Andy Ngo (Profanity Warning)

This will be quick because I'm at a con, but:

Fuck everyone who's minimizing - or even celebrating - Antifa's vicious attack on Andy Ngo because "he's a right-wing provocateur." Fuck all these people with rusty chainsaws.

First of all, Andy is openly gay and liberal. I suppose that makes him "right wing" in the radical left's jacked-up worldview, but those of us who are actually in contact with reality and are not suffering from induced mental retardation understand that Andy's a centrist -- or even center-left.

Secondly, Andy doesn't "provoke" anyone. I'm subscribed to his channel and routinely watch his stuff, so I can assure you: all he does is stand there and quietly film what's happening in his city. And for his trouble, he's been repeatedly harassed.

Filming a protest is not a provocation. Talking to the right-leaning media - which, yes, Andy does - is not a provocation. It's not Andy's fucking fault that the left-leaning media (Quillette and the handful of other honest publications excepted) are choosing to ignore Antifa's brownshirt tactics because Orange Man Bad blah blah endless stream of self-justifying bullshit.

Fuck off with the "he was asking for it" rhetoric, you despicable fucking douche nozzles. Fuck off into next Tuesday -- and then come back so I can tell you to fuck off again.

Communication Disorders

For many years, the verbal portion of the SAT has featured a question type with the following format:

In line [#], the word […] most nearly means...

In the thirteen-plus years that I've been an after-school tutor, I have come across this question so often that my advice to students has become automatic: "You have to look at the sentence in the passage." What the College Board is testing here is not the student's ability to parrot the common dictionary definitions of words; instead, it is testing the student's ability to understand context.

Meditating upon a task such as this - a task beloved by bubble-test writers - reveals something very important about the way we converse. Words are not completely comprehensible on their own; they also take on additional - or sometimes even new - significance from the gestalt in which they sit -- much like tofu soaks up the flavors of the other ingredients in an Asian dish.

Take a sentence like "I love my mother." This sentence is composed of four utterly prosaic words -- yet do we really know what it means? Don't we need to hear the inflection with which it was said? Don't we need to see the speaker's body language? Don't we need to know why/where/when/etc. it was said? If this sentence appears in a poem lauding the beauty of Mother Earth, "mother" likely does not mean our female parent. If this sentence is uttered with a particular stress after a long sigh, most of us effortlessly intuit that it's meant to be ironic.

What I'm talking about here is pragmatics -- the transcendental, often non-linguistic aspects of our communication. These features seem to be preferentially processed by the right hemisphere of the brain -- at least if the peculiar deficits of patients with right hemisphere injury or hypofunction (for example, loss of the ability to understand sarcasm, idiom, and metaphor) are anything to go by. Their comprehension is also essential to our social functioning and the development of our common sense.

They are also the very features that the radical left seems bent on forcing us not to recognize.

Thus, we have Rep. Ilhan Omar (and her apologists) defending her speech at a CAIR event by comparing it to President W. Bush's extemporaneous speech at Ground Zero immediately after 9/11 -- as if a superficial similarity in word choice means anything at all. No: Bush's "people who knocked these buildings down" was uttered in the context of remarks that took the attack very seriously indeed -- remarks that honored the anger and grief of the devastated New Yorkers picking through the rubble. Omar's "people did something," on the other hand, was part of a speech that focused on the grievances of her own identity group -- a speech dripping with the bitter self-righteousness that is typical of activists of her stripe. To be sure, I certainly don't think all Muslims should be held responsible for terrorist attacks like the one perpetrated on 9/11, nor do I think they should be denied the right to practice their religion as they see fit (with, of course, a few important exceptions). But when you insist that the story of the post-9/11 world is all about your people and their pain, then yes -- I think you deserve criticism. Respect should be a two-way street. If radical Catholic terrorists were killing thousands across the world, I wouldn't urge my fellow Catholics to "raise hell" and "make people uncomfortable." I would feel convicted, I would be humble, and I would do whatever I could to make amends.

Moving on to another manifestation of the left's induced communication disorder: the okay hand sign hysteria. As everyone knows, it was originally trolls on 4chan who invented and spread the meme that the okay hand sign really stood for "white power." But according to Blizzard (and others), now that idiot white supremacists are using the symbol to signal their group identification, suddenly the gesture is permanently tainted and should be forever banned. So quick question: If white supremacists decide to start signaling each other with the code-phrase "I like cupcakes," does that mean we have to radically change how we announce our dessert preferences? No, that's ridiculous!

Over at The Post Millennial, Roberto Wakerell-Cruz has it exactly right (his column is in fact one of the inspirations for this post):

In one sense, of course words matter. Words are incredibly important, and a tool that we as humans are incredibly fortunate to have. To convey a message to one another in such detail is a unique trait. But what are words without context?

Which sentence is worse? “I think it’s retarded that fags can’t get married,” or “with all things considered, and it is indeed my own personal opinion, I believe that those who engage in homosexual acts and wish to marry their lover should be forbidden to do so!”

Although the first sentence contains naughty words, the second sentence actually contains far less progressive ideas. In my opinion, the first person is actually forward thinking, whereas the second is stuck in their old ways.

Context is incredibly important. Sentences are like icebergs. There is what appears on the surface, the letters you see printed on paper. But underneath the words, there’s more than what appears. Sentences can be extrapolated to no end, and interpreted in countless ways.

Focusing your attention purely on which words are being used is just wrong, and unproductive.

Amen, good sir! Condemning any word or sign in isolation is deeply foolish. We don't have to pretend we're suffering from right hemisphere dysfunction; we're perfectly capable of parsing when the use of a certain word, phrase, or gesture is innocuous and when it is not, and we should go on exercising that faculty to its fullest extent.

The True Threat

In the geek culture wars, Peter Simeti - publisher at Alterna Comics - is a true neutral. While the rest of us have been bickering heatedly over the future direction of geekdom, Simeti has stayed out of the fray to focus on reducing the price point of his single-issue comics by over 60% compared to current industry norms. His simple business model? Use cheaper paper and be unfailingly polite to customers.

You might think such a mild-mannered guy would be the least likely target of a vicious harassment campaign -- especially since his newsprint comics are genuinely accessible to all people. Indeed, you might think that he'd be lauded for opening up a hobby to those of more modest means.

You might think that, but you're wrong. Simeti, in fact, has been defamed as an "alt-right Nazi" for months -- and a few days ago, one of his live-streams was interrupted by armed police.

I just had two guns pointed at me tonight because someone made a call to the police and gave them my address along with a falsified report.

I'm shook up, but everything is OK now.

I'm going to talk to the police tomorrow and see if I can find out more.

— Peter Simeti 💬 (@petersimeti) February 13, 2019

To be sure, at the time I'm writing this post, we still don't know who exactly tried to swat Simeti. It could be someone utterly unconnected to the #Comicsgate spat. But personally, I think this is very unlikely. I find it difficult to imagine that Simeti has pissed off someone in his personal life. No: someone connected to one of his many detractors is probably at fault. Somebody decided to ruin this man's day because he had the unmitigated gall to establish a social media policy that forbade the use of block chains.

Let's be absolutely clear here: Simeti did not tell his creators that they couldn't block trolls. On the contrary, he encouraged his creators to seek his assistance if they truly are being abused. He simply stated that association with a disfavored hashtag - #Comicsgate or #movetheneedle - or a controversial Youtuber was not an adequate reason to block a potential customer. The monster! Clearly, the only right thing to do was to launch a Two Minutes Hate to try to ruin him.

In all likelihood, people who don't give two God damns about comics are going to read this post. But I suspect they will nonetheless recognize the themes in Simeti's story because they are being played out in virtually every corner of our society. Everywhere, people are being victimized by the radical, totalitarian social justice left for failing to be sufficiently "woke".

As I've noted many, many times, I'm not one of Trump's enthusiastic cheerleaders. I think he's doing some things that are right and some things that deserve to be criticized. (This week's emergency declaration on the border wall, for example, is something on which I have doubts.) But even when he's doing something unwise, I've never been afraid of the president. Quite frankly, I think it's a mark of mass hysteria to be afraid of him.

I'm also not afraid of the alt-right. Yes, they put on quite a display in Charlottesville, but their numbers are vanishingly small, and they have zero - zero - sympathizers in the mainstream press. Nor am I afraid of the liberal left; though I may haggle with them over the value of tradition or the appropriate size and function of the government, I know they and I still share roughly the same goals.

What I fear is the aforementioned radical, totalitarian social justice left. These people are already exercising their power in academia, the media, and corporate America to threaten everything I value -- and their rhetoric makes it perfectly clear that they want me and mine silenced, broken, jailed, or dead.

