In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, there were a lot of emotions flowing out from across the political spectrum. A lot of sadness, a lot of anger, and, as odd as it is for me to say, a lot of joy. Yes, our good friends on the Left had a field day dunking on a dead man, posting some out-of-context statements Kirk made and generally acting like assholes.
But then came the backlash.
Within a matter of hours, Leftists came online to cry about losing their jobs because of what they said and did online, which lead to other Leftists (i.e. the media) to lament how these Leftists were losing their jobs for “just stating an opinion.”
Oh, how ironic it is for Leftists to be feeling the consequences of their own actions. And that’s something the Left typically hasn’t experienced lately, which makes it a nice way to add it to the Lexicon.
consequences
What the Left thinks it means – when a conservative gets his or her just desserts for acting badly
What it really means – the “Find Out” part of FAFO
Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The same can be applied to online discussions/rants/joygasms/debates/and so on, but with a slightly different twist. Everything we say or do online has an equal opportunity to piss off somebody on the opposite side. Most of the time it results in flame wars between two equally immature individuals, but with the Charlie Kirk situation, things got stepped up a notch or, oh, 5 billion because there are some extremely fucked up individuals out there on the Interwebs.
And, yes, I count myself as one of them.
The tide of online social discourse changed in the late 2000s or early 2010s when the terminally online realized they could find personal information on a lot of people simply by looking it up online. That’s a little trick the kids like to call doxxing, and it was prevalent with some corners of the Interwebs and still is.
Then, the Left got heavily involved in it. Under the auspices of keeping people (i.e. anyone to the right of Karl Marx) accountable, they started finding out more and more information on the Right and using that as leverage to get them to either change their ways, a la David Brock without all the cocaine, or shut up, a la what I wish David Brock would do without all the cocaine. And since they were the rulers of online platforms like Facebook and the Social Media Site Formerly Known As X, they got away with it and advance their agenda.
As Morgan Freeman (or a semi-reasonable facsimile) might say, “It was at that point they fucked up,” and you can thank Leftist ego and shortsightedness for it. When Leftists get power, they never think it will ever be taken away from them. The problem with that idea is…it can be taken away from them. Political and social power are always temporary and subject to the whims of people who might not agree with them. This is why it’s always prudent to note what you allow when you’re in the seat of power because it can and most likely will be allowed against you.
In other words, fuck around and find out.
Now that the Left is finding itself on the short end of the power stick in politics, society, and the Interwebs, they’re finding out what consequences feels like.
Spoiler Alert: they don’t like it.
And they have themselves to blame. You know, unless they decide to blame Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, Charlie Kirk, the Denver Broncos, etc.
One aspect of Leftist ideology is never having to take responsibility for what they do. There’s always “nuance” or some other weasel-shit word to try to put their misdeeds into a “context” where, yes, they did mow down three nuns and a classroom of preschoolers crossing the street while driving drunk and high during a bender with Keith Richards, but it’s not really their fault because reasons. Of course, that kind of “nuance” and “context” is never afforded to the Right. When someone like Charlie Kirk is the victim, it’s not the shooter’s fault. It’s the lack of gun control laws (which work about as well as most Congresscritters), or the lack of a social safety net, or in the Charlie Kirk case, heated rhetoric from the Right.
That’s right, kids. Some members of the Left think…err feel, it’s Donald Trump’s fault Charlie Kirk got shot.
Oddly enough, these are the same people who think Trump is behind Stephen Colbert getting fired and Jimmy Kimmel getting suspended. And now free speech is under attack because…let me read my notes here…Colbert was a money-losing hack and Kimmel lied on national television about who shot Charlie Kirk on top of being an unfunny hack.
While the Left screams “cancel culture” (obliviously ironically, I might add), what’s happening to them is the consequences of their own words and actions. And they should be familiar with the concept, mainly because it’s the very idea they push when it’s the Right being held responsible. The Left has a love/hate relationship with consequences. They love it when someone else gets hoisted by their own petards, but hate it when it’s them getting their petards hoisted.
Granted, this isn’t just a Leftist point of view. Everyone loves themselves a bit of schadenfreude (which is German for “ha ha you got fucked over and I get to feel good about it”), so no one is completely exempt. Having said that, over the past decade or so, the Left has used consequences as a means of punishing non-believers. Whether it was a baker in Colorado or anyone who defied the COVID-19 mandates, the Left has no problem setting traps for others and then calling them out for not being willing to accept the consequences for their actions.
Which brings us back to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. This time, its rule number 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” The Right has a tendency to expect there to be consequences for every bad deed, so the Left has turned that into a trap. If they don’t get what they want, they’ll drag you through the courts, smear you in the public arena, and essentially try to ruin your life.
So, how does it feel to have to bake the cake, bigots?
The thing about consequences is they can be unequal to the offense committed. Not using someone’s preferred pronouns in a professional setting shouldn’t get you a one way trip to Siberia (although I’m sure the Left would get on board with that idea), but it shouldn’t be given a slap on the wrist either. What the Left did to COVID-19 defiers or the January 6th protestors were beyond the pale and they were punished more severely than they should have been…or at least punished as much as Leftists who defied lockdown mandates and protested via rioting and looting got. When the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, it builds resentment in and distrust of the process itself.
