Leftists decided a global pandemic was the perfect time to ram totalitarianism in a paper mask down our collective throats.
And these are the fucknuggets who want amnesty?
In a word, no.
In two words, fuck no.
In three words, fuckity fuck no.
In four words…I think you get the picture.
While most people are focused on rejecting the pandemic amnesty idea, we have to ask why it’s being offered now. For that, we can look to actions from this year. In January, the US Supreme Court ruled OSHA didn’t have the regulatory power to mandate “vaccine or test” rules for private companies with 100 or more employees. The New York Supreme Court for Richmond County recently ruled workers who were fired for being unvaccinated were to be reinstated. Massachusetts also rehired workers fired for not getting the jab, albeit without back pay and some benefits.
What does this mean? The tide is turning against those who pushed the COVID overreach for years, only to now think pandemic amnesty is a realistic possibility. It’s not, but it’s a nice dream to hold onto as Karma comes knocking on your doors, right?
The fact the courts and even Left-leaning states like Massachusetts have started pushing back against the Left threatens the narrative, and the power structures Leftists built because of COVID. With that, the Left have a choice to make: swallow their pride and admit they were wrong, double down on their discredited bullshit, or try to find a way to weasel out of admitting they were wrong while looking contrite in the process.
Right now the jury’s still out on what the Left will do, but I get the feeling the pandemic amnesty issue may be what they ultimately decide upon so they can straddle the line between accepting and rejecting responsibility, all while betting we forget what they made happen.
We won’t, of course, because we’re still dealing with the aftermath of the Left’s overreach. But Karma may be visiting the Left sooner than they think, with the midterm elections being a couple of days away (Please check local listings for the Election Day near you.) Although it’s not a lock, the party out of the White House tends to pick up seats during the midterms.
And with the economy, inflation, and energy woes weighing on voters’ minds (and pocketbooks), Leftists are on track to get stomped like grapes at a wine-making festival. While Leftists try to write excuses for their losses, they only need look at what they’ve done since 2020 for the answer as to why they lost and will continue to lose.
Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you.
Regardless of where you stand on the past couple of years, it’s clear pandemic amnesty should be a non-starter. Those who supported the government’s position on how to address COVID should man up (but, then again, I’m not a doctor) and say, “Yeah, we fucked up, and we’re going to make amends.” What they will do, however, remains to be seen, but I get the feeling they’ll pretend like nothing was wrong.
Which will make it easier for Republicans to win in 2024. So, win-win, I guess?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
By the time you read this, it will be close to or the end of October, which means two things. One, the Detroit Lions are mathematically eliminated from the post season, and two, it’s almost the end of Election Season. And of the two, the latter is clearly more painful.
It’s also the start of what the Left hopes to be a major turning point in what is looking to be a political assbeating of Biblical proportions. They’re hoping to energize women voters using one of the major wedge issues of my lifetime, abortion. After the US Supreme Court did the unthinkable and made abortion a state issue, Leftists created the term Roevember.
And, thus, the month of my birth gets ruined, but for a completely different reason.
Roevember
What the Left thinks it means – a rallying cry for women to vote out Republicans to protect their reproductive rights
What it really means – a neat catchphrase for an issue that isn’t that important right now
It’s conventional political wisdom that the party that controls the Presidency loses Congressional seats during the midterms, and you can count on the one hand of the world’s worst butcher the number of times it hasn’t happened in recent history. That means, if conventional wisdom holds true this year, Democrats stand to lose at least some of their elections. That gives them a vested interest in keeping their base energized. And what better way to do that than to hype up the potential of losing abortion rights unless Democrats get elected/reelected?
I mean, aside from coming up with an actual platform.
Under normal conditions, this tactic might work. After all, a Gallup poll from earlier this year shows a majority of American adults consider themselves to be pro choice, with 61% of women identifying as such. Granted, I’m not a doctor, so I might be assuming the respondents’ genders, but I’m going to go with it for the purposes of this sketch.
Unfortunately for Democrats, these midterms aren’t normal, and I’m not just talking about the freaks Democrats have running in certain races. (And I apologize to all the freaks out there for comparing them to Democrats.) When it comes to issues Americans think are important, abortion is waaaaaaaaaay down the list. Why it’s almost as if people are more concerned with the ec0nomy than killing babies! The absolute nerve!