I don't think I'm panicking. I don't think I'm being absurd. How else am I supposed to interpret, for example, the concerted campaigns to block our income streams and/or render us jobless? How else am I supposed to interpret the widespread enthusiasm for violence against us? It's heroic to punch a Nazi -- and oh, by the way, I get to define what a Nazi is, and you, my dear classical liberal, fall into that category.

Social justice warriors are thoroughly convinced of their self-righteousness, and that makes them especially dangerous. As C.S. Lewis rightly observed, "...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." As time has worn on, it has become increasingly clear that the SJW program, if implemented without opposition, would destroy absolutely everything:

• It would destroy meritocracy and consequently halt technological and scientific progress. The race is already on in some quarters to dumb down STEM programs in the name of "equity." But your skin color or genitalia won't make you a good brain surgeon or rocket scientist; a rigorous, knowledge-focused science education will -- an education that will be within reach for motivated folks of all backgrounds if we work to improve preparation in the primary and secondary grades.
• It would destroy art and creativity. Actually, in many ways, it has already destroyed such things. Movies and books have been canceled or substantially reworked to satisfy SJW activists, whose requirements have become ever more minute and multitudinous. Meanwhile, whatever has not been outright censored has been rendered anodyne by fear of these harpies. No one - aside from my scrappy indie friends - feels free to be honest or to push boundaries. Hell, we're not even allowed to tell a story about a racist who gradually changes her mind! (See also: the attacks on author Laurie Forest and her book The Black Witch.)
• It would destroy our ability to relate to each other as human beings. SJW's want to control how we banter with each other, how we show affection, how we flirt -- virtually everything that makes our lives in society enjoyable. I don't know if they're just pretending or if they're genuinely brain-damaged in some way, but these leftists act like they find context and non-verbal social cues completely incomprehensible. "N-word passes", for example, are a meme and clearly a joke - especially when distributed by a mixed-race group of students - but that doesn't stop SJW's from screeching as if someone just got lynched. Don't get me wrong: you're allowed to find jokes like that offensive. But the proportionate response is to say, "Dude, that's not funny" -- not to howl that these jokesters are terrible racists who need immediate correction. The upshot? The SJW's approach to humor is joyless and oppressive -- and her approach to sex is frankly inhuman. There's surely a better, less rigid way to negotiate the line between "fun" and "completely unacceptable".
• It would destroy trust. We can interact and do business with each other because we assume - usually correctly - that the guy across the way has essentially agreed to the same basic social rules. The SJW program attacks this trust in three ways. First, it claims that people are routinely dishonest about their intentions -- that we should search endlessly for "dog whistles" instead of accepting the plain meaning of people's words. Second, it openly teaches that truth is contingent and not universal. Third, it tells certain favored groups that the rules shouldn't apply to them -- that they are allowed to lie, cheat, or otherwise misbehave to right some cosmic scale.
• It would destroy norms of justice and mercy. Up until about five minutes ago, our culturally Judeo-Christian society embraced the possibility of redemption. Sure, among religious Christians, there was and is a belief that certain choices lead to ever-lasting hellfire in the afterlife, but that same religious tradition - at least in its orthodox forms - offers a pretty easy escape from such a fate. The Catholic Church in particular has murderer saints, for Christ's sake! But the SJW program has no Sacrament of Reconciliation. Make one mistake and you're done, no matter how much you apologize or attempt to make amends. This is just as inhuman as "affirmative consent," and if it's allowed to progress to its logical conclusion, the next thing we'll see is bodies stacked up like cordwood. 

Thank God many people on the liberal left see the same threat I see.  But we all need to intensify the pushback. If somebody felt justified trying to murder the Cuddly Puppy of Comics, that means there's still work to do to pull us back from the brink.

Three Miscellaneous Stories: Abortion, Northam's Yearbook, & Amelie Zhao

Let's launch this weekly post with some guest commentary from my BF regarding the proposed changes to Virginia's abortion laws (which fortunately failed to pass):

"Yes, Abortion is Murder. Thank You for Admitting as Much.

"First off, the disclaimer: This post is not about the abortion law in New York. I have yet to read the thing. No, this is a post about the law recently proposed in Virginia by Democrat Kathy Tran. (Ed. As it turns out, the New York law is even more extreme. And the celebration of its passage was absolutely vomit-inducing.) This, as we shall see, is proof that not only have supporters of abortion rights been lying to us since the days when states made their own rules about abortions, but this never was about a 'right to privacy,' it was never about 'healthcare,' and it was never about 'regulating women's bodies.' No, the argument in support of abortion rights is, and always has been, about avoiding responsibility. It is murder with the intent to remove an economic and physical requirement for raising another human being.

"Virginia governor Ralph Northam has stated that the bill would allow abortions while a woman was in labor and dilating. (Ed. Actually, Tran said this under questioning. Not that Northam's defense of the bill was any less reprehensible.) Here's the thing: There is no difference in the effect on a woman's body between delivering and aborting a baby at that point. Seriously. None.

"I'm not ignorant of the possible negative effects of pregnancy. I am aware that it hasn't been all that long since death due to complications of childbirth was the most common cause of death for women in this country. In my personal life, I watched my ex-wife (we were married at the time) hospitalized for pre-eclampsia after the birth of my daughter Cecilia. I saw how panicked the doctor was when she resisted getting treatment. I know what's at stake here.

"But when you're talking about aborting a viable baby at the point of birth you're not talking about healthcare. It would have done my ex no good if they had murdered my daughter before delivering her. The effects on her body would have been precisely the same. No, what you're talking about is a blatant dodge of parental responsibility.

"Barack Obama said it best: 'If one of my daughters made a mistake, I wouldn't want them punished with a baby.'

"He wasn't speaking of the cost to his daughters and their bodies. He wasn't talking about their health. He was talking about them avoiding the consequences of their actions.

"And that's what this really is. There is no difference between killing a child whose mother is in the process of delivering them and leaving that same child in a plastic bag in the hospital dumpster a day later. None.

"Here's my other favorite argument in favor of abortion:

"'Well, if I have my child, you don't want to give me welfare to raise it, or pay for its college, or..'

"And the other variant: 'It's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to pay for welfare to raise the child.'

"Once again, what you're talking about is not healthcare. They're not referencing a woman's right to her own body. They're talking about how they shouldn't have to pay for their own offspring and shouldn't be forced to raise the kids they created. That's what this really is.

"Under these circumstances, there is no difference between a mother getting an abortion and Rae Carruth's murder of his pregnant girlfriend. He killed her because he didn't want to pay child support. That is what these women are doing. They're murdering people over money. The fact that they're willing to abort children at the point of birth proves it. They've already carried the child to term. The incisions necessary to abort a child and perform a C-section are identical. The effect on the woman's body is identical.

"Are there reasons for a woman to avoid birth other than economic? Sure. I know a woman (who shall remain nameless) who is white. She was married to a white man. She got a black boyfriend and got pregnant with his child. There was not going to be a way to hide the fact that it was not her husband's child. She sought an abortion because she didn't want her husband to know what she had done. Ultimately, she did the right thing and had the child. I'm proud of her for doing the right thing and walking out of the clinic under the effects of the drugs they had given her before they were going to give her anesthesia.  For the record, she had a ride home. Someone had gone with her. That's a good thing too.

"The point of telling that story, though, is this: She was still trying to avoid the consequences of her actions. She knew what would happen if her husband found out she had been cheating. She did it anyway and then thought to hide evidence. Mob bosses order the murder of witnesses to crimes all the time. There is no difference.

"So honestly, thank you, abortion advocates. Now that you have openly admitted that abortion is about neither healthcare or a woman's right to her own body, we can have an open and honest discussion in this country. We can finally talk about the truth: It's all about the money, baby. It's all about a life free from consequences. Abortion isn't about Women's Rights or healthcare. It's about murdering children because they cost too much. Thank you for finally revealing your true though processes. You've been very helpful.

"And know this: There are those of who are not surprised by this. We always knew what it was about. And understand what I am about to tell you:

"I am the implacable enemy of all abortion advocates. I am the implacable enemy of all who commit abortions. I see your murders for what they are. I do not seek compromise or consensus. I seek the abolition of legalized murder in the United States. And no, I'm not interested in helping women who would get illegal abortions avoid the consequences of their actions either.  Stop murdering people. And stop lying about your motivations. We're not dumb enough to believe you." - Jim

(Ed. And to those who object to the sentiments above and insist that the proposed changes to Virginia's laws wouldn't allow abortion on demand at any time for any reason, changing the language from "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irredeemably impair the mental or physical health of the woman" to "likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman" leaves the door wide open for just that very thing. Removing "substantially and irredeemably" means just about anything can justify even a third trimester abortion so long as one doctor - ONE - agrees to sign off on the procedure. If this had passed, it would've definitely been abused by the unscrupulous.)