And guess what we’re experiencing now, kids.
And this is where it gets complicated for me. My logical side says the consequences for bad actions and words should be just and fair, even though the Left doesn’t walk the walk in this area. My emotional side says the Left should be made to feel just how they made others feel, i.e. bake the cake, bigot. Is the latter fair and just? Not particularly. But the purpose of consequences is to teach you a lesson about what happens when you fuck around. As long as everyone gets to feel the sting of retribution, it’s fair, just not quite so nice.
Now, the Left is bringing this up in terms of free speech, expecting to get a “gotcha” on the Right who have been championing free speech for their side for the better part of a decade. However, the Left’s gotcha runs into a problem, that being the Left’s dismissal of free speech concerns when they were in charge of social media platforms where conservatives got banned for saying things far less inflammatory as the Left did. They used the “private businesses don’t have to platform your views” defense then, only to have it thrown back in their faces now.
Not much of a gotcha unless you’re a flaming hypocrite…oh, wait…
And make no mistake, the Left are flaming hypocrites here. Their defense of free speech is as conditional as an Elon Musk prenup. But who are the first ones to cry about the end of free speech as we know when it’s their speech getting silenced?
The Left.
Yet, when it’s free speech they don’t like, they’re fully on board with silencing them, and apparently one of theirs has taken it to the bonus round and started killing people because…reasons, I guess? And hopefully that asshole gets the punishment he deserves because that’s what consequences are all about.
That includes you folks cheering on Charlie Kirk’s murder on social media.
With the advent of the Interwebs and social media, let’s just say Karma has a target-rich area. For a long time, the Left has called out bad faith actors on the Right (which is good), but then took to trying to ruin their lives through bringing attention to the wider society (which is not so good). Getting fired, cancelled, forced to watch every “Transformers” movie with Michael Bay doing live commentary, those are the consequences of bad actions. Now, that kind of shit is being thrown at the people who did it before the Right got involved, and it’s going to keep coming because those are the consequences of being shitheads online.
Your rules, not mine.
So, spare me the tearful “I got fired for expressing an opinion on Charlie Kirk” bullshit. You got fired because you became a liability to whatever company or institution you were a part of, and when that happens, there are consequences. You know the best way to avoid the consequences of being a shitty person on social media? Don’t be a shitty person! That seems to work a lot better than crying on TikTok.
Yes, there are consequences to acting like a civilized adult, but one of them is not getting fired for being one. And, you know, those are the kind of consequences I can handle.
Tag: online culture
Uncivil Discourse
With the assassination of Charlie Kirk still looming in my headspace, I figured I’d better put some thoughts down about it to make room for other things, like lyrics from obscure 80s songs.
Being a commentator on the Interwebs opens people up to a lot of stuff. Lucrative offers from deep pocketed donors, YouTube shows, podcasts, the occasional hello from a fan, that sort of thing. The downside, though, is it opens you up to a lot of criticism, too. And sometimes that criticism turns from “hey, I have a legitimate issue with something you said” to “fuck you, asshole, I’m gonna kill you.” Most of the time, the latter can be brushed off as keyboard warrior talk, but lately it’s this kind of talk that permeates the online space.
And as online culture became current culture, the level of hatred has risen to the point I fear we’re on the road to civil war and we don’t have many offramps left before we get there. A lot of this has to do with the notion of revenge. These days, whenever we think someone slights us, we don’t seek to make amends or to address the matter in a civil, mindful way. We’re out to take whatever we can get and fuck your feelings.
We can see a microcosm of this in a seemingly unrelated story. Remember “Phillies Karen”? If you’re not familiar with the story, here’s the breakdown. A Phillies player hit a home run into the stands, and there was a scramble for the ball. Phillies Karen went for it, but was bested by a young boy’s father, who gave the ball to his son because a) the home run was hit by the boy’s favorite player, and b) the father wanted his son to have a great memory of the day.
Well, Phillies Karen didn’t care. All she knew was she wanted the ball and didn’t care about who got hurt by her getting it. She went over to the father and started berating him, allegedly saying “You took my ball,” After a brief discussion, the father made the boy give Phillies Karen “her” ball.
Not exactly the way you want to become famous.
I won’t go into the aftermath because it’s irrelevant to the larger point, but let’s just say Karma never misses.
I brought up Phillies Karen because it encapsulates the very attitude so prevalent in our society right now, and it feeds directly into the larger issue about our road to civil war. Society has become so egocentric and petty that even a minor slight like what Phillies Karen felt turned into a major issue that people feel they have to take into their own hands. And sometimes that leads to threats of violence and violence.
This is where I usually step in and try reason. For Phillies Karen, it’s just a fucking baseball. It’s not going to be the end of the world if you don’t get it, and there was a much better way to handle it than to demand to get “your” ball back. In storytelling, this attitude is called “Main Character Syndrome” and it’s becoming more and more prevalent in society. We are the main characters in our lives and by God the rest of the world better acknowledge it or else!