This begs the question of why Leftists would continue to push abortion rights as an issue when the more pressing issue is the flaming dumpster fire that is our economy. I’m glad you asked! I have an idea about why that is. It may not be original, so if someone else thought of this first, I’m sure someone will let me know in the comments.
Politics today revolved heavily around what each side of the aisle considers to be what’s wrong with the world. When the economy is flush, the Right turn inward to find inspiration for what changes they want to make and then try to turn that inner vision into outer action. When the economy sucks more than a million Dysons at the center of a black hole, the Right’s introspection doesn’t extend outside of their homes very often, except to commiserate with others in the same boat.
The Left, on the other hand, don’t diversify their opinions on what’s wrong with the world. The issues they felt were super-ultra-important in 1992 aren’t too different than they are in 2022. Even the various “new” issues they’ve raised are offshoots of issues they’ve been railing on for decades, just with a new coat of paint. And no matter what, good economy or bad, these issues will always be at the core of the Left’s campaigns.
Which means they are woefully out of touch with the electorate this year.
One of the Left’s big assumptions is the 167.5 million women in the United States will be coming out to vote in Roevember. Although we don’t have any official numbers for the 2022 midterms (because they haven’t happened yet), it’s normal for voter turnout to be lower for midterm elections as opposed to Presidential elections. Let’s assume the numbers FairVote provides in the aforementioned link are accurate and voter turnout is 40%. That means only 67 million women will be voting, and of those 40.87 million of them consider themselves to be pro choice. Not an insignificant number, but a lot lower than the 167.5 million the Left predict will take part in Roevember. And that assumes all of those 40.87 million are a) eligible to vote, and b) inspired to vote for Democrats. A lot of assumptions being made on an issue only 4% of Americans surveyed think is important.
I promise the rest of this piece won’t be so numbers-heavy.
Although Leftists are great with catchy slogans, they’re piss-poor with timing. With the economy and inflation running rampant like Godzilla in a Japanese fishing village, they’ve chosen to make “let’s kill babies in the womb” their rallying cry. Then again, if my party was responsible for the Godzilla-esque trampling of the economy, I might want to try to divert attention to something else, too.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of the people reading this aren’t going to fall for the repackaging job the Left is doing with Roevember, but just know there are plenty outside of this group that will. If nothing else, just run down the numbers with them and let them know their passion for voting because of Roevember would be better suited for something far more productive.
Booing the Detroit Lions.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re getting sick of political ads polluting the airwaves right now. It seems any infraction from an overdue library book in third grade to supporting extreme positions like expecting teachers not to indoctrinate their students into believing they’re transgendered when they still get nap time gets turned into a massive scandal designed to make voters not like a particular candidate. And sometimes these attacks play fast and loose with the facts.
And by sometimes, I mean more frequently than Lindsey Lohan goes back to rehab.
Recently, the Left has rolled out a phrase to describe Republican and conservative candidates who have questions about the 2020 Presidential election went down: election deniers. Although this seems like a silly accusation, the Left is pretty serious about making it stick to as many Republican candidates and their supporters as possible. Which, of course, means it caught my attention.
election deniers
What the Left thinks it means – crazy conspiracy theorists, usually Trump Republicans, who believe the 2020 Presidential election wasn’t legitimate
What it really means – a phrase used to disparage Republicans and conservatives for not accepting the Leftist spin on the 2020 Presidential election
There are two camps with regards to the 2020 Presidential election: those who believe it was the most secure election in our history, and those who have been paying attention. To put it as diplomatically as I can, the election itself was a shitshow of Golgothan proportions. While under the auspices of an election (something Leftists swore up and down Donald Trump would never allow as he installed himself as Big Head Honcho For Life) held during a pandemic, there was some shady shit going on by both teams…I mean parties.
Although the Leftist line has gone from “there wasn’t any systemic voter fraud” to “there was some, but it’s not significant,” they maintain anyone who questions the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election is a loony. Pardon my pedantry for a moment, but wouldn’t the fact there was voter fraud undermine the notion the 2020 election was hunky-dory? Whether it was significant enough to affect the outcome of the election is immaterial because it’s not the scope that matters in the end. Well, except if you’re a proctologist performing a colonoscopy, that is.
I will admit much of the election denial right now is coming from the Right, particularly those on the Trump Train. But I also remember waaaaaaaaay back in 2016 when Leftists were engaged in a little election denial of their own, including current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Granted, she is an idiot, but surely that was an isolated incident, right?