*****

Now Let's Talk About Governor Northam's Yearbook Photo

I actually don't believe in torching a political career over an offensive photo taken more than thirty years ago. I hate this Culture of No Forgiveness - birthed by the Twitter Mob - in which all violators of the new social mores receive the same brutal punishment with no sense of proportion, no statute of limitations, and no possibility for parole (so to speak). I hate it, first of all, because I'm Christian and therefore believe everyone should be provided an avenue to redemption. But I also hate it because it flies in the face of our entire legal tradition. Does it make sense to give petty thieves and grand larcenists the same sentences? No? Then the guy who once, decades ago, stupidly donned blackface or a Klan hood to be edgy shouldn't be treated the same as the guy who's consistently expressed racist sentiments over many years up to and including the present day. In the former case, an apology is sufficient penance.

Of course, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Northam -- especially since he's now walking back his apology and denying that he's actually in that photo. And given that he's embraced the rhetoric of SJW "anti-racist" activism in the past, I must admit to enjoying a little schadenfreude watching him suffer the consequences of his own ideas. Definitely a banner story for Glenn Reynolds' "Annals of Leftwing Autophagy"!

*****

Meanwhile, in the World of Publishing...

… we have the unfortunate story of Amelie Zhao, who pulled her debut YA fantasy novel from her publisher's schedule after she was attacked by SJW's for her supposed "anti-black racism".

Obviously, I have not read Zhao's book - I'm not one of those YA "influencers" who gets access to ARC's - but based on her own explanations, it sounds like her intention was to portray slavery in Asia, not the Americas. No matter: the totalitarians went after her anyway because she didn't tackle slavery the "right" way.

According to the SJW Mean Girls, you see, a YA author should look like she stepped out of an advertisement for the United Colors of Benetton -- but she must think like everyone else. No going off the script. No bucking the strictures of the industry's "sensitivity" hucksters. No going out on a limb to tell an honest story that hasn't been filtered through dozens of political sieves until it has all the flavor of purified water. You will write the one novel the provincial radical left wants you to write or you will be declared one of the untermenschen.

Obviously, this whole affair pisses me off. As a matter of fact, Larry Correia's characteristically pungent post on the subject captures my feelings precisely. How dare these witches bully this poor author into abandoning her dream -- and how dare they keep this book from the rest of us! I say we let the publisher know that we won't stand for this censorship-through-intimidation. The pre-order page for Zhao's book is still up; go and make her a best-seller.

A Thought Experiment

***** As of now, I will no longer tolerate any clothing featuring the hammer and sickle. The hammer and sickle is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology that has murdered millions since its conception. The very sight of this iconography triggers me to such a degree that I feel perfectly justified abusing total strangers who've made the choice to wear it on their bodies. I don't care about their reasons. I don't care about their excuses. I don't even care how old they are. If anyone displays that Commie crap in my presence, he deserves whatever he gets.
*****
Be assured: the above is not my true position. But think about it: what would happen if, upon seeing the hammer and sickle, I actually did scream like a banshee and refuse to serve the person wearing it? What if I punched him -- or offered money or gifts to anyone who would do it in my place? What if I searched up his personal information and sent him harassing emails? What if I tracked down the guy's employer and demanded he be fired?

Wouldn't I be declared insane?

Obviously, what I've just done here is reverse the logic of the current MAGA Hat Hysteria.

All over the internet, the usual suspects have declared the MAGA hat the symbol of white supremacy and fascism in Current Year and have pointed to its presence to justify bad behavior of every sort -- including, most recently (and most despicably), cruelty to minors. But as I tweeted the other day, this is absolute lunacy. And I say this as someone who didn't vote for Trump!

At least in the case of the Communist ideology, I can point to historically documented atrocities committed in its name. The Holodomor, Stalin's purges, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge -- these provide ample reason for me to despise the hammer and sickle and what it represents.

But which atrocities, exactly, can we lay at Trump's feet?

Kids being separated from their parents at the border? That's terrible, but Trump didn't invent it.

Trans folks being barred from military service? Well, I hate to break it to you all, but no one is entitled to serve in the military. Basically, anyone with a chronic, costly medical condition is going to be turned away from the recruitment office; indeed, I know someone who washed out after boot camp simply because his physical fitness wasn't quite up to snuff. Why? Because the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things in defense of our nation, not to be a career development center.

The "Muslim ban"? Nope: Trump didn't bar travel from, say, majority-Muslim Indonesia. He barred travel from a few specific countries in war zones where vetting could not be assured.

Essentially, the only thing Trump is definitively guilty of is saying insensitive things. I really wish he wouldn't. I really wish he would make his case with more delicacy and more intellectual rigor. But being a boor doesn't quite rise to the level of perpetrating the Holocaust.

Drill down to the actual policy. Shrinking the regulatory state? A standard conservative position. Cutting taxes? Ditto. Controlling the border? Thoroughly mainstream. Economic nationalism? Eh -- as a neoliberal by instinct, I have reservations here, but I'm waiting to see how it turns out. And in any case, I don't think Trump has articulated any ideas regarding trade that haven't already been promulgated by others across the political spectrum.

Again, the only thing that's truly "new" about Trump is that he doesn't care a fig for the mores of Washington and is openly confrontational with the press. Some of that bellicosity is wince-worthy, but some is needed.

Trump should be critiqued, yes. I know plenty of right-leaning and left-leaning people who are capable of doing so intelligently and with emotional continence, and they have convinced me that our president is most definitely flawed. But if Trump were actually the unholy terror of the left's imagination, Acosta would be in jail. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

What does the MAGA hat really stand for? As I argued above, the case for its inherent racism and fascism is gossamer thin at best. So perhaps people need to do some actual freakin' journalism and ask the people who wear MAGA gear why they've embraced the slogan.

Hell, I'll even help you out a little. Here are some reasons I've heard:

• I hate being told what I can and cannot wear, think, or say. (Extremely common!)
• I want to be conservative without being treated like a criminal.
• I want to practice my orthodox Christianity without being relegated to the status of second-class citizen.
• I believe Trump cares about the working class.
• I believe the government's first job is to ensure the security and prosperity of the American people.

Now maybe you think some of these are misguided. But you can't argue honestly that they are racist. None of these desires and concerns are limited strictly to white people -- and if these desires and concerns were taken seriously and addressed, the benefits wouldn't be limited either.

But leave aside all of that. If I'm expected to restrain my reaction to the hammer and sickle, then that rule should be universal. Clothing doesn't justify persecution and violence, no matter what it is and no matter who is wearing it. 

Bonus Post: What's Happening to the Covington Boys is Absolutely VILE

And I can't wait until Saturday to comment because Teacher Steph, who's worked with teens for over thirteen years, is fucking livid. I hate watching kids get bullied. If I didn't live eight hours away, I'd be seeking those boys out and offering them dinner and a comforting word.

A few times, I've tweeted my adherence to what I call the Edgy Boi Law. Essentially, I give young people below a certain age more latitude to be stupid, insensitive, misguided, etc. because they haven't fully matured and are, biologically, more egocentric and more prone to poor judgment. Even the best, smartest kids fall prey to this adolescent frame of mind and need the occasional reminder that they are not the center of the universe. But the way you deliver these reminders is with care for their well-being in the context of a close relationship. You don't scream at them and call them names. You don't threaten them with physical harm. And you certainly don't plot to destroy their futures. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! If I treated "my kids" this way (they're really my students, but I'm sure other teachers out there know what I mean), I'd utterly shatter their trust in me and would never again be able to gently rebuke them for the childish, ignorant things they sometimes say and do.

And just so we're clear, I teach primarily teens-of-color, so this Edgy Boi Law? I apply it to every kid, regardless of his or her shade.

So let's leave aside, for a moment, the fact that both the mainstream media and Twitter's baying mobs eagerly jumped on a narrative based on lies. Even if we stipulate that Nick Sandmann and the others did something wrong (which I categorically refuse to grant), the response to the incident on Friday has been wildly - wildly - out of proportion to the so-called "offense". Families have been doxxed and threatened, parents' workplaces have been called, the school has been forced to ask the police for protection, verified users on Twitter have shared lurid fantasies involving assaulting and even murdering minors -- and all of this is appropriate because Sandmann and his mates didn't have perfect control over their response to a guy beating a drum in their faces? This is not how you teach children. This is how you abuse them.