But that’s just it. If everyone has that attitude, then everyone is a main character, which means no one is a main character. Congratulations, you’ve played yourselves.
Bringing that forward into the political sphere, many commenters on the Left have Main Character Syndrome and do their best to make their problems into everyone else’s. That takes a level of malice I’m not ready to explore personally because even when I’m at my most petty, I try to take a step back and see what the endgame is. What do I want to accomplish if I take umbrage at a comment? A civil discussion? A shit-flinging contest? A dick-measuring contest? More often than not, I lead with the civil discussion and keep things above board. Not only does that show my true intentions, but it pisses off the people looking to get me to react in an uncivil way.
Even when I was young and stupid, as opposed to being old and stupid now, there were lines I didn’t cross, especially over online bullshit. You want to mock me, be my guest and we’ll see who runs out of material first. If you attempt to hurt my life or my family, I will take offense, but I won’t reveal it nor whatever machinations I have up my sleeve. And 99% of the time, I stewed over it, left it alone, and eventually let it go permanently.
That doesn’t happen much today, unfortunately. With every little annoyance or difference of opinion being seen as a threat, people are more on edge than ever. And when something is seen as a threat, people will do anything to protect themselves, including choosing violence to settle a battle of words. And once you make that choice, it gets really easy to justify anything against anyone.
Such as the number of videos from Leftists cheering Charlie Kirk’s death.
That’s where FAFO comes into play. Once you cross that line into Fuck Around territory, the Find Out comes at you pretty fast. With the number of anti-Kirk videos out there, the pro-Kirk side decided to be the agents of Karma and expose the hateful assholes. Of course, the Left has been doing this for years, so I’m surprised yet not that surprised they didn’t figure on the Right playing by the rules the Left set. Now, there are videos from anti-Kirk folks where they tearfully talking about how they lost their jobs for merely expressing an opinion, and the Leftists in the media (but I repeat myself) are amplifying their sad stories in a sympathetic tone.
I wonder what a certain Colorado baker might have to say about these Leftists losing their livelihoods for expressing an opinion. Something tells me it might rhyme with “bake the cake, bigot.”
Yet, on a much larger level, what good will come from fighting back and forth in the modern social and online culture? An eye for an eye may feel good in the short term, but it only escalates matters back and forth until optometry is not a growth industry because everybody winds up partially blind. And, yes, I recognize I’ve had a role in that. I am not blameless in any way, especially when it comes to the quality of my jokes.
Having said that, I have found a way to get out of the death spiral by understanding a key concept: disagreeing doesn’t mean you have to be disagreeable. You can disagree with friends and family without letting it ruin those relationships, no matter what the Left says. There are people in my circle of friends who hate Donald Trump and MAGA with their whole hearts while I’m a sometimes-Trumper, but we’ve found a way not to let that negatively affect our friendships because we’ve learned to see each other as people, not as party affiliations.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Do I think Leftists want people outside of their ideological hivemind dead? Some do, but I hold onto the idea there are some who don’t, and these people still have some ability to reason. Do I think Rightists want the same as the extreme Left? Some do, but I know there are enough out there who don’t. And to everyone else caught in the crossfire, I know there are plenty of people who feel the same way as I do: political violence and retaliation is not the answer.
I just hope there’s enough of us left standing after the eyes get poked out to rebuild our country.
New Words, Who Dis?
As faithful readers know, I’m a word guy. I am fascinated by the interplay of words put together to form everything from poetry and screenplays to Twitter posts, mainly for the number of times people confuse “to” and “too” and even “two.”
As part of my passion, I’ve learned to study how words are used and compare them to the time period. There are some words, like “cool,” that never seem to fall out of favor, while others like “extreme” or “Pauly Shore comedy” come and go with the passage of time. And every so often, our societal lexicon (not to be confused with the Leftist Lexicon) needs to get expanded to reflect the zeitgeist of the age.
In other words, here are some new words I came up with. Enjoy!
Algoreaphobia – the fear of climate change
selfietality – when someone dies while doing something stupid to try to get views on social media
entitlemental – a form of insanity that arises when someone believes they are owed something
reminiscinging – when you find yourself singing songs from your youth because today’s music fucking sucks
noledge – the “facts” most people use in Twitter arguments
Mandatorian – when someone tells you that you “have to watch” the latest popular streaming series
prenouns – the pronouns you are expected to know before talking to a Leftist
insoyfurable – when someone insists on telling you his or her dietary/lifestyle choices without anyone else asking them to do it
showflake – the person who makes a big deal about being offended, i.e. any Karen/Kevin
gender disphonya – a condition where a person claims to be a different gender, but doesn’t bother to actually transition
in-app-propriate – when you spend too much on microtransactions
NFTease – the pitch scammers use to get you to invest in NFTs
That’s all I have for now. If you liked this, let me know and I can do more. If you didn’t, then you might be disappointed if I decide to do another one. I’m good either way!