Not. So. Much.
In fact, Leftists and Democrats have a long list of election denials themselves dating back to the 2000 election. To this day, I’m worried there is a male porn star named Hanging Chad out there still getting work, but that’s not important right now.
And let’s not overlook (as if that’s humanly possible) the most prominent election denier the Left has, Stacey Abrams. After being defeated by her Republican opponent for Governor of Georgia, she not only denied she lost, but turned it into a political action movement, a book deal, a cameo on an episode of “Star Trek: Discovery,” and more magazine covers and puff pieces than Michelle Obama. And all that while being Governor of Georgia, no less! Oh wait…
So, Leftists are hypocrites when it comes to election denial, which is no surprise to anyone with Interwebs access and a memory longer than a TikTok video. This leads us to the question of why they’ve switched opinions and now think denying election results is bad. Well, it comes down to power, which is the coin of the Leftist realm. Well, that and incredibly shitty takes on how to fix the problems they cause. When the Left is on the outside looking in, it’s okay to question even the most lopsided Republican victories because, according to the Left, Republicans can’t win elections without cheating. However, when the Left is in power, questioning the elections is tantamount to treason or, even worse, wearing white after Labor Day.
Even if it can be established there were some irregularities in the vote count.
If the Left’s turn of a phrase reminds you of something, it should, since it’s the same language they use when discussing global climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophes/whatever the Left is calling it this nanosecond. The idea behind it is to suggest anyone who disagrees with the “facts” (i.e. what the Left wants us to believe) is disreputable and denies reality. Yet, these same Leftists who claim to have the facts on their side go out of their ways to suppress any information that runs counter to their conclusions. They’ve gone so far as to ratchet up the rhetoric to 11 (because it’s one higher) by calling them science deniers. Not only are you denying climate change, but you are denying science as a whole. Who could listen to crackpots like that?
Me, for one. I am by nature curious and I want to gather as much information as I can before rendering a decision. Through that, I’ve learned to pick out questionable information and information sources when they don’t make sense. And calling someone a “denier” when there’s a vested interest in doing so is a big red flag.
With the 2020 elections, both sides have a vested interest in either confirming or rejecting the outcome, so it’s a wash. But right now there’s only one side making a case that has identifiable and verifiable flaws from the jump, and, spoiler alert, it’s the side who spent every year since 2016 saying the election results were rigged and doing everything they can to turn the Presidential election into a popular vote contest. If there are any Leftists reading this (or having it be read to you because of all the big words being used) who are confused about who these people are, look in the mirror.
The larger point, however, is the “word magic” being used to get people to squelch any concerns they have about the 2020 election by appealing to popularity and authority. Eagle-eyed readers will remember these are logical fallacies designed to give the impression of being correct without having to go through that pesky task of presenting facts. After all, the Socialist Socialite told us it was better to be morally right than factually correct, and who are we to disagree with her?
That, kids, is an example of what I’m talking about with appeals to authority and popularity. We are being told to ignore our gut instincts if we think something’s not kosher because it will lead to ridicule and disgrace (often hurled in our direction by those telling us to ignore our instincts). Maybe it’s me, but the surest way to make me more skeptical is to tell me not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The fact Leftists are working so hard to avoid addressing at least some of the questions surrounding Joe Biden’s victory tells me they know they’re bullshitting us.
But to be fair, they’ve had a lot on their plates investigating Donald Trump for having Russian dressing on a salad he ate in 1998. But once they’re done with that, I’m sure they’ll have time for answer the questions. Granted, it will be 2638, and that’s only if the investigation into Trump laughing at a Yakov Smirnoff set wraps up early.
In the meantime, the best way to address the Left painting anyone as an election denier can be summarized in two words: So what? This question is one the Left can’t answer without looking like authoritarian assholes or dishonest assholes. Or assholes in general, but the point’s the same. They don’t know why anyone would disagree with them and they’re not interested in finding out, but they’re heavily invested in making sure no one questions them.
But their tactics only work if you are scared of the consequences. If you gave your last fuck at the office and have no intention of getting more, you remove the fear and subsequently the power the Left wants you to believe they have. And if you want to have more fun, tell them you self-identify as something and their questioning is harassment and, thus, violence. And make them use your pronouns!