You are not a decent person if you are doubling down on this harassment. You are the dad beating his son bloody with a belt. And I see you.

And you know what I also see? I see a bunch of supposed "adults" acting out their unresolved adolescent resentments.

Hey, I was bullied too. As I suggested in the last post, I was a bit gender-queer before that became trendy (fortunately, this was the early 90's, so I was allowed to eventually become comfortable in my own skin). I also pursued bizarre obsessions (at least as far as my classmates were concerned), suffered from sensory issues, and was very much the teacher's pet. Consequently, I was targeted for ridicule from about fourth grade to early high school. The year Champion was the brand of t-shirt to wear, for example, I tried to follow the fashion, but the girls still teased me in the locker room after gym because the shirt my parents bought didn't fit their exacting specifications.

And even after this open harassment abated, I was never popular enough to be invited to the big parties, never pretty enough to be Homecoming Queen (not with my grunge-inspired shirts, boots, and Bajoran earring!), and never athletic enough to be a cheerleader. I was firmly a "freak"; my late high-school friends included LGB-identified kids, stoners, artists, and the one black girl who was persistently accused of "acting white" because she was an accomplished student.

Do I understand what it feels like to be othered by prettier, more popular peers? Hell yes! But you know what I didn't do? When I went to college and started my adult life, I didn't continue to project my childhood tormenters onto every frat boy, jock or sorority girl I met. I grew the hell up, made my peace with being Odd, and sought out people who would understand me for who I am. Perhaps even more importantly, I developed compassion for people on the other side of the social divide; I came to understand that even apparently "privileged" people have their anxieties and their crosses to bear because that's life - catastrophe contaminated by malevolence, to use another one of Dr. Peterson's formulations.

This is what all rational, healthy people do. They don't hold onto their victimhood in perpetuity. They rise above it. They cultivate the qualities of empathy and mercy. And they refrain from vilifying a schoolboy because he smiled wrong.

Grumpy Thoughts, 6th Edition (Language Warning!)

• So apparently, white women are now designated targets of the disgusting left because we don't all vote Democrat. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here wondering why we and we alone are expected to bend the knee to people who deny our agency and declare us "handmaidens of our patriarchal husbands." Come to think of it, I'm also wondering why we're expected to vote for people who insult our husbands, fathers, and brothers, branding them the source of all that's wrong with the world. And further, why should we vote for anyone whose policies, in our opinion, are bad for America just because we don't have whips available to make a public show of our penance? Seriously: Fuck. You. I'm not going to debase myself that way. I didn't do anything wrong. My brother didn't do anything wrong. My dad didn't do anything wrong. As far as I know, none of my ancestors participated in slavery or Jim Crow -- but even if they had, family members living today are not guilty by association. Guilt is not collective, you unbelievable douche-canoes.
• It's not in any woman's interest to vote for politicians who wish to scuttle border control, meritocracy, free speech, freedom of religion, and/or due process in the name of "social justice." Nor is it in any woman's interest to vote for politicians who insist we must have the right to murder our children on the taxpayer's dime in order to be full participants in the American economy. These are just some of the major convictions that drove my votes in the midterms, and I refuse to apologize for said convictions just because some racists on the internet command it. I don't need to "do better." I need you to take a gander at my two middle fingers. 
• As a white woman living in a brown neighborhood whose clientele are predominantly brown, I understand that people-of-color face very real challenges that need to be addressed through community action and, in some cases, smart public policy. But when I look around, I feel compelled to ask what the Democrat Party has done to deserve the near 100% loyalty of certain minority populations. The evidence makes it pretty clear: Democrat strongholds are terrible places for people-of-color to live. So frankly, if I'm going to vote with my brown brothers and sisters in mind - and how do you know I don't think about that already, you condescending would-be mind-readers? - I'm still not going to vote the way you want me to. I'm not going to vote for objective failures just because they talk a good game; I'm going to vote to try something different.
• Everything the leftist zeitgeist preaches is counter-productive. Every damn thing. In shitting all over colorblindness as a social ideal, it is actually intensifying racial hatreds. In seeking to protect kids from the "trauma" of math failure or public speaking, it is making young people more anxious and less "college and career ready," to use the technocrats' buzzwords. In demanding that men take sole responsibility for protecting the virtue of women, it trains women to be helpless or, in some cases, actively cruel. So when I voted, I voted against that zeitgeist. What we need instead is a radical reorientation of our public policy -- one that recognizes and works with the human nature that actually exists. 

Spare Me Your Lectures on Civility, Blue Checks

People on the right can be hostile and violent. So can people on the left. But here's the difference as I experience it: When a crazy Trump supporter with a rap sheet sends "bomb-like" packages to high profile Democrats, the mainstream conservative media personalities I follow have no trouble condemning him. When Trump says something stupid and insensitive after Charlottesville, those self-same mainstream conservatives call him out on it -- while also utterly disavowing the fringe racists whose actions led to a woman's death. But I have yet to see any mainsteam leftwing members of the press acknowledge the violence of their own side. Don Lemon and others of his class have never searched their souls on air and questioned whether their friends might share the blame. No, it's all Trump's fault; it's never theirs.

Trump is a symptom, not the disease. If you would talk to Trump supporters for two seconds, you would hear the myriad ways in which right-leaning folks have been harassed, blacklisted, defamed, and otherwise kicked around by leftists -- particularly in fields that have always leaned left, such as academia and the arts. And the frustrating thing? Until Trump, nobody went to bat for these people. Before Trump, the GOP was notoriously inept at defending the right from the charge that it was -ist and infected by -ism. The result? A massive ground-swell of resentment among people tired of being called things they manifestly were not. Take it from someone who, as a right-leaning writer, was watching this unfold in real time.

There were warning signs if you cared to see them. A few Republican primaries ago, Newt Gingrich surged in popularity the moment he attacked the press. I remember that distinctly. I also remember the excitement among conservatives in the early days of blogging. Finally - finally - we had a powerful tool to counter mainstream media bullshit. Indeed, for as long as I've been a conscious, politically-engaged conservative, I have seen hatred of the press on my side -- and in my opinion, that hatred is generally earned. No newsworthy event in which I've been a participant has been covered with even a modicum of accuracy; it's all been poorly researched, dishonest spin.

The upshot? Trump is not some unique boogie man who's broken our discourse by stoking hate. He's playing to what already exists. And yeah, okay, he shouldn't do that. As a president, he should be trying to unite us instead of encouraging the Great Untruth of Us-Versus-Them (thanks, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff). But to act like Trump is the sole inventor of "incivility" - to act like everything is just peachy except for Trump - is pish-posh. Admit that you have done something wrong, Mr. Lemon, and then we'll talk.

Is the USA Over?

Sarah Hoyt is probably going to smack me over the head for asking such a question, but I can't help but wonder: Is it time for a divorce? Should we just split the current US in two?

I can live with liberals. In many ways, I am a liberal -- at least in temperament. Though I have very firm opinions on what constitutes the "good life," I generally don't want the state to make my case for me via force of law. Additionally, old-style Democrats and I share many fundamental end goals. I want to alleviate poverty, narrow achievement gaps, help people who have fallen behind -- in essence, work towards a more egalitarian world. Old-style Democrats and I disagree on the type and quantity of the government intervention that is needed to achieve such a goal, but that's okay. Old-style Democrats and I can still discuss those differences and negotiate.

But the new left? The left that has swallowed today's Democrat Party? I can't negotiate with such people. How, pray tell, can I have a functional dialogue with anyone who denies that the truth - whatever it may be - is objective, universal, and accessible through empirical inquiry? How, pray tell, can I build workable public policy with anyone who believes I should be hounded out of society - or even locked up - for questioning the new left's consensus?

And that second question is not hyperbolic in the slightest. Recently, an unknown member of a campus LGBT group argued on Twitter that gulags are pretty great actually and should be used to punish anyone who opposes his/her/zir agenda. Meanwhile, this past week, a "professional" in the comics industry expressed shock that members of the Comicsgate community hadn't been jailed - yes, jailed - for criticizing minority creators. And what about the multiple conservative politicians whose private lives have been disrupted by screaming protestors who refuse to respect boundaries?

At best, they want us completely silenced and humiliated. At worst?

No, I can't "work with" those who are possessed by this diabolical ideology. And if I can't do that, I can't live in this country with them either. I can't live with people who crap all over due process just to indulge their bigotry and/or desire for revenge. I can't live with emotional abusers who accuse me and people like me of the nastiest things imaginable -- then gaslight us and tell us we're babies crying over nothing when, like normal human beings, we get pissed off. I can't live with anyone who flat out doesn't care about evidence, science, logic, or reason because their "lived experience" proves all.

Like Sarah Hoyt, I feel like I'm chained to a bunch of lunatics -- and I want to take a blow torch to that damned manacle. If there's another way to do this besides national dissolution, please tell me. Otherwise? What will be will be, and I won't be sad. In fact, I'll be dancing.

Because I'll finally be free.

The Left Needs to Retire These Rhetorical Tics

(Or at least severely limit their use.)

It was probably a terrible mistake to get a Twitter account.

In my defense, my original intent was to follow a favorite kitten foster of mine; one of the kitties was sick, and I wanted access to breaking news on his condition. But before too long, I started following some favorite authors. Then some favorite YouTube personalities. Then...

274 follows later, my feed is full of absolute trash -- not because of the people I follow, thank God, but because of the stuff they retweet and criticize.

A significant minority in this country (and in the West in general) has gone absolutely insane. Many - including people I used to respect - have embraced a creed that not only rejects the basic foundations of liberal democracy but also seems to reject reason itself. Whether the correct label for this creed is "cultural Marxism," "post-modernism," "identity politics," or some other term not yet devised, the result of its adoption is the same: the wholesale destruction of critical thought. In thought's place, these ideologues deploy the tools of unthought: buzzwords, blanket insults, and ridiculous demands designed to silence dissenters in disputes both large and small.

Whether we're bickering over comic books or Supreme Court appointments, we keep getting bitten by the same intellectual mosquitoes. Can I exterminate them all by myself? Not in one blog post. Probably not even in a hundred blog posts. But right now, I can at least smack a few annoyances and, hopefully, entertain my readers in the process.

1. Believe All Women.

No. I'm sorry for the upcoming language, but that is bug-fuck crazy. Were these people never the targets of mean girls in junior high? Some women absolutely are evil enough to spread bullshit if it gives them a social advantage and/or sympathy points.

Sure: like male rapists, female pathological liars are very rare. But we don't even have to assume a large population of prospective malicious accusers to understand the importance of due process. We just have to understand some basic human psychology.

In brief: Our memories are not digital cameras. On the contrary, our memories are susceptible to influence. For example, in one study, participants who were asked to remember the sentence "the ball hit the window" later reported being told that "the ball broke the window." These people were sober, yet their own assumptions altered what their memories recorded. Do you really think the recollections of a drunken tryst are going to be any more reliable? Or the memories of something that happened more than three decades ago?

We cannot rely on one person's account of an event. That's why we presume the innocence of the accused until we can gather more evidence. Yes: a full-scale investigation and cross-examination is very stressful for someone who sincerely believes she's been the victim of a crime, but the alternative leads to Salem.

2. Stay in Your Lane.

When white people opine on race relations, this denial of the universal accessibility of the truth always manages to make an appearance. Recently, I tweeted the following reply:

"I have severe rheumatoid arthritis. I am an expert on how this has impacted me personally. But I would never presume that I am therefore more qualified to speak on RA than a board certified rheumatologist, even if he/she were healthy.

"My understanding of RA is pretty educated, but it's still a layman's understanding. Thus, it would be ridiculous for me to pass myself off as an absolute authority based just on my personal experience alone.

"Hell, I can't even speak for other sufferers of RA! There are commonalities among us sufferers that led to our diagnoses in the first place, but our disease courses are still going to be individualized based on severity, life situation, etc.

"The same is also going to be true for issues surrounding American race relations, gender, sexuality, etc. If you identify as a particular minority, you definitely have some important insights to share. But to declare yourself an absolute authority is wrong.

"'Outsiders' may have access to important data that are germane to the discussion. Your perceptions could be wrong, so have some humility and recognize the limitations of your viewpoint."

3. Alt-Right Hate Group.

There is such a thing as the alt-right, but it has a very specific, narrow definition. To be alt-right, one must believe that national identities are racial/ethnic in character -- that the idea of a nation-by-creed is fundamentally ridiculous. That's why members of the actual alt-right have attacked author Sarah Hoyt, a libertarian and extremely patriotic Portuguese-American immigrant, as a pseudo-American.

According to the left, however, Sarah is herself "alt-right." So am I. And so is anyone else who has participated in any or all of the consumer revolts that have dominated discussions in geekdom over the past several years. Gamergate, the Sad Puppies, Comicsgate -- all of these have been smeared as "alt-right hate groups" by leftwing journalists and creative "professionals" based on the thinnest of evidence. Why? Because they want to silence our critiques of popular culture and its increasingly obtrusive political tilt.

I'm not saying we've never been salty. We're human beings, after all. But have you noticed that SJW's keep using the same few lapses in judgment to build their weak-sauce case against us? When ConCarolinas rescinded its invitation to John Ringo this past year, for example, everyone defending the decision used the same Ravencon panel from twelve years ago as evidence that Ringo was a "sexual harasser." And whenever anyone wants to discredit prominent Comicsgate personality Richard C. Meyer - a.k.a. Diversity and Comics - they always, always dip into that one ill-advised "dark roast" from 2017 for ammunition. If Ringo and Meyer were as bad-bad-terribad as SJW's claim, we would have been presented with evidence of long-standing patterns of behavior a long time ago. But we haven't -- because they aren't.

Hey, we're imperfect. I'll cop to that. But that makes us neither "alt-right" nor members of a "hate group." See above. "Alt-right" has a meaning, and it's not "opposes identity politics" or "is generally conservative or libertarian" or even "criticizes the works and behavior of minority creators." The alt-right calls itself the alt-right precisely because it wants to distance itself from conventional rightwing beliefs. Thus, if you're calling ordinary individualist fans "alt-right," you either don't understand what you're talking about or you're being a dishonest prick.

4. Racist/Sexist/Homophobic.

Racism, sexism, and anti-gay sentiments also exist, but once again, the left is playing games with their definitions to mendaciously attack people they disagree with. If you're calling Frank Oz a homophobe simply because he won't accede to your wishes and agree that Bert/Ernie is canon, you are part of this problem. If you are calling fans sexist simply because they don't like the all-female Ghostbusters, you are part of this problem too.

The leftist's world is a bizarre world in which treating everyone the same is in fact proof you're a monster. The aforementioned Richard Meyer has repeatedly gone after Mark Waid and other straight white men for their unprofessional behavior and crappy product -- but since he's also gone after "creators-of-color" or LGBTQ creators for the same, he's a Nazi. As Meyer himself has accurately observed, "They hold minorities to a different and lower standard." Indeed they do. Why this hasn't been called out as rank bigotry is beyond me.

As a teacher in a majority-minority neighborhood, I understand that certain groups face extra challenges in the aggregate. But the solution to that is to provide struggling people from all groups whatever additional resources or encouragement they need to clear life's hurdles and meet the same standards demanded of everyone else -- not to treat them like helpless babes and tell them they don't have to "git gud" to succeed because they're oppressed and are therefore owed that success -- and the fawning praise that comes with it.

*****

So what say you, readers? Are there other leftist nonsense arguments that you wish would just disappear? I encourage you to comment below!

Grumpy Thoughts, 5th Edition

• While at Dragon Con this year, I learned of a conspiracy that has been busily dragging said con for its decision to remain apolitical. Apparently, Dragon Con is the "con of choice for Nazis"  now simply because it won't deplatform popular libertarian authors who've made the mistake of being outspoken about their beliefs. The conspirators claim, of course, that they just want to protect people from "harassers," but aside from a salty comment one of their targets made on a panel twelve years ago, they have zero evidence that said authors are genuine threats to con attendees. No: What this is really about is power. The ringleader of this conspiracy and her followers want the power to shut down anyone who might contradict the SJW worldview. Hopefully, Dragon Con continues to tell them to pound sand.
• In the world of comics, meanwhile, Peter Simeti of Alterna Comics is being relentlessly bullied for being pleasant to all of his paying customers, including those who follow the leading voices of #Comicsgate. How dare he! Clearly, we should punish the guy by buying a crap ton of Alterna titles. They're only $1.50 each, so acquiring the entire catalog wouldn't actually hurt your pocketbook all that much.
• What the two situations above have in common is this: Screaming social justice harpies have decided that anyone who is connected six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon style to critics of identity politics should be punished until they bend the knee. Well, screw that fascistic nonsense, I say. If anyone tries to shame you just because you won't unperson people who aren't radical leftists, raise two middle fingers in proud defiance and tell that individual to go straight to hell.
• Speaking of leftists trying to control us, that's the problem I have with militant trans activists and their pronoun obsession. He/him and she/her are used when you're talking about someone, not when you're talking to him or her. So basically, when a special snowflake demands to be referred to as e/eir or whatever, that person is trying to dictate how we all should converse even when he or she is not in the room. That's not okay. You have a right not to be mistreated based on how you choose to express yourself, but you do not have a right to impose your preferred mode of expression on others.
• You also don't have a right to silence researchers who are asking questions that challenge your ideology, nor do you have a right to cover up uncomfortable truths that do the same. Indeed, stopping such conversations before they even get off the ground is incredibly dangerous. People who have been denied the opportunity to discuss what they see right in front of their eyes will latch on to anyone who is willing to tell the truth. Do you want those truth tellers to be dispassionate scientists and thoughtful intellectuals? Then I suggest not pushing certain subjects out of the realm of "respectable" debate. Otherwise, people will gravitate to any crackpot who's willing to give voice to their resentments. 

Okay, so that was a bit disjointed. I may expand the above into lengthier posts at a later date once I get back into the writing groove. In the meantime, I hope you've enjoyed that little hodgepodge of things that have occupied my mind this week.

It's great to be back!

Rant: Stop with the False Equivalencies

No, "everyone" does not need to simmer down.

No, the right does not "do it too." Not as extensively and not with the same viciousness.

No, Sarah Palin's crosshairs map was not an invitation to shoot Gabby Giffords.  Everyone who is not an imbecile understands that it was a call to vote Giffords out of her office using a metaphor that was and is thoroughly typical of American political parlance. And while we're at it, cease the autistic screeching about the occasional Obama effigy. Though that is indeed an example of violent imagery targeted at a sitting president, such effigies were never hoisted by conservatives of note and were never condoned by the same.

The right was intemperate at times in its opposition to Obama. There was a lot of nonsense floating around that suggested he was not born in the U.S. and was secretly a Muslim. (Personally, I think he's just a practical atheist wearing a Christian skin suit, but that's neither here nor there.) There was talk of his being a tyrant -- and a traitor to boot. (Whereas I think he's just a hideously misguided red diaper baby who, yes, abused his power on several occasions through a lack of understanding of our Constitution.) And yes, in certain dark corners of the internet, there were trolls wishing for his assassination.

But overall, the Tea Party Movement and its offshoots, for all their flaws, were peaceful. I don't recall any incident in which a Tea Party protest devolved into a destructive riot. On the contrary, when Tea Partiers demonstrated against Obamacare and excessive taxation in general, they left their rally grounds cleaner than they found them. The vast, vast majority of these folks didn't seek out Obama supporters to harass or cudgel for disagreeing with the Tea Party's aims, and they didn't make excuses for anyone who did misbehave.

The same cannot be said about the left. While there are many on that side of the aisle (like the center-left liberals I follow on YouTube) who absolutely abhor political violence, there are also many who don't -- and the members of that faction are not as marginalized as their analogs on the right. In fact, the thuggery of Antifa and BLM protestors has been repeatedly rationalized by leftwing writers with sizable audiences.

The rightwing blogosphere has never seriously entertained the idea that it's okay to punch commies who've done nothing but espouse their lunatic views.

I have never seen a rightwing group flood a college lecture hall to shout down a speaker the right doesn't like. I've certainly never seen a rightwing group set a campus on fire to prevent a leftwing speech or teach-in from going forward.

I've never seen a rightwing celebrity pose in a photo shoot with a mock-up of a leftwing politician's severed head.

I've never seen conservatives endorse the harassment of ordinary leftwing Americans who are just trying to go about their business. No rightwinger has ever videoed himself screaming and hollering at a total stranger for displaying a Clinton campaign sign on a front lawn - or selling an LGBT flag in a discount shop - because he was confident his fellow rightwingers would think his tantrum was "awesome."

Rightwingers don't hit leftwingers first. They respond.

There is a difference between the left and the right -- a very real difference. The two sides are not equally at fault for our (currently) cold civil war, and to claim otherwise is utter foolishness.

Update: It's just come over the wire now that two Trump supporters have rushed the stage at the Shakespeare in the Park rendition of Julius Caesar in New York City. So, okay -- rightwingers now have one attempt to use the heckler's veto on their record. I think my general argument still stands, however. We're still looking at a difference in degree large enough to be considered a difference in kind.

Further Update: Please don't make a liar out of me, conservatives. I understand that you are frustrated by the asymmetry I described in the original post above. I understand that you're sick of being held to high standards while the left is getting away with bloody murder. I am too! But it's still wrong to try to silence the other side to "give them a taste of their own medicine." Surely we can think of a more creative way to inflict pain for bad behavior that does not involve jettisoning our principles. Please, for the love of God and free speech, use your imagination.

Update III: Yeah, what Nicki said.

Guest Post: What's Good for the Goose Is Good for the Gander, by That Jimbo Guy

In this post, my BF weighs in on recent politically-motivated firings (or other career threats).

The hypocrisy of the left astounds me. I'd like to think that we live in a country where free speech rights actually apply, but I guess not. If not, I'd like to think that the ban on free speech should apply to both sides equally. The left seems to disagree. Apparently it's only okay to destroy someone's life over political speech if they're on the right. See the following story:

We may have seen the last of Colin Kaepernick in the NFL

This is fair whether the left likes it or not. After all, the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign because he donated to a group that supports traditional marriage. The fire chief of Atlanta was fired from his job by an elected official (that being the mayor of Atlanta) because he wrote a pamphlet-off the clock and away from the building-for his church stating that homosexuality is a sin. Both are issues that relate to the freedoms of speech and religion protected by the First Amendment.

Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, made a donation to support something he believed in. He had a right to do so. He was forced out of a position that he had spent a lifetime working toward because of his political beliefs. Put bluntly, he would still be with Mozilla had he not done something that liberals disagree with.

The left applauded this. The quote I kept hearing was "Free speech has consequences." A powerful man had been brought low. This was a good thing. After all, free speech only applied to the government, and Mozilla was not the government.

Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired from a government job that he had spent a lifetime working toward. Again, he had spoken out on a politically charged religious topic. He had the right to do so. Yet once again, he lost his job, only he was fired from a government position. Supposedly, the First Amendment only applies to the government, yet in this case it doesn't even apply then. Once again, he said something the left didn't like and lost his job.

This time the left was happy as well. It left me a bit confused, as Mr. Cochran is a black man and I had expected the left to protect him based on race. In this case, thought crime trumped skin color. Never mind the fact that he had several people working under him that were LGBT and had never had a complaint. He verbalized something he shouldn't have and now he must be deprived of his livelihood.

Let's take it one step further: At Evergreen State College, Professor Bret Weinstein has been facing both demands to step down and threats to his physical safety. Why? He said something the left didn't like. His crime was showing up to work on a day when the presence of white people on campus had been discouraged and writing a letter decrying the fact that he (along with every other white member of the faculty) was being discriminated against.

He, at the moment, still has his job - at least technically. He has been asked not to set foot on campus as he is no longer safe there. Students "threatened" by his words have taken to walking around campus threatening people with bats. Once again though, it's okay because, even though Weinstein is himself a leftist, he said something the left didn't like.

All of which brings us to Colin Kaepernick, who refused to stand for the national anthem. He too was committing an act of political speech. He too offended many people when he did so. It would appear that he has been blackballed by the NFL ownership. (He could still get signed, but it does not appear that he will. Based on what he has done, he's damn sure good enough.) For some reason this is a problem.

What the left needs to understand is this: Kelvin Cochran did nothing illegal either, yet he was fired. Bret Weinstein has committed no crime, and he can't even walk into his place of business. What Brendan Eich did is against precisely zero laws, but his career is over.

Colin Kaepernick did the same thing that all of them did. If the NFL owners have blackballed Kaepernick, and it appears that they have, then they are the people responsible for doing so. That's the way it works. Their actions are their own fault. Understand this though: The left created the atmosphere that allowed it to happen.

The left has created the attitude that free speech has consequences. They have taken jobs from people who said things they didn't agree with before. They have no right to complain when it happens to one of their own. Free speech only applies to the government right? Guess what: The NFL is a non-governmental entity.

Sorry guys, but when you opened Pandora's Box, you let all of this out, and it won't go back in easily. You handed the right a weapon to use against you. We're not going to refuse to use it when you've turned it against us so often. Congratulations. Colin Kaepernick is reaping what you have sown.

Blast from the Past: Hate Breeds Hate

Rather than repeat myself, why not copy-paste something I wrote a year and a half ago?

It's time to rehabilitate tone policing.

I've been hesitating to publish this particular train of thought for a while, but I think it really does need to be said: Allowing certain favored classes of people to stomp all over even minimal standards of civility - even if some of their grievances are legitimate - is profoundly damaging to our solidarity as a nation. Not only that, such double standards actually retard social progress.

What do groups like Black Lives Matter - or its on-campus equivalents - think they will actually accomplish by behaving like boors? Seriously: I really want to know how screaming slogans at students who are trying to study or demanding that innocent sorority sisters abandon their fundraiser for St. Jude will actually convince anyone that these protesters' motives are pure. What's the logic here? Does fostering a climate of fear actually change hearts and minds?

No. Instead, you are hardening racist sentiments. When you ludicrously insist that a man's last name is actually a racially-charged insult, you confirm every aspiring neo-Nazi eugenicist's belief that African Americans are dysgenic imbeciles. When you gin up fake hate crimes to back your ideology, you provide proof for every Grand Wizard's judgment that you are all habitual liars and criminals. Even worse, in filling the air with cries of phony outrage, you effectively muzzle anyone with a real complaint, as even the well-meaning are inadvertently being trained to approach claims of racism with skepticism. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is not just a fable; it is an accurate reflection of human nature.

Speaking of human nature, here's another scientifically-backed truth: People are led by their guts. To borrow Jonathan Haidt's analogy, our rational mind is a tiny rider sitting on the back of a huge, lumbering elephant of instincts and prejudices -- and more often than not, the elephant decides and the rider rationalizes after the fact. Why? According to the evolutionist, it profited Paleolithic man to shoot first and ask questions later; people who didn't distrust outsiders or who weren't hypersensitive to threat didn't live long enough to procreate. According to the Catholic, meanwhile, the intended harmony between our biological and rational selves was broken by original sin; thus, as St. Paul writes in Romans, man often finds himself practicing the evil he does not wish to practice. For the purposes of our discussion here, it doesn't really matter who has it right; both explanatory frameworks are accounting for the same observable reality.

And how does this reality apply when it comes to our raging campus activists? Jeb Bush correctly observed in last night's debate that you can't bully yourself into the presidency; likewise, you can't bully yourself into a racially just utopia because bullying repels the elephant. Mobbing people and belligerently shouting at them puts their unconscious minds on high alert -- and a mind on high alert is a mind that cannot listen. When you are disgusting and offensive, it might make your fellow travelers feel better, but for everyone else, you're merely pushing the "circle the wagons!" button and, in some cases, driving people to hucksters like Donald Trump -- who, by the way, represents the flip side of the Black Lives Matter coin. Want to neutralize Trump's populist appeal? Try turning down the volume and being less hateful.

Okay, so: Why am I reposting this today? Take a quick look at the news. A pack of baseball-bat-wielding feral kids is terrorizing students and faculty at a northwestern liberal arts college. An entertainer is now pretending she's a courageous dissident for mock-beheading our sitting president. A leftwing Youtuber is being harassed by other leftwingers for daring to give anti-feminists the time of day. Overall, the despicable and, in some cases, criminal conduct I highlighted above is still ongoing. Do leftists not realize how angry people are getting? Do they really want a hot civil war -- or eight years of Trump? Because if they don't stop pushing, one of those two scenarios will come to pass. 

Dear Kathy Griffin,

The Trump family is not destroying your career, and your press conference was an absolute embarrassment.

I took a quick scroll through the president's Twitter feed, and I found one - ONE - tweet addressing your stunt, which reads: "Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!" This is not a call for you to be fired from CNN or for your future gigs to be canceled. Am I missing some super-secret illuminati subtext? Was it something the first lady said, perhaps, that got the ball rolling? Actually, no: As far as I can ascertain, Melania Trump simply said your "comedy" was disturbing and questioned your mental health. Again, there is no demand here that your life be made miserable.

The Trump family's reaction to your photo was natural, relatively muted, and pretty damned justified. They are not systematically "bullying" you; honestly, they don't even have the time for such a campaign. Instead, the hate you're catching comes directly from ordinary American citizens. Ordinary American citizens put pressure on CNN to give you the ax. Ordinary American citizens are calling venues to have your appearances canceled. How do I know this? Because I've personally seen the war-gaming on social media. Ordinary American citizens are disgusted by your photo, and they're using the power of the internet to communicate their feelings to you in a manner you won't forget.

Is it vindictive? Sure. Do I wish we lived in a society in which this kind of dogpiling is not a regular feature of our news cycle? Yes. But understand the context: Using the same tactics (and worse), your compatriots on the political left have been destroying regular people - not public figures - for years over perceived "transgressions" that were far more benign than your assassination porn. And quite frankly, many conservatives and libertarians feel they've been pushed into a corner and have no other choice but to strike back. The owners of Memories Pizza, Dr. Matt Taylor, Sir Tim Hunt -- all of these were private citizens who fell afoul of leftwing social justice mobs. None of these people indulged in violent fantasies of beheading their political opponents. They simply expressed a politically incorrect position on a social issue. Or wore the wrong shirt to an interview. Or cracked a joke that a dishonest feminist journalist decided to yank out of context for the lolz. Did they deserve the hate they received, Kathy? Can you, just maybe, summon up some empathy now for all the people who've been repeatedly and mendaciously trashed by your allies?

When you claim that nothing like this has ever happened before - that your experience is historically unprecedented - you are revealing your sheltered ignorance. When you and your lawyer whine that this is because you're a woman and not because you're especially well known, you make us laugh. When you try to draw a false equivalence between your photo and Trump's being a crude asshole, we simply don't buy it. Take responsibility for your own actions, Kathy, and stop playing the victim. You knew exactly what you were doing, and now you're facing the consequences.

Sincerely,
Me

What a College President SHOULD Say When Besieged by SJB's

Good afternoon, everyone.

As the president of Noname State College, I have called this meeting to address the recent unrest that has overtaken our campus community in the wake of Dr. Everett Jones' refusal to participate in a scheduled protest against "America's endemic white supremacy." I'm happy that so many student activists have decided to attend today's meeting, as what I am about to say will, I hope, represent a vital step towards quelling this unrest and restoring peace.

Several student groups - including the Concerned African Student Union, the Club for Intersectional Feminism, and the Nation of Aztlan - came to my office this past Wednesday and presented me with a list of fifty specific demands. These demands included increasing funding for our Multicultural Student Center and our Women's Center; establishing new full departments in Ethnic, Women's, and Queer Studies; setting aside black and Hispanic-only dormitories; adding a mandatory social justice course to our general education requirements; and committing to meeting specific quotas in hiring nonwhite, non-male faculty within the next five years. I have been told that if my administration and I do not fulfill these demands, the occupation of Barker and Trent Hall will continue and regular campus operations will be severely disrupted.

Over the past few days, I have carefully considered how I should respond to these students and their petition, and I have settled on the following course of action:

NO.

No, I'm not going to give you anything you want. You can scream, you can cry, you can stomp your feet -- but I'm not changing our policies one iota.

I'm certainly not going to admit that we here at Noname State College are racists because I know we aren't. If we were actually racists and you were actually oppressed as "black and brown" students, you would not be here. Period. A truly racist administration would not have admitted you, let alone built a Multicultural Center, permitted the formation and funding of ethnic student groups, or welcomed the original protest that started this controversy. Further, if you were actually oppressed, you would not feel free to hound Dr. Jones off campus for his principled objection to your demonstration, nor would you feel entitled to harass other students in the campus library because they declined to join your rally and elected to study for their midterm exams instead. This is not how truly oppressed people behave; these are the tactics of the powerful. Having witnessed other colleges and universities capitulating to similar disorders, you believe you have the upper hand and consequently have every right to do whatever you wish.

It stops here.

I'm not giving you what you want or admitting to any wrongdoing. As a matter of fact, I have called this meeting to announce the following:

1. As of this moment, I'm giving student protestors one hour to vacate Barker and Trent. If you do not comply with this order, I will call the police and have you all charged with trespassing.
2. I will also be launching an investigation into the many reported instances of criminal intimidation associated with these protests, including the egregious mistreatment of Dr. Jones. All accused students will, of course, be afforded full due process of law, but if any are found guilty, appropriate disciplinary steps will be taken.
3. In the future, any students who are found guilty of intimidating faculty, students, or invited guests or of otherwise violating others' civil rights will be summarily expelled.

You are here, first and foremost, to improve your minds. This means tolerating people who disagree with you, for how else will you learn to defend - or, if necessary, amend - your own beliefs? This is an uncomfortable proposition to be sure, but I have news for you: The world outside this campus is not comfortable, or safe, or perfectly inoffensive and it never will be. Thus, your job at this college is to prepare yourself for that world. Read good books. Study hard. Learn to civilly articulate your opinions and set a good example for your fellow citizens. Recognize that no one will listen if you insist on screeching like banshees and chanting empty slogans. Become the sort of upstanding, contributing adults that others will have no choice but to respect.

Or, to put it more succinctly: Grow the hell up. The world does not revolve around you and your "feelings."

Thank you.

*mic drop*

ETA: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Video: Why I Hate the SJW YouTube Community

This is a very long video, but I highly recommend it because it describes in excruciating detail just some of the crap social justice bullies have inflicted on dissenters all over the Western world, whether the subject is Islam, race/gender/sexuality, or hell, even which science fiction works are worthy of acclaim. Believe me: Kraut and Tea only addresses the tip of a very large and very sinister iceberg. Ask anyone who has publicly questioned SJB orthodoxy and you will hear equally sordid tales of lying, doxing, blackmail, extortion, libel, etc. These people, quite frankly, are evil; whether that's a natural outgrowth of their ideology or an odd feature of their individual personalities - or a little of both - is an interesting topic for discussion.

The Fall of Bill Nye

When Bill Nye the Science Guy premiered on PBS in the early 90's, I was just a little too old to be considered a member of its target audience. Personally, I felt Nye had a way to go before he could hope to hold a candle to my favorite TV "science guy," Mr. Wizard -- who, by the way, didn't need a lot of bells and whistles to be interesting and approachable. All the same, I basically enjoyed Nye's shtick; he was pretty funny in a frenetic, give-that-guy-a-tranquilizer kind of way, and the content of the show was decently educational.

Oh, how the relatively entertaining and informative have fallen!



Da fuq is this?


Da fuq is that?
The creepy content of Nye's new Netflix Original has been bouncing around the nets for a few days now. And yes: as a lifetime geek who did watch the guy's more famous children's show, I too have to air my extreme disappointment.

Let's be real: Where is the science in any of this? I happen to be related to two practicing scientists (one a climate scientist and one a geologist), and neither would present themselves or the implications of their work in such a self-satisfied, slanted way. Science, as I understand it, is a data-driven, adversarial, sober search for the truth in which no theory - or worldview - is considered sacrosanct. Yet here, Nye is stamping the imprimatur of "Science!" on an ideology whose scientific grounding is still very much in question. Where is the scientific evidence for the supposed reality of "gender fluidity"? Where is the scientific evidence that demonstrates the harmlessness of alternative sexualities? If such evidence exists, it behooves a popularizer of science to present and explain that evidence without the hectoring sketches about how awful we all are to be skeptical of these new ideas.

Additionally, if you wish to take up the mantle of "public intellectual," you have a duty to engage with any opposition in good faith. This means you must present the other side fairly before offering your response/rebuttal. As you can see, Nye doesn't do this either. In the above ice cream orgy cartoon, all the defender of traditional sexual morality can offer is "herp derp Sky Ice Cream!" and "blasphemy!" when he is challenged, which - conveniently for Nye and his ideological compatriots - completely ignores entire philosophical traditions, some substantial social science, and a lot of plain-old human experience that contradict the narrative that all sexual lifestyles are equally healthy for adults and - most especially - their children.    

The upshot? Bill Nye's new show presents us with yet another reason why regular people hate leftists and are inclined to support a brash populist like Trump. The undeserved arrogance, the bullying, and the overwhelming dishonesty are frankly repellent. Does this mean I'm dumping my Netflix subscription over this outright nonsense? No; as far as I can tell, Netflix offers its platform to all-comers without necessarily endorsing their views, which I think is a perfectly defensible position for a media company to take. However, I am going to yank Nye out of my "clueless entertainer" bin and dump him into my pit of vipers with the other execrable hacks. 

Out of Patience

I was talking to my BF last night about recent events in Berkeley, and in the process, I discovered - or rediscovered, rather - my capacity for bloody-mindedness. 

I must confess: When I saw people actually fighting back against those black-masked wannabe revolutionaries, I was initially pleased. I understand on an intellectual level that egging on a series of ever-escalating street battles will probably not end well for our society as a whole. But I also can't help thinking that Moldylocks and her ilk absolutely deserved to get the crap kicked out of them -- that such a humiliating defeat couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of folks. 

I want to be thoughtful. I want to listen. I want to be civil. But there are certain ideological stances I refuse to countenance because they violate bedrock principles of our liberal constitutional system. To put it frankly, there is a line in the sand that you cannot cross without arousing my desire to utterly destroy you -- and these Antifa thugs definitely crossed that line some time ago.

I want them punished -- and upon reflection, I think there are nonviolent ways to do that. 

I think, for example, that every non-converged legislature needs to draft bills that demand that all educational institutions receiving public funding institute codes of conduct that fully restore First Amendment rights for students and faculty and establish expulsion procedures to handle malefactors who try to shut down speech through violence and intimidation. You don't have a right to a college education if you refuse to appreciate its purpose.

I also believe Congress should withdraw federal aid from any municipality that fails to arrest and criminally charge rioters. Peaceful demonstrations are one thing, but if you are setting fire to public property, breaking windows, throwing bricks, or lighting M80's, your ass belongs in jail -- and if we have to use what essentially amounts to blackmail to get you there, then so be it.

Lastly, each school's alumni should pressure administrators to put on their big-girl panties and stop giving in to their campus cry-bullies or else risk losing their jobs. If you can't stand up to the few who are throwing tantrums and defend the many, many other students and instructors at your school who are genuinely interested in the truth, then you don't deserve your position as president, dean, etc.

My BF remarked that the usual suspects would probably pitch fits if a program like the above were successfully enacted, but I say let them scream. They've already proven their incompetence; there's no reason we need to take them seriously now.

Around the Nets

When the United story exploded early this week, I mainly had fun with the memes. Seriously -- the internet really outdid itself this time. Even a Catholic satire site decided to play, which amused me to no end.

But there are serious things to learn from the whole incident, as discussed by the writers below:

How United Happens, by Charlie Martin

Big organizations frequently act like idiots, says Charlie, because their leaders lack on-the-ground knowledge. To me, this seems like an excellent argument for keeping organizations (like - ahem - governments) small and local whenever it's humanly possible.

United Airlines and the Internet Mob, by Amie Gibbons

In this post, meanwhile, Amie summarizes why United was in the wrong here and then goes on to address why the American public responded with one angry voice (a bizarre occurrence indeed). According to her (correct) analysis, our airlines have become so wedded to government support that they have started to behave like government agencies and not like private companies -- and as anyone who's been to the DMV or the VA will no doubt confirm, government agencies either don't care one bit about pleasant customer service or are just too incompetent to provide it due to the reasons discussed by Charlie above.

Whatever the issue may be with United, it seems clear that the industry as a whole needs to get off the government tit, as the subsidies are going to the airlines' heads.

In other news...

Could It Be Time to Deny White Men the Franchise? Huffington Post

Folks in my circles knock the HP all the time for being an SJB-converged fake news site, but honestly, I'm glad it exists. Without it, we would never get to see the sort of insanity that is condoned by much of today's left. Deny white men the franchise? Let's leave aside the fact that this is openly calling for human beings to be denied their rights based on sins that completely different people committed. Like I've said many times before, these ideologues have no clue what it's actually like to be white. While it's true that the European imperialists were often predatory, they did not represent the great mass of white men. They were the people in power. The great mass of white men, in the meantime, continued to struggle to make ends meet -- much as they do today. This collective guilt bullshit is really getting tiresome.

Whedon Warns Trump May Start Killing Gays, Christian Toto

Based on what? Based on the fact that Trump is the first successful GOP candidate to support homosexual marriage? Jesus. I adore much of Whedon's work and think he's a real talent. But he needs to start taking some meds before he completely loses touch with reality -- assuming, of course, that he hasn't already, which we all have good reason to doubt.

Forcing Political Correctness on Employees and Characters Is Killing Marvel Comics,
Jon Del Arroz

Fans of SFF should find this discussion pretty familiar. I happen to agree with other writers that there are multiple factors involved in Marvel's decline - like, for example, the changing nature of the market for comics - but the political uniformity Del Arroz describes is also a big problem that is certainly not limited to one particular company publishing one particular genre of geek literature. If you head on over to Tor's blog, you can see another pretty good illustration of capital-F Fandom's tendency to mistake political agendas for quality in a field completely outside the comics industry. Note: Being "queer" does not make a book good. It doesn't make a book bad either, mind you, but you can't use queerness as a standalone gauge for literary merit. Does the story work? Are the characters people a reader can relate to and care about? Does it address universal human themes that will still resonate ten, twenty, or even a hundred years down the line? If you can't answer those questions, you may want to reassess.