No matter what the Left tries to tell you, there are some loose ends related to the 2020 Presidential election that haven’t been tied up yet. As Americans, we can and should ask questions until we get answers that make sense or are persuasive enough to make us look at the situation differently. Even if we don’t like the answers we ultimately get, knowledge is about the journey and not the destination. And maybe even the friends we made along the way.
Except Jeff. He’s an asshole.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Every election cycle has its share of controversies and the 2022 midterm elections are no different. In the race for an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania, we have Republican Dr. Mehmet “Dr. Oz” Oz and Democrat John “I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One in My Parents’ Basement” Fetterman. Now, I don’t have a dog in this race (mainly because a) I don’t live in Pennsylvania, and b) I don’t care for either candidate), but there was something interesting that came up after a recent interview with Fetterman.
An NBC reporter had a one-on-one interview with Fetterman and video footage showed the candidate having clear problems answering questions. Not like the usual politician, mind you. Actual problems understanding and responding to questions. Granted, Fetterman had a stroke which affected his hearing and speech, so this isn’t unusual. However, the Left found a way to attack the reporter and the interview as “ableist” because both made Fetterman look incapable to handle the rigors of being a Senator. In Fetterman’s defense, I’ve had more rigorous naps than what a Senator has to deal with, but I wanted to touch on the ableist topic for a bit, if for no other reason than to expose some of the hidden truths behind the Left’s outrage in this case.
ableism
What the Left thinks it means – discriminating in favor of people who appear to be more capable at the expense of those who are less so
What it really means – another way for Leftists to generate resentment for conditions that may not be controllable
Human beings can be incredibly superficial, as anyone who has followed the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery professions can attest. It’s easy to overlook the potential contributions someone with disabilities can make if we just look at the surface. It’s a matter of finding where they can have the best impact. In a scientific lecture, I would listen to Dr. Stephen Hawking in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t want him to play center for the Los Angeles Lakers, mainly because, well, he’s dead. Then again, given the Lakers’ recent post-season history, it might be an improvement.
Leftists typically don’t think much beyond the surface level of such a population because to do so would mean they would have to consider a smarter, more inclusive approach. Instead, it’s one-size-fits-all! If you’re black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, disabled/handicapped, or whatever else, you’re automatically oppressed! And if you happen to be a black Hispanic gay lesbian female disabled/handicapped person, you could be the next White House Press Secretary under Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, the “oppressors” (i.e. the “ableists”) are stuck in a Faustian deal when interacting with those who have disabilities. For as selfish and superficial as people can be, there are still quite a few of us out there with genuine concern and compassion. Although we may just want to help, we sometimes overcorrect and wind up treating the handicapped as the incapable, which makes us look ableist. And if we don’t even make an overture to help, we’re branded as ableist anyway because, according to the Left, we’re horrified by those different than us.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Of course, I’ll be damned if I let Leftists define what I am. (See what I did there?) The fact the Left has taken up this cause at this point for a Senate candidate, while not doing the same for a Republican candidate who had a stroke, says a lot about them, and not a lot of it good. I’m sure they’ll try to pass it off as a change of heart, raised consciousness, or trying to make it sound like it’s no big deal, blaming the reporter for the furor over the story, or comparing him to the aforementioned Dr. Hawking. You know, the usual post-fuck-up protocol for Leftists.
In the meantime, the matter of ableism is still on the table. Although I will concede there are people who will treat people with disabilities as though they were less than human, most people fall into the category is “we have no fucking clue of what to do, so it’s gonna be awkward.” We’re just trying to figure it out without offending anyone. Of course, with Leftists involved, that’s impossible because they’re always offended at something. And when they get offended, they get pissed off and willing to cut a bitch on your behalf.
Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s nothing good on TV), is actually diminishing the people Leftists believe they’re supporting. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s still nothing good on TV), is pretty much on-brand for the Left. They need there to be victims so they have someone to fight for, thus fulfilling their psychological needs. As far as the people they’re fighting for are concerned, fuck ’em! It’s the Leftists’ feelings and goals that really matter!
And it’s this attitude that drives the entire ableism idea. You’re not trying to fix anything; you’re just trying to find a way to make yourselves feel less awkward about people with disabilities. Instead of treating each person like a human being, Leftists have to see the handicapped as broken, mainly because Leftists tend to be broken people themselves. And Leftists believe only they can fix anything just by caring enough.
That’s why I never hire Leftist plumbers.
The key to overcoming ableism, or at least what the Leftists feel is ableism, is taking the time to recognize what everyone brings to the table. Sure, you might not want to get in a car with a blind Uber driver, but getting someone to translate Braille? Top of the fucking list. But Leftists are of the attitude that unless you have a blind Uber driver, you’re somehow diminishing the driver’s self-worth, which is bullshit. By trying to shoehorn a person into a position he or she isn’t capable of doing, you’re only hurting the person you’ve attempted to elevate.
Your Honor, I present Exhibits A and B, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Whomever wins the Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Left will accuse people of ableism. If John Fetterman loses, it’ll be because people didn’t look past his mental lapses to see his potential. If he wins, any criticism of his performance will be chalked up as ableism. It’s a no-win situation, but it’s one that can be overcome by not playing at all. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated and pay attention to the needs and wants of the disabled. At worst, you’ll make a new friend or gain a better understanding of what they go through, which will make future interactions…well, still awkward, but less so. But in embracing the awkwardness, we can do something the Left can never do: get past our prejudices.
Oh, and bathe.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
We have a lot on our plates these days, what with inflation making prices higher than Snoop Dogg on any day that ends with, well, “day,” a potential world war starting due to the Russia-Ukraine war, OPEC+ nations signalling they would cut production which would drive up gas prices, and a lot of other matters. Good thing we have an Administration willing to tackle the tough issues, like…equity.
In fact, between Vice President Kamala Harris talking about equity in fighting climate change as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announcing the Biden economic plan focusing on racial equity, the concept has gotten some much-needed attention. Which means it will get some much-needed mockery this week.
equity
What the Left thinks it means – a way to level the playing field and address past injustices against affected people
What it really means – a shift away from equality and towards disparate treatment done in the name of equality
Although equality and equity are often used interchangeably (often by Leftists to try to hide their agenda), there is a vital difference we have to address. Equality requires a level playing field for all by definition. Nobody gets preferential treatment or special dispensation to ask for and receive anything extra. Everybody is square (and from what I understand from Huey Lewis and the News, it’s hip to be that).
Equity, on the other hand, doesn’t require all parties winding up equal. It allows there to be exceptions to the rule, so someone who may have been wronged previously can get a bit more to make up for it. In fact, there are three ways to achieve equity: elevate a party, lower a party, or a combination of the two. Of these, only one gives the recipient a chance to succeed on a larger scale, which naturally means Leftists hate it. Instead, they prefer to destroy rather that build, and I’m not talking about “The Big Dig” either!
The problem with is approach is weakening the strong doesn’t make the weak strong by extension. It just makes everyone weaker. At least, that is until Leftists try to rig things so those they perceive as weak (i.e. anyone who can be made to believe they’ve been oppressed) can become more powerful. But wouldn’t that make it so the formerly weak have to give up what the Left gave them to the formerly powerful? Well, the Left hasn’t figured that out yet and when you ask them about it, they give it some thought and realize it’s folly.
Nah, I’m just fucking with ya! They will just call you a bigot and go about their days without a sense of irony or an answer.
Regardless of the adjective Leftists use to clarify what kind of equity they want, understand it’s designed to deceive people into accepting outcomes that will ultimately screw them over. With racial equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over previous racism they may or may not have been party to. With marriage equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over past mistreatment of gays and lesbians. With economic equity, it’s trying to get people to feel guilty about other people being poor while they are comfortable.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m sensing a pattern here…
By making us feel guilty, Leftists psychologically manipulate us by preying on our desire to be liked. Of course, for cynical assholes like me, it’s a lot harder to do, but the point remains. Plus, we want the fastest resolutions we can get so we stop feeling guilty. What better way for Leftists to get what they want than to provide the current political/ideological version of indulgences to remove people’s “sins”? I mean, it worked for Oprah.
It wasn’t that long ago that Leftists clamored for equality, but that’s not good enough for them anymore. They need there to be some level of inequality (that they control, of course) so they can maintain the scam…I mean…wait, I do mean scam. Never mind.
The key to overcoming Leftist calls for equity is to continue to fight for equality, not of outcome, but of treatment. If we treat everyone with the same respect we would ask for ourselves, and if we support each other becoming the best we can be, it will go a long way towards removing the power the Left has when pushing for equity.
Well, either that, or not feeling guilty over shit we didn’t do or advocate. Remove the source of their power, and you negate their power. Simple as